Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 8

< May 7	May 9 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullfrog International edit

Very promostional sounding, needs citations. —— Eagle101 ^{[[user_talk:Eagle 101|Need tatwood (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)help?]]} 23:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried fixing it before nominating? - Mgm|^(talk) 07:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article seems to be written in a very neutral, non promotional way. What would you suggest fixing Eagle101? If you have suggestions, please implement them so the page can be improved. That would be more beneficial than simply deleting the page. tatwood (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add an appropriate "Uncited article" template, then give the creating editors a chance to come up with some information sources. The fact that a relatively neutral and non-controversial article, about a company that makes hot tubs, apparently needs some reference citations, is not grounds for deletion. The claim that the article is "Very promostional (sic) sounding", itself sounds rather non-NPOV, unless clear examples of such abuses are cited. Even then, such issues can be addressed with an appropriate NPOV-needed template; and again not grounds for deletion. Place all the "improvement templates" as would seem appropriate into the main article, and then take it to the article's talk page with examples of violations and discussions, and alert the editors, who contributed significantly in the past to the creation of the article, to improve it. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty spammy. The "TM" in the first sentence is never a good sign. I could only find one brief article that took the company as its main subject, as well as a directory-style listing, so this does not appear to meet the primary notability criterion, which requires the subject of an article to be the subject of multiple, nontrivial sources that are independent of the subject. None of the other criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) seem to be satisfied either. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Failed Primary Criterion of WP:CORP. There is not yet independent & reliable secondary source to make the subject notable for an article. — Indon (reply) — 08:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at Pool & Spa News? It is an industry rag, but neutral with respect to Bullfrog. See citations in article, and others. Thompson-Gale InfoTrac Professional Collection pulls up 14 references since 2002, mostly short news blurbs. --Bejnar 01:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have looked at them thanks. I stroke my delete vote but keep neutral on this debate. I still see the article in this current state as a WP:SPAM but there are secondary sources about the subject. Thus it passes the primary criterion of WP:CORP but it surely needs expansion and more widely coverage sources (not only award & recognition stories). How about customer reviews? independent comparison with other products? etc. — Indon (reply) — 07:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fixed Primary Criterion of WP:CORP. Added reliable secondary source to make the subject notable for an article. Included U.S Patent - #s Claybnorman 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm... where are the references? I wanted to put {{reflist}} template there but there are other kind of unusual references in the References section. Please read WP:CITE. — Indon (reply) — 10:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Patent numbers are irrelevant and not reliable sources. I fixed the references. Phony Saint 16:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When did patents become unreliable? They are one of the most reliable sources, along with court documents. No one would risk invalidating a patent by having it contain a falsehood. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, a patent is a primary source, and it is not independent. Having a patent is not notable; having a patent that somebody else writes about is. --Dhartung | Talk 20:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has some very minor awards, but can't find any neutral sources. --h2g2bob (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When did the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year become a minor award? It runs in 35 countries. Previous Entrepreneur Of The Year winners include Jeff Bezos of Amazon.com, Pierre Omidyar of eBay, Sergey Brin and Larry Page of Google, Howard Schultz of Starbucks, Catherine L. Hughes and Alfred Liggins of Radio One, and Jim McCann of 1-800-Flowers.com.Claybnorman 21:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is an impressive list Claybnorman. Is that cited in the reference section? tatwood (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can fix it up. - 2-16 16:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per as all above R_Orange 18:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ObiterDicta. Article is still promotional, and despite some industry awards, doesn't seem to have attracted enough objective, secondary sources for a balanced article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dartung, it seems to me that if an object is relevant enough to receive respected industry awards, it is more than relevant to be included in wikipedia. If inventions, works or art, distinguished businesses, or other notable topics such as this are not included on wikipedia, this project as a whole will be incomplete. tatwood (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I always thought that Wikipedia was not a listing of companies – phone numbers –ect. But an encyclopedia of noteworthy people, companies, situations, locations, objects and such. How is this company noteworthy? Shoessss 22:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article isn't perfect, it is well referenced, and that alone is enough, in my opinion. ¿SFGi Д nts! ☺ ☻ 23:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think I would let it remain while some work is done on it. The Ernst award is certainly notable although its given to the CEO not the company. Other awards suggest that it is a fast growing company. There is some work to be done but I would keep it. JodyB_talk 00:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pool & Spa News may not be the greatest magazine, but they have had a six page article (9 January 2006) with Bullfrog Int'l in the lead, in addition to a dozen minor news blurbs about Bullfrog since a 12 July 2002 article about their new factory in Bluffdale, Utah. --Bejnar 00:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – it should be noted that “Pool & Spa News” is a trade magazine that will publish any articles by any advertiser. Do not believe this is a legitimate source. Shoessss 01:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We need to judge sources by where sources are expected to be found. Trade magazines do not have the high reliability of peer-reviewed journals, yet they are where articles about commercial organizations are published. But in any case the dissection of sources is not necessary here, for the Ernst & Young award is sufficient. DGG 01:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 22:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Radio edit

Does not assert the topic's notability. — D. Wo. 22:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Reads like an advertisement, has no categories, but it seems like it could stay given some cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 22:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm not sure what precedent currently is regarding university radio stations, but consensus has long been that student organizations should not be included unless independantly notable. This one clearly fails WP:RS, so I'll assume that it's no more notable than any other school radio station. No objection to a line or two in the article about the school. Heather 23:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Improve Flash Radio was started by a group of students that had to fight campus officials to keep their station. The local TV and Print media was involved. They received much attention as a result. The media attention and political fight is why the article should be kept. Corydg 02:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If that's the case, then please provide sources in the article showing that Flash Radio is independently notable. As it is, there are only links to the station's own website and MySpace page. Heather 13:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per as Improve and Comment - indenpendent sources are vital R_Orange 18:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N and WP:ORG, no reliable sources are cited. --Dhartung | Talk 20:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find, not necessarily the radio station in and of itself noteworthy, but the situation the students found themselves in regarding the administration of the college noteworthy. Placed in the context of the radio station, I say they established a noteworthy cause that includes the radio station. Shoessss 22:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is zero notability, a failure of WP:NOTE, WP:RS and probably WP:COI. Is Corydg the station manager? Unless some non-trivial sources can be brought in I am afraid it must go. JodyB_talk 00:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How can this be though notable, with the two "sources" being a MySpace page and its own website. Nor can we reasonably expect sources to be found, for is a very rare campus radio station that will be notable--just as for any other student club. DGG 01:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; OR and NN. Its been on air less than a year, the website has no info, and the myspace is virtually empty. John Vandenberg 13:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N, WP:ORG no reliable sources and according to recently added edit no longer broadcasting.--Dakota 01:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The radio station had to fight the campus for the right to broadcast. This makes it pass WP:N. Also, according to the statons website, they are undergoing changes. Jkmartinjk 01:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a reliable source for that; i.e. has a local newspaper covered the struggle ? John Vandenberg 01:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see if there is something. I know the original author of the article said there was local news coverage. I am from the area and heard about the issue but never actually saw it in the press. Jkmartinjk 02:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. For all the edits this article got in its five-day spell, it still looks nothing more than a textual translation of a road map - an endeavour for which the page creator must have spent some time. However, Wikipedia is not a directory and thus this road must be notable to have its own article. Since the only detailed write-up linked from the article [1] is not as much about the road itself as on a facility that used to be near it, it falls short of the "multiple non-trivial mentions" that notability requires. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-08 12:44Z

Deer Ridge Drive edit

Non-notable road. Disputed prod. -- RHaworth 21:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't assert any possible notability. Also, I categorized this AfD under "Places and Transportation"; it was previously uncategorized. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 21:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The road only has local significance, as far as I can tell, and doesn't appear any more notable than any local street in any town. It sort of looks like the article was put there to promote a real estate development. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, how do I talk to you other than on this debate thing. I'm not even sure how to do any of this. By the way whats "AFD"Googler1117 23:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. AfD means Articles For Deletion. Clcik next to where it says "words" by my name, that will lead to my talk page, you can add a comment to the bottom of it. If you need help, try adding {{helpme}} to your own talk page. Click here for your talk page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 23:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh allright, so this means I need to add some more "stuff" to the page "Deer Ridge Drive". I don't know any of the policies here, so I'm not sure what I'm allow to post. How do I add a comment to your talk page? Sorry I'm really bad at this, must be too many ways to do things. and How do I add a template? Googler1117 23:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Check your talk page for more info. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 00:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pioneer Tower ( menonite landmark is located off this road) This is not here to promote real estate if you like remove the comments in the articles about builders in the area, anything to keep this article here. Thank you to whoever expanded the maps with external links. I will continue to add to this article, as more ideas come to me. Thanks 72.143.81.232 12:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just a road someplace. There are lots of roads, you know - I can see one from my window right now. It's not Route 66. andy 12:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete no assertions of notability. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-08 12:32Z

Bluegrass college edit

Seems to me to be advertising. Not a particularly notable website (subscription only), and page apparenly created by one of the website's founders Chris 20:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - NN website. andy 12:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Could be recreated once the song is released, assuming it meets WP:N or the proposals at WP:MUSIC. Already mentioned in the album article. MastCell ^Talk 16:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You Can't Deny It (Ridah) edit

Crystal-ball-ism regarding an Ashanti song. Nothing but rumor - at least the parts I understand seem like rumor, the prose is so jumbled I don't know what's going on with this one. - eo 19:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 03:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crystal ball as noted. It's hard to understand what the song is even about. Placeholder account 03:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The album is crystal ballery. If I understood the article correctly, the song was already played on the radio, so that can't be crystal ballery. Aren't songs that are released as a single to promote an album keep-wirthy under current policy? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even the article states " It's yet unknown if the song will be released as a single " EliminatorJR ^Talk 11:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice to recreation should it be released as a proper single. EliminatorJR ^Talk 11:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve drastically - "Crystal-Ball-ism isn't the best quality in an article, but may assert some notability if improved. R_Orange 18:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge it into the album article. WP:MUSIC makes the album notable but nothing is said there about an individual cut. JodyB_talk 00:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stick Arena edit

No real assertion of notability for this game, plus no sourcing. I took a look for reliable sources discussing it, and couldn't find any. I'm sure it's fun, but it just doesn't seem notable or encyclopedic. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two third party sources listed in article. Here and here. 137.164.234.136 19:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those meet our policy on reliable sources. We need something from a newspaper or a magazine, or if you have to go to internet sources, something along the lines of GameSpot or IGN. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like this: this orthis? 137.164.237.40 20:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of, but not exactly. Those are reader-submitted reviews; what we'd need are reviews/articles by paid contributors to the site, like this IGN one for Syphon Filter, or this GameSpot one for Pimp My Ride. Basically, something with some degree of editorial oversight. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an entrant to the Independent Games Festival. See here. Between that and the other stuff, I think it satisfies notability. 137.164.234.104 23:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it were a winner (or even a finalist) that would certainly help, but it looks like there are quite a few nominees in any given year. As such, I'm not sure how good an illustration of notability that is. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found another source. This one is by Channel 4 137.164.234.104 23:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That one might be helpful. Could you add it to the article? I would, but you seem to be more familiar with the game than I am, and as such would probably do a better job of it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I know that I'm only an anonymous user, but I have contributed much to this and other articles. This is a notable game. As the other anon user pointed out, Channel 4 has reviewed it, the same channel 4 that has primary disambiguation. It has been an article in a Chicago newspaper, it is an entrant in the Independent Games Festival, and it has been reviewed on several other sites. It has over 170,000 google hits. [2]. It has also been proposed for deletion once before and was found notable. 12.218.153.85 05:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor clarification here: It was never nominated for AFD before. It WAS prodded once, but that's a different process, and all that's needed to avoid deletion in that case is for someone to ask that it be kept. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, no article. It's that simple. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Noticable enough. --Martin Wisse 17:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It does seem as if it has reliable sources... Ab e g92contribs 17:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - per as above R_Orange 18:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be sufficient sources but it must be sourced within the article better. JodyB_talk 00:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dane Lovett edit

I'm trying to help out a new user by listing this AfD. Per an email conversation, the subject of the article (Dane Lovett) doesn't feel he merits an article. I declined a speedy deletion because the subjects of articles don't have any special control over them, and it does assert notability in what might be considered a reasonable way. Whether or not it succeeds is another story. I'd say it's probably not notable, as the biggest accomplishment appears to be designing an album cover and being nominated for (but not winning) an ARIA award. Seems reasonable to me to delete it, but I want to get a broader consensus first. I'm not opposed to reconsidering the speedy deletion and closing early if we are unanimous here. Kafziel ^Talk 18:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as he seems pretty notable to me: [3]. Bearian 18:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I can't judge the notability of the artist, but it seems odd that he would object to this article. Are we sure it was him?DGG 01:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this is the Internet, so it very well might not be. It's really beside the point, because even if it is him, that doesn't hold any weight. I'm just putting this up because a new user asked me to, regardless of who it was, and because I agree that this guy hasn't done much of note. Kafziel ^Talk 12:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am of the opinion that if persons of borderline or marginal notability want their articles to be deleted, we should comply with their wishes. I know this isn't policy yet, and might never be, but it seems to me to be simple common courtesy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but how do we know it's him? Ab e g92contribs 17:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline. I think this is borderline, such that if the subject objects, we should delete the article, but otherwise it can stay. Ab e g92contribs 18:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Just to clarify, what does everyone think the claim to fame is here? He doesn't seem to meet any of the standards for creative professionals at WP:BIO. I can't really find any non-trivial coverage of him or his work, or even a significant number of write-ups from critics, so I'm kind of at a loss to explain where the notability comes from. Is just being nominated for an ARIA enough to have an article? Seems like an interesting precedent. Kafziel ^Talk 18:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:BIO:

The person's work either (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument (b) has won significant critical attention, or (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance.

I'd say to be nominated for an ARIA, his work has won signficiant critical attention.

Ga rr ie 23:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. LexisNexis turns up some coverage from Australian newspapers, including at least two articles of which he's the main subject, so one could argue he meets the primary notability criterion. But in a borderline case like this, I think we should follow the subject's request for the article to be removed; this may not be a policy, but it's in keeping with the spirit of a presumption in favor of privacy. EALacey 20:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see I am in the minority here. However, when a Google search of the young man is done there does seem to be enough independent, and reliable, second – third and forth sources to make him not necessarily as popular as Picasso, but on the way to be truly noteworthy. Shoessss 22:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. He is notable per the Lexis comment but that needs to be added to the article. If we know the subject is requesting deletion I would have no problem letting it go in this case. But until then, let's keep it and source it. JodyB_talk 00:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is borderline--a nomination for an award would count a little towards notability. But this is one of the cases where BLP is relevant, and for borderline notability we can defer to the subject. If he actually gets an award this year, then he'll be notable whether he likes it or not. DGG 01:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Borderline notable as per WP:BLP. There are some references indicating that he is a rising Queensland artist. [4]. Album did not win an ARIA which were held last October [5] but Black Fingernails, Red Wine was the seventh best selling album in Australia last year. [6]. Capitalistroadster 02:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One short article in a Gold Coast newspaper and a few passing mentions in other newspaper article doesn't make you notable under Wikipedia policies. Agree that being nominated for an award doesn't give you the fame necessary under wiki policies, even if the album is a best seller (which I presume was because of the music, not the artwork). Assize 21:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If expanded, this article could be better. Sseballos 00:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline Keep It seems this artist has won some minor awards, including 2006 Conrad Jupiters Art Prize, Gold Coast Art Centre Age and Overall winner of Springfest Art Prize (Gold Coast), Mosman Art Prize, Mosman Art Gallery, Mosman, although I couldn't find satisfactory secondary references for any of these. He also Won the Painting Category Qantas Spirit of Youth Awards 2005. And been a finalist in several more art competitions and awards. If secondary sources can be found, I think notability has been sufficiently established.--Takver 06:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regrettably, as a borderline article the subject doesnt want to want. This article is only linked to from Arts in Australia, so deleting the article does not disrupt Wikipedia. I'd prefer to err on the side of caution and privacy as the subject is young. John Vandenberg 13:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being ARIA nominated does it for me. However it needs to comply with WP:BLP and have everything strictly referenced, or removed (is noise.net a reliable source?). I can't see why he doesn't want the article which is in no way a negative portrayal.Ga rr ie 23:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, the ARIA work indicates notability enough for me. Whether M. Lovett wants their article deleted or not is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Lankiveil 03:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Livnot U'Lehibanot edit

Fails to establish notability. Additionally, the creating editor's username suggests personal involvement. Adrian M. H. 18:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 10:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability includes the fact that it is the longest running volunteer program in Israel, providing unique services to the country. Additionally, the 2007 Jewish Book of the Year was written about Livnot and its programs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.229.123 (talk • contribs)
KeepIt is a well known and important organization in the Jewish world.

Comment - The previous unsigned comment was left by 70.107.229.123, whose only article contributions have been to Livnot U'Lehibanot. In response to the above comment: prove it. Adrian M. H. 20:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 70.107.229.123 cast two !votes, struck out second. Caknuck 19:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepHi - I have contributed to Wiki articles before but always anonymously. I think article deletion in this case is probably an extreme response. Livnot is indeed a very well known organization in the Jewish world and while the first couple of iterations of this article were kind of lacking, and the author is clearly unfamiliar with Wikipedia standards, I think we ought to give this page a chance to grow and evolve. --Jewlicious 07:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It can grow and evolve off-line and be uploaded to Wikipedia if or when it is ready. If being new to Wikipedia was a valid excuse for failing to demonstrate notability, we would have to leave a huge quantity of poor articles in place while we wait, probably indefinitely, for someone to do what should have been done right at the start. Notability and the proving thereof does not have an opt-out clause. Adrian M. H. 14:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Adrian, you're totally right. And while I know that the original authors of this article probably have every intention of living up to Wikipedia standards, such knowledge cannot simply be assumed. So I took the liberty of cleaning up some of the text, getting rid of grammatical errors and deleting claims that may be considered boastful and cannot be substantiated. I also added in references from 3 articles about the organization which ought to go a long way to showing notability. I will add more as I find them. --Jewlicious 13:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, I saw that. Good work. Now that third-party refs have been proven to be available, and another contributor is working on it, the two issues that I outlined in my nomination no longer apply. So, with that in mind, I would be happy to see it remain. If only the original contributor could either have done that right from the start or responded properly by improving it. Adrian M. H. 13:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you looked for such sources before you listed this for AfD Adrian? You didn't just list it for deletion without doing any research on the topic? A google search for Livnot U'Lehibanot gets 11,500 hits. Nick mallory 12:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked. It didn't produce anything that was obviously independent. I can't speak for Google - that's your choice. Besides, it's not my job to source the article, so don't get like that. That's primarily the responsibility of the article's creator. Adrian M. H. 13:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now that it has multiple reliable sources to support assertion of notability. DMacks 14:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article as it currently exists makes explicit claims of notability, supported by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn 14:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has multiple independent sources and certain notability. Elfin341 16:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to agree with Adrian. The original author ought to have written a better article, one more in keeping with Wikipedia standards. That having been said, it seems to me that thanks to the efforts of several contributors, the article is much better and ought to remain. --Jewlicious 19:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a possible WP:COI issue here but that alone is not grounds for deletion, just caution. The Jerusalem Post is a non-trivial source as is the Blueprint. In my mind, WP:NOTE is firmly met. JodyB_talk 00:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I made what I think are significant edits to the entry. I am familiar with the organization but I am not affiliated with them in any way. My subsequent edits of the original article as well as my inclusion of relevant non-trivial sources ought to quell any concerns related to WP:COI. I would further urge anyone familiar with the organization to ad historical information or other articles - with over 11,000 Google search results for Livnot, there ought to be more information that can be added in. --Jewlicious 02:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TAK (audio codec) edit

Notability not demonstrated. No secondary sources. --Pjacobi 17:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would call it's outstanding performance noteable. There are comparisons – even one on the official FLAC homepage – that prove it. --Speck-Made 16:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=TAK and http://synthetic-soul.co.uk/comparison/lossless/ 80.203.49.34 18:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has comparison tests, and is actually available, though with limited application support. Ace of Risk 22:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinions, but do you have secondary sources? That the existence of the software is acknowledged by inclusion in benchmarks is really good first step, but IMHO far from an article in an IEEE journal or conference talk etc. --Pjacobi 22:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did FLAC, WavPack, Monkey's Audio, TrueAudio or OptimFrog ever have that? What chance do they have to ever have that? --Speck-Made 01:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For sure: http://scholar.google.de/scholar?q=FLAC+lossless&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search --Pjacobi 07:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None at all: neither here nor there (dunno where else to look). And the others? Too lazy to check... (We have articles for each and more...) But that's not exactly the point for me – like you may probably guess... --Speck-Made 21:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E.g. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1330809 --Pjacobi 22:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable for its very strong performance. References need to be added to the article though.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm puzzled how a successful google scholar search finding articles on a competitor of this company proves notability for the company.DGG 01:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sylphagora edit

No reliable sources or refrences; fails all three criteria for WP:WEB Xkeeper 11:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure what this page is about, and why it's proposed for deletion. Explain? Bearian 16:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia:Notability (software) would be a more appropriate guideline than WP:WEB if it hadn't been rejected. This article is about software used to run web sites, not web content. WP:ORG doesn't feel right because this is free software not produced by a company or other legal organisation. Which leaves WP:N, which this software fails. Non-notable software with only 42 unique non-wikipedia google hits, none of them in apparently reliable sources. JulesH 20:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN freeware, not particularly popular and not even all that good according to the article. Any freeware download site has dozens of similar products. andy 12:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable message board software. Fails WP:COI, as article creator Vystrix Nexoth is named in the article as the developer. Caknuck 19:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is an unpopular non-notable forum software. — Wenli 00:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Historical characters in Harry Potter. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie McDonald edit

Non-notable Harry potter character, only mentioned once (GoF Lemonflash|_{(say hi)} 00:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect here. the_undertow ^talk 01:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per the_undertow. Sens08 04:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Ben W Bell talk 07:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Technically this article is about the real Natalie McDonald rather than the character, but since her claim to notability is having the character named after her, and the biographical information about her is short enough to include in the characters page, there's no need for a separate article. EALacey 20:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. — Wenli 00:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Season: L'Essor Football 2006 edit

Non-notable book being written by the author of the page. Has not been published and does not appear to have any third-party coverage from reliable sources. ShadowHalo 00:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention: disputed prod, no reason given. ShadowHalo 04:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination. Lemonflash|_{(say hi)} 01:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, violates WP:V, no WP:RS, WP:COI issues, WP:NOT a place to promote your book or to publish its companion guide. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, per Kinu. Nascentatheist 07:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides the policies mentioned by Kinu, an article about a book which hasn't even found a publisher surely violates WP:CRYSTAL unless there are detailed independent sources available. EALacey 20:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete WP:CRYSTAL ¿SFGi Д nts! ☺ ☻ 23:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. — Wenli 00:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a copy vio. Steve _(Stephen)^talk 02:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rules Of Racial Standing edit

A random definition from a book of some professor, which didn't generate any significant buzz nor reasonable secondary source criticism. I say, it is original research `'mikka 01:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a blatant copyright violation of www.mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/define/bellsRules.html. Change to speedy delete.Shoessss 01:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, does (sort of) assert notability, but considering this team doesn't exist outside of the virtual world, I will give it short shrift. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-08 02:36Z

Northstar Nerd edit

Non-notable fantasy baseball team. Unfortunately, I can't find any CSD criterion this fits. *** Crotalus *** 01:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not notable, no sources are provided and the team in question probably doesn't exist. Xtreme racer 01:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under CSD A7: Nonnotable web content and possibly group. SuperDT 01:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flexible Architecture for Simulation and Testing edit

This article discusses about a future process for chips. However, here is my issue with the article. One, it sounds like Wikipedia is being used as a platform for a research paper, which is a no-no. Second, some of the text I have found were copied from here, but not enough to make it a pure copyright violation. Third, all images this guy is adding are under a Non-modification license. I feel uneasy with this article, if we know that many of the text is released under a non-modification license (ditto with the images). Yall figure this out, since I have no clue what to do. Anyways, delete. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentative~~ delete per lack of notability ~~and apparent grey (at best) copyright status...third-party reporting/notablity would push me to keep/rewrite~~, concur with nom, feels like crystal-ball or school project report. WP is not your research group's webpage. DMacks 01:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 02:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Read the whole article. It's a PhD research project that's put together a proof of concept. (Not quite a "future process for chips" so much as an alternative hardware architecture of sorts.) Interesting idea, but come back when it's out of the research stage and starts moving towards commercial usage. Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - Acceptable parts could be transwikied to Wikiversity.--Remi 23:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't sound like a bad option, but the images would still need to go, due to their CC-ND license. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a notable computer architecture research project going on right now, is producing conference and journal papers about it (not OR). It's covered really well for such a project, which is odd, but that's not bad... Georgewilliamherbert 23:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This was a completed PhD project that works. The copyright issues can be resolved because it is open to the public. The system never emailed me the deletion to my registered email address. Su johnd 22:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, still not notable and a new article under a new title won't change that. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kennedy (Writer) edit

An article on a person who has twice been the subject of successful AfD nominations in recent months (in March 2007 and April 2007). Though the person in question, Sean Kennedy, has since self-published a book through lulu.com, he continues to fail notability. Victoriagirl 02:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: G4 as repost. Looking at the last version deleted at the April AfD, this looks like it asserts even less notability. It's not the same article, it's the same article chopped down to a substub. I didn't tag this one myself, but if it is a G4, then this needs to go. Barring that, delete, since it's the same notability, sources, etc., and the self-published book adds nothing to either. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, this appears to be the only contribution of User:Zerodivision. Trying to assume good faith, but this might be a single purpose account due to the edit summary A fresh start for a previously deleted article.. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the good faith. I have been anonymously fixing typos and adding to articles for a year, and finally made this account so I could add new articles. I was under the impression that the previous version of this article was deleted primarily because it was not neutral (it seemed mostly copied and pasted from Sean's personal opinionated websites by his fans), so I attempted to deliver neutral facts with sufficient notability. In my opinion this article doesn't fail notability and I think you're making it way too difficult. However, I was unaware of the G4 rule and this certainly seems to qualify for that. What good are rules if they're not followed, eh? (that's not sarcasm, I really didn't read the guidelines first) Zerodivision 07:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a Sean Kennedy article isn't worth it, why not redirect it to Rant Media if that is? 124.168.38.183 07:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - db-bio. andy 12:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete The page is currently in a sorry state and needs to be reverted to a much better date or fixed, but it is noteworthy. I use Sean Kennedy's entry as a reference point quite often. Looking for some information on it today I saw it was up for deletion and thought I should speak out. He is a published author, internet radio / video personality, leader of the WOG movement. Deleting or simply redirecting it to Rant Radio would be a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.90.16 (talk • contribs)
Speedy G4, per the rules. I personally think Sean Kennedy is notable enough (as an internet personality) to be included in Wikipedia; but voters in the last 2 AfDs did not consider his media exposure sufficient to establish notability, and I may as well defer to them. Also, though, I've been watching the delete-recreate-delete activity of the last few months, and have personally suggested to various pro-Kennedy people that writing a Sean Kennedy section into the existing article on Rant Radio (the notability of which is established) would be a perfectly acceptable way to fix things. Otherwise, there'll be a new Sean Kennedy article in AfD every month. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Symbolically, justifiably, amusingly and appropriately.OldMixcoatl 22:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, that's why I refuse to interfere and simply watch it all with a smug grin on my face. The swarm in action, eh. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, it's pretty funny to watch. The self-fulfilling prophecy that's trying its damnedest not to fulfil itself.OldMixcoatl 23:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would certainly have ~~voted~~ recommended thus on the previous two AfDs, and the current state of the article does not reflect what was originally deleted. I question the depth of review applied on the first of this year's AfDs, leading to this speedy (G4) tennis. Also, here's a reference I've not yet seen mentioned bbc h2g2. Nigosh 21:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure that anyone has claimed that the current piece is a reflection of that deleted last month. That said, I agree with Kinu that, if anything, it "asserts even less notability". I must also disagree that the anonymous bbc h2g2 piece in any way supports notabilty. In its own words, bbc h2g2 is a guide "written by visitors to the website - people like you..." As such, I would argue that it fails to meet the verifiability policy, nor does it speak to notability. Let's put it this way, I might write an article on myself and post it at bbc h2g2, then write another article for Wikipedia in which I cite bbc h2g2 in order to assert notabilty. Victoriagirl 00:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you couldn't travel back in time to do it, now could you? Nigosh 09:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that as an entertainer, he has:

Has a significant "cult" following.
Has made a prolific contribution to a field of entertainment.

Nigosh 09:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I must disagree with the comment concerning time travel. It is entirely possible for a person to create a piece for bbc h2g2 and later cite the same. In no way am I suggesting that this has occured. My point is that the anonymous article posted on bbc h2g2 fails to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. How are we to create an article without being able to cite verifiable, authoritative sources? As I wrote during the successful AfD nomination last month, this concern speaks to verifiability and, by extension, notability. While I recognize that Sean Kennedy might be have a "cult" following, I must wonder why it is that he has not been the subject of an article in even one of Vancouver's numerous alternative papers. If he has made "a prolific contribution to a field of entertainment", citations should be easy to come by. Victoriagirl 14:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hold the h2g2 article up as anything other than a previously unmentioned reference; but since it was dated Feb 2005, I do think your hypothetical situation stretches too far. Nigosh 15:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once again, in no way am I suggesting that the bbc h2g2 article was created in order to support a future Wikipedia article. The hypothetical situation was presented as just one reason why bbc h2g2 postings should not be considered as references or evidence of notability. A needless example, I suppose, as bbc h2g2 fails to meet the verifiability policy. Victoriagirl 16:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any verifiable sources saying he has not been the subject of an article in any one of Vancouver's alternative papers?OldMixcoatl 19:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OldMixcoatl may remember that I first raised this issue in response to one of his/her comments in the previous AfD discussion. I can report that neither the Canadian Index, nor the British Columbia Index records articles on Kennedy. That said, the burden of evidence does not lie with me. I made mention of Vancouver's alternative press only because it seems like the most likely place to find articles on a significant Vancouver "cult" figure (as has been claimed). Should articles exist in the aforementioned media - or any media, for that matter - I'd welcome the news. As it is, I've only come across one piece, a a short profile from 2000, that has Sean Kennedy as its subject. Victoriagirl 23:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to say 'I am unable to find an article in one of Vancouver's alternative papers in which Kennedy is the subject', this is merely a statement of your own progress in researching this issue, and has no bearing as to whether Kennedy is notable. However, if you say 'Kennedy has not been the subject in even one of Vancouver's numerous alternative papers', and use this fact as a claim to Kennedy's lack of notability, then I believe the burden of proof lies with you on this. Of course, the whole logical structure of the place is very fragile (Do the criteria for notability meet the criteria for verifiability? Do all statements of truth need to be verified, including the statement that all statements of truth need to be verified?), but I suppose we should try to keep everything as intact as possible.OldMixcoatl 05:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough. I'll correct my statement. Kennedy's name is absent as a subject in the Canadian Index and the British Columbia Index. I have yet to find anything to contradict this. There is, of course, always a possibility that article escaped the attention of these publications. It is also possible that a piece appeared in one of the lesser-known papers not covered by either index. I mention the burden of evidence only because this AfD asserts that the subject fails to meet notability guidelines. As the nominator, I don't think it is my role to prove otherwise. That said, I have produced what I consider to be the only verifiable article thus far. I encourage others to uncover more articles. If, as 59.167.21.40 suggests below, Kennedy has a global fanbase, this should not be difficult. Victoriagirl 14:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This count? The problem is that Kennedy is kind of the progenitor of his field, and any newspaper would find it rather difficult to report on him, with the lack of context that this brings. It's difficult to think of concepts developed in the late 20th/early 21st century that haven't been logical steps from or simply copies of concepts from much earlier, but the heavy use of self-irony in rabid, militant, absolutist political commentary is such a concept, in my opinion. OldMixcoatl 17:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Others may disagree, but to this girl a two sentence caption ("Sean Kennedy is one of the longest (possibly the longest) running audio ranter and he knows what he's talking about. Sean Kennedy is the fucking man.") on what appears to be a dormant website created by fellow ranters doesn't speak much to notability. There must be something more out there. I mean, even progenitors get some sort of coverage. Academic journals perhaps? Victoriagirl 20:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... The stuff he does really isn't the kind of thing you'd find in academic journals... maybe in a few years when he's proven his point. The survivalist culture is currently entertainment rather than a socio-cultural phenomenon. I don't know whether it's been brought up that he did get two 'interviews' from a Christian radio show. He supposedly was asked back due to the response generated from the first. They can be heard here and here. If you listen to the earlier show, the reason he is asked on is due to a version of one of his rants that was put on youtube. Sorry this is taking so much of your time, by the way, I actually enjoy this kind of thing, but I can imagine it could be a little frustrating from your point of view. OldMixcoatl 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kennedy is probably not that popular in Vancouver. His fan base is online and global, kinda like wikipedia. How many articles about wikipedia have been published in its home town? 59.167.21.40 05:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue here appears to be notability rather than verifiability; it appears to me that the AfD process has not been adequately followed, as the original (2nd) nomination was proposed without posting a {{notability}} warning, given the longevity and activity of the article. Nigosh 21:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes notability on a number of counts: cult following, original concepts, third party verification and important contribution to field (imho).OldMixcoatl 22:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rant Media. ¿SFGi Д nts! ☺ ☻ 23:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Evading a AfD for Sean Kennedy by reposting as Sean Kennedy (Author), and then as Sean Kennedy (Writer) does not impress me as a straight-forward way to get articles in WP. Did the author think nobody would notice? DGG 02:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little disingenuous since the main Sean Kennedy article has in the mean time been both the present Sean Kennedy (Hollyoaks) and now a disambig page, (and I would question the value of the whole Hollyoaks cast list being here, despite it being the comitted and sterling work of one dedicated author!) By the way, can you confirm that the author was the same person for both page recreations? Nigosh 09:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. Sean used to link to his Wikipedia page as a bio, on his livejournal page. Dunno if he still does, but if it happens to be that more than one user has recreated each page, then maybe that speaks to the fact he does have more than one listener. As for the authors not noticing, I think the articles get created by people who have not had extensive enough experience with Wikipedia policies to know about these rules. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I created this version of the article, and I was not involved with nor aware of the drama behind the previous versions. As I mentioned above, I was also not aware of the G4 rule. I was listening to last week's episode of NewsReal on RantRadio Talk, mirrored by my ISP (although that only boosts the notability of RantRadio, and only if my ISP has notability...) and heard Sean mention that wikipedia doesn't believe he exists. Remembering how biased and unprofessional his old article sounded when I read it last year (it seemed to be mostly copied from his self-promotion websites), I assumed it was removed because of that. I had no idea that notability was such a touchy issue for some people (the 'criteria for deletion' page even warns not to take it too seriously), and I certainly wouldn't have guessed that previous deletion was grounds for deletion. I can see that you would want to stop the exact same article being re-posted, but that is not the case here.
  Sean Kennedy exists, has a cult following, has more notability than lots of bio stubs on here, and this current article is unbiassed and informative for people seeking to learn more about Sean Kennedy. The next person to vote against keeping this article should just delete it and end the silly debate until another unfortunate NewsReal fan comes along and wonders why Sean isn't on wikipedia. Zerodivision 15:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone can blame me - I'm the guy who let Sean know his article had been deleted in the first AfD. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No one has ever questioned Kennedy's existence. The issue at hand in this nomination and the AfD nominations of March and April is notability. Victoriagirl 23:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And so, I add my vote. Victoriagirl 23:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 22:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Dham Nottingham UK edit

Unremarkable prayer centre for an unremarkable religion. Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 02:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would hesitate to call any religion "unremarkable", but I concur that this appears to be an advertisement for the meditation centre. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-08 02:41Z
Delete Other than being a worship center, its pretty non-notable. Corpx 05:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To an outsider it reads rather like Private Eye's occasional St Cake's feature. BTLizard 07:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sai Dham (Nottingham) has already been speedied twice (A7) and recreated apparently word for word identical. andy 12:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, word-for-word identical's the word to describe this latest version. I would not consider a existent landmark to be speedyable as A7, though. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-08 13:01Z
KEEP How can this article be edited so that it does not look like an advertisement? It provides the information required. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.10.68.236 (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to be notable, content is also a straight lift from the organisation's website so may also be a copyvio. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. ¿SFGi Д nts! ☺ ☻ 23:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per EliminatorJR — Wenli 00:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that a nom as being an "insignificant religion" is not acceptable. If this is the major center for the religion in the UK, however small the number of worshipers, it's notable. But that it is the major center does have to be shown, though I suppose from the comments it can be reasonably assumed. I think re-creating after speedy is not disallowed. DGG 02:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has been altered now so it is different and not lifted from the website, also looking more notable and it is a multifaith centre, so it is not specific to any religion nor should be deemed "unremarkable" as this can be taken as offensive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.10.68.236 (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - the article may look notable but that doesn't make it notable. All the preceding arguments still apply. andy 06:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep informative, cant see anything wrong with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.232.208.134 (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Notability is supposed to be demonstrated in some way. If this was the only place of worship for one religion then it would be reasonable to assume notability (although better if it was clearly asserted). But the author has stated in this debate that it's multifaith and not specific to one religion, which makes it just one place of worship among very very many and therefore by definition not notable. andy 17:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What more notability can the author add?! Shirdi Sai Baba is seen as a guru for hundereds of millions around the world, not just in India, white, black , asian etc... the fact that this is the first centre dedicated to him in the WHOLE of Europe is the most notable thing about this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saidhamnottingham (talk • contribs) 20:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please read WP:N to find out what notability means in wikipedia. On this basis there is still no evidence of notability in the article. andy 21:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks notable enough to me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.10.68.236 (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The etiquette is one vote per editor. andy 09:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep This organisation/centre seems to have a notable and unique element about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.98.20.245 (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wacky Wood edit

Local dance. No assertion of popularity outside of Columbus, no assertion of particular noteworthiness in Columbus, and no reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonsense and non-notable Corpx 06:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN local dance move. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As has been mentioned, its not notable and local to one city. ---> Benseac 14:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Sources lacking. ¿SFGi Д nts! ☺ ☻ 23:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I live near Columbus, and I've never heard of this. No sources, no notability, smacks of "something someone made up one day". J0lt C0la 11:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Michelle McManus. Sr 13 22:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Meaning Of Love (album) edit

okay, it's an album, can anyone guess beyond that? Chris 03:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

um, this one? hateless 03:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Stay if somebody can expand it. Corpx 06:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the artist Michelle McManus --Tikiwont 12:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Michelle McManus --Lemonflash|_{(say hi)} 21:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michelle McManus. ¿SFGi Д nts! ☺ ☻ 23:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, apparent bad faith nomination. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randomness edit

Completing incomplete nom (no reason given). I'd say keep WP:SNOW, part of several apparent WP:POINT noms...editor upset at page he created was tagged for speedy. DMacks 03:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close unless some reason to delete can be determined. FrozenPurpleCube 03:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep essential topic; not having an article on it is out of the question. --Trovatore 04:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Paulus edit

Non-notable individual. The subject's only notability comes from claiming to having had sex once with pop singer Clay Aiken. He might (or might not) have withdrawn the claim recently. The article is thinly-sourced, chiefly from gossip columns. The subject does not appear notable in any lasting fashion. Also, he has begun editing the article and requested that it be deleted. I see no reason to keep it. Will Beback · † · 03:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)arro[reply]

Delete. Individual is notable only for making a claim in the tabloids. Even the Enquirer, which originally published his claim, has disputed the credibility of statements he has made since. Were everything based on tabloid/gossip sources (all based solely on the individual's claims with no independent verification) to be removed from this entry, there would be nothing left except his ignominious exit from the military in 1997. This entry should be deleted. -Jmh123 03:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI: some disputed material has just been removed by Ken Arromdee. Some comments in the following discussion prior to that deletion may not make sense unless edit history is consulted. -Jmh123 06:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More material has been removed by another user this morning, following statements by Ken Arromdee in "talk". I wonder if it would not have been better to just let this AFD process take its course rather than intervening as Ken Arromdee did. -Jmh123 15:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again. The National Enquirer DID NOT say that my claims were in question. You are rewriting history. Bias are you? That's the problem with this particular article it is skewed and infested with Claymate opinion and NO fact. And reference my military exit. At least I served my country. --JohnPaulus 21:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Scoop, the Enquirer did "question statements you have made since" just as I said. -Jmh123 00:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The National Enquirer NEVER questioned the validity of the allegations as you have cleverly tried to insinuate. It's imperative that you keep to the facts rather than mending them to suit you and your agenda.--JohnPaulus 02:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The National Enquirer did not specifically question the validity of your allegations, they publically questioned YOU as a reliable source, stating that you were “completely distorting” the story of your interaction with them. Triage 15:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "keep" vote below, the sources are the NY Post gossip column (Page Six), the NY Daily News gossip column, the MSNBC.com (per below, under Cyrus Andiron, that's a website, not a broadcast network) gossip column (the Scoop). The People reference is not related to Paulus, but to a frivilous lawsuit launched against Aiken over an unauthorized biography that he didn't endorse. -Jmh123 04:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cite something in Wikipedia policy or guidelines that says that a properly fact-checked "gossip column" is not a reliable source. Otto4711 13:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_of_questionable_reliability: By definition, gossip columns report rumors and allegations, not facts. The Post and the Daily News can and do report that 'the Enquirer said that so and so alleges...'. Page Six & the Scoop are places for gossip and rumor, not "fact checked" news. Google articles about the Post's Page Six writer caught shaking down a millionaire last year--if he'd pay a quarter of a million, they'd stop printing lies about him. To step outside the world of celebrities, how about this one on acquisition rumors? [7] In the linked article you have the Post vs the Wall Street Journal with warring financial rumors. -Jmh123 15:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But for you convenience you cite Realityblurred as an independent surce that did nothing, but regurgitate information provided to them by Claymates? They never called nor did they attempt to verify the facts with me. Sounds like a double standard and reinforces my argument that there have been a few that have compromised the integrity of Wikipedia by using it has a propaganda tool to promote an agenda.--JohnPaulus 21:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not about whether something is true it's about whether something is notable. Unless you're suggesting that everything in Category:Hoaxes and Category:Urban legends be deleted, arguing that something be deleted because it's a rumor has no foundation in Wikipedia policy. Whether Paulus ever met Aiken or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether there are reliable sources reporting on the allegations, and dismissing reliable sources on the basis of their being gossip columns is ridiculous. Otto4711 20:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip is gossip, Otto. It isn't "unquestionably reliable." Paulus, in an entry full of gossip, it is only fair to cite gossip on Aiken's behalf as well as yours. -Jmh123 00:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article is sourced by articles from People, the New York Post, the New York Daily News and MSNBC. These are unquestionably reliable sources. More than adequate sourcing exists to demonstrate the subject's notability. Otto4711 04:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thinly sourced, not enough IMO for a real biography. I don't think having sex with a pop singer makes you worth writing an article about, whether the gossip columns pick up on it or not. We don't automatically make articles for spouses, after all, and that's a much more lasting connection to a notable person than simply fucking-and-telling. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable individual, possible BLP violation. At best, this warrants a minor mention in Clay Aiken, not a full article. -- Kesh 05:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, non-encyclopaedic, tabloid material. Subject's request for deletion is reasonable. FNMF 05:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other than maybe having sex with a star, this guy has no other claims to be famous. There are plenty of people whos stalk stars or sleep with stars on a constant basis and we are not the tabloids. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since 100% of the coverage of this individual relates to a single issue, the article almost by definition violates WP:UNDUE. Ask yourself: if Britannica had unlimited space, would it ever consider including this individual? I'd say no. Not encyclopaedic, not notable, no biographies, no non-trivial sources primarily about the subject, all are reports of the event. Wikipedia is not tabloid journalism. Guy (Help!) 06:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, especially per Guy. Being a groupie is not notability. It's almost the textbook definition of trying to touch notability the only way one can. --Dhartung | Talk 07:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, and request for deletion appropriate — Demong _talk 09:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This kind of material belongs in the Enquirer, not an encyclopedia. Blogs and gossip columns are not acceptable sources for Wikipedia. --Cyrus Andiron 12:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." If you can cite something that says that gossip columns that appear in fact-checked publications or are broadcast over the fact-checked MSNBC don't qualify as reliable, then pony it up. Otherwise the dismissal of reliable sources stinks of WP:BIAS. Otto4711 13:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, the MSNBC broadcast network is not cited in the entry in question; please check your own facts. -Jmh123 16:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asserting that the New York Post and MSNBC have fact-checked their gossip columns like they (are presumed to) do for their actual journalism? I don't have firsthand knowledge but I have very strong doubts about this. The Post has a horoscope section too; are you asserting that their horoscopes meet WP:RS because they appear in that paper? Delete per Guy, per WP:BLP, per WP:ATT, and so forth. Barno 14:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If one were writing an article on Astrology and the continued interest of the American public in it, one could certainly use the horoscopes as a reliable source to document that interest. Otto4711 20:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gossip, by its definition is nothing but rumors. Also, the alleged encounter could only be verified by Aiken, who refused to comment and Mr. Paulus, who claimed the encounter happened, then retracted, then claimed he never retracted. I'm going out on a limb here, but that doesn't seem too reliabe to me. Just because a gossip columnist chooses to publish his story, that doesn't make it any more true or reliable. I would point you to Jmh123's comments above about reliable sources. Otto, you continue to amuse. --Cyrus Andiron 15:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to either misread or misrepresent Wikipedia policy. Do you have credible evidence that the Post or MSNBC allows reports in any of its outlets without a fact-checking process in place? It sounds like you're making assumptions about what these media outlets are and aren't doing that fly in the face of standard journalism and legal practice. The truth of Paulus's allegations is irrelevant to the existence of them, and there are reliable sources that attest to the existence of them. Something does not have to be true to be on Wikipedia. Otto4711 20:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Guy. Brief blip on the celeb-gossip radar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, non-encyclopaedic, tabloid material. Subject's request for deletion is reasonable. Michigan user 16:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy and JMH123. Non-notable, non-encyclopaedic, tabloid material. - Maria202 18:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced by at least 3 sources, there is no reason for deletion. The alternatives would be to put all this stuff in Clay Aiken's article, with a redirect (which would be WP:UNDUE), or ignore the subject entirely (which would be an indication of our WP:BIAS). It's trashy and gossipy, but its not WP's gossip, it's the mainstream media's gossip. For an encyclopedia that insists on keeping every also ran on every version of reality show known to mankind, to delete this would also seem to be against precedent. Carlossuarez46 19:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, the key points are already covered in the Aiken article, so there's little more that needs to be merged in. -Will Beback · † · 20:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Guy. Lemonflash|_{(say hi)} 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is being used as a way to demean me and hide the actual facts regarding my allegation with Clay Aiken. This article has been manipulated to paint me in a negative light and it is riddled with errors and questionable facts. It needs to be deleted asap.--JohnPaulus 21:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not the forum for settling content disputes or WP:BLP disputes. Otto4711 23:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sleeping with someone famous does not make one notable - however many gossip rags decide to print the info. WP:BLP issues are also compelling. WjBscribe 23:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This fellow has thrust himself into the public spotlight by promoting his claim to have had sex with Aiken. It is sourced adequately. If that is really Paulus commenting in this thread, his own disagreement with the contents of the article shouldn't lead to a deletion. It seems to set a bad precedent that "outing" articles like this exist only until sources appear which contradict them, at which point WP:BLP is invoked, with the result that Paulus's claims stick to Clay Aiken, but not to Paulus. Allon Fambrizzi 00:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]

FYI, the review process which led to this AfD began two months ago, before the subject came on the scene.[8][9] I think we'd presumed the subject would want to keep the article so when he indicated he also wanted to delete it there was no longer any reason to wait. -Will Beback · † · 02:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The material should be deleted from the Aiken entry as well. It is simply non-encyclopaedic. FNMF 01:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know that will never happen. Allon Fambrizzi 01:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]

I don't believe that perpetual inclusion of malicious, controversial, insensitive, unsubstantiated non-encyclopaedic sexual allegations is a foregone conclusion. Inclusion of this material violates WP:BLP at Aiken as well as here. Furthermore, the failure to apply policy by editors at one entry does not justify deciding not to apply policy at another entry. This material does not belong in any genuine encyclopaedia, neither under the heading of Paulus, nor under the heading of Aiken. It is up to editors to enforce policy, rather than come up with a "fair balance" on the grounds policy will not be enforced at either entry. FNMF 01:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about coming up with a "fair balance" (your term, not mine), it's about developing policies that are realistic in the first place. This information will survive at the "controversies about Clay Aiken" page and at the main Clay Aiken page (why don't you try and delete it and see what happens?), but the John Paulus page will be gone, with the result that the controversy revolves around Aiken, not Paulus. Allon Fambrizzi 21:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]

I appreciate the logic of your argument, but as the retraction has now been deleted from the Paulus page by Ken Arromdee as a violation of Paulus's WP:BLP, and he will brook no discussion on the matter, your argument is moot. Paulus gets a pass and his allegations stick to Aiken whether the Paulus entry as now written is deleted or not. -Jmh123 22:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. There's no reason that material can't be deleted from the Aiken page too, and tabloid-style allegations should be. Ken Arromdee 05:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see it happen. Ain't there for lack of trying: See Mediation Cabal Case plus 13 archived pages on Talk:Clay Aiken. -Jmh123

Delete. The John Paulus page because it is non-notable, non-encyclopaedic, tabloid material and also remove references to him from Aiken's page. As WjB said, "Sleeping with someone famous does not make one notable - however many gossip rags decide to print the info. WP:BLP issues are also compelling."

Jimmy Wales has said it is sometimes better to have nothing at all than to include speculation, and has emphasized the need for sensitivity:

Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.
– Jimbo Wales

AllDone 01:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a blatant violation of BLP with respect to Aiken. DGG 02:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second - how is it a violation of BLP on Aiken - it's something that actually happened ... Wikipedia is made of articles about things that happen - and if something notable happens - regardless of whether it makes someone else look bad - we have it. That being said, delete due to a lack of notability.daniel folsom 02:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it most probably did not happen. All that there is to this is one person's story to a tabloid. Absolutely nothing else to substantiate it. Which would make it potentially libel. But in any case - it would be the event that would be notable IF it actually happened, the person in question is not notable enough for an article, and he is requesting that the article be deleted. 66.82.9.103 03:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Danielfolsom said "how is it a violation of BLP on Aiken - it's something that actually happened." The only source for that story is John Paulus and the same John Paulus also retracted the story and said it was a hoax. He then wanted to retract the retraction because he said he was fibbing. There is no verifiable information whatsoever that it did happen. The alleged incident is the only thing that would be notable but there is no evidence that the incident ever occured. AllDone 03:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no difference whether the two actually had sex. What is being discussed is the allegation that they had sex. This allegation is sourced in accordance with every applicable Wikipedia policy and guideline. Something does not have to be true to be in Wikipedia, as the existence of the articles in Category:Hoaxes ably proves. If the article read "Clay Aiken had sex with John Paulus" and they did not have sex, then it might be libelous. But an aricle saying that Paulus claimed to have sex with Aiken is not libelous. Paulus did make the claim and reporting the truth - that he made the allegation - by definition can not be libel. Otto4711 04:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it is true that someone made an allegation, that doesn't mean that that allegation belongs in an article. There are allegations made about people all the time. This particular allegation is sourced to gossip columns and the self-published reality.com. Self published sources may *never* be used in articles about the subject, unless published by the subject. To top it off, we're abusing the guy by reporting him for 3RR because he's trying to revert unsourced material that is harming him. This article needs to go. Ken Arromdee 05:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto4711 said."Paulus did make the claim and reporting the truth - that he made the allegation - by definition can not be libel." Then it must also be reported that he confessed that it was a hoax and the article be moved to Category:Hoaxes. His allegations were published in tabloids and later the tabloids were cited as the source in gossip columns. The gossip columns in People, the New York Post, the New York Daily News and MSNBC are not high quality references.

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies:
* Verifiability * Neutral point of view (NPOV) * No original research
We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space.

AllDone 16:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if the article was stating that Paulus had sex with Aiken, then you're right, there would need to be better sourcing than what exists. However, the article is not stating that Paulus had sex with Aiken. It is stating that Paulus said he had sex with Aiken and the sourcing for his statement are solid. Otto4711 15:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, the question is whether a guy who says he had sex with a celebrity once, who by virtue of the celebrity's notability, not his, got the attention of gossip columns and tabloids for a little while, is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. I don't think he is. -Jmh123 15:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BLP policy has improved since this article was written. It now includes a caution to use high quality references and to be careful when including biographical material about living persons in other articles. Tabloid and gossip columns certainly cannot be considered high quality. The subject of the article is not himself notable and the article circumvents the policy as it would be applied to Aiken's article. - Maria202 16:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too few sources/too little notability to support an article that satisfies policy Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom, lacks encyclopedic notability. — Athaenara 03:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. At this point, the keep arguments boil down to WP:NOTINHERITED. However, if non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources is produced, the article can be re-created using them. MastCell ^Talk 19:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Mountain Community Church edit

Editing history shows that the page was originally entered as cruft. Fails WP:N Shadow Mountain Community Church is a religious institution located in the east county region of San Diego County, historically lacking in any "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Nascentatheist 04:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable Corpx 05:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the church that started San Diego Christian College, which in turn started the Institute for Creation Research, which means that it has played an important part in the history of American evangelicalism. StAnselm 07:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm really not sure on this one. There aren't any set guidelines on how to assert notability as it relates to churches. WP:CHURCH was not adopted by the community and thus cannot apply to this article. It appears to me that both senior pastors are notable. Both have been prolific authors, Tim LaHaye wrote the Left Behind series. I'm not sure if their involvement in Shadow Mountain Community Church makes it notable. --Cyrus Andiron 12:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Christian Heritage College was founded by Tim LaHaye, pastor of Scott Memorial at the time. As a point of order, it should be noted that the church did not "start" the college - a person did. The same goes for the ICR, the evolution of which can be traced to Henry Morris's book, The Genesis Flood. The church, itself, does not meet the criteria for notability under (my interpretation of) Wikipedia standards, which is why I nominated it. It does not generate "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources...independent of the subject." That those affiliated with a certain church also founded or "started" a Christian college as well as a creationist "research" institution does not make the church, itself, notable. Nascentatheist 12:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The history page at the college website notes that LaHaye's involvement was "under the sponsorship of the church", and the college originally met in the church building. StAnselm 13:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Granted, but with LaHaye being the senior pastor and given the structure of the church at the time, one can make lots of those kinds of claims. If LaHaye, as senior pastor, declared it, it was under the "sponsorship of the church." That's how those things worked. I recall it well. Again, the church didn't establish the college. LaHaye did. He directed it, established that the church would "sponsor" it. That makes LaHaye notable - not the building. I do understand your point, however, and it's a fair point if we disregard that churches don't found colleges, people do. Thank you for your input. Nascentatheist 14:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Who said anything about a building? A church isn't a building! I certainly see your point, though, and I would view this church as notable precisely because it is LaHaye's church. Yes, I know - WP:NOTINHERITED. But it makes me think that those sources are going to exist. StAnselm 14:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the explanation by Nascentatheist. --Cyrus Andiron 13:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." ~ G1ggy! _{Reply | Powderfinger!} 00:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chasetown F.C. season 2006-07 edit

While there may be a good case for keeping season-by-season articles on major teams, I can see no reason for keeping a season-by-season breakdown of a minor team, who play at the 8th tier in the English football league system, in such absurd detail. Daemonic Kangaroo 04:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo 04:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Merge Can we merge it into the team article? Corpx 05:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The whole reason this article was created was because it was deemed far far too much detail for the main article, where all this detail was previously to be found. Consensus at the Non-League Football project was to break it into its own article and then see where it went, which, as I suspected, was straight to AfD.... ChrisTheDude 14:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Season-by-season records for even the highest level teams are far too much crufty detail. One stand alone season for a level 8 club even more so. - fchd 06:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN season by a village f.c. - Malc82 09:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Malc82. Wikipedia is not a statistics database. Punkmorten 10:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArtVandelay13 12:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Premiership or first division, absolutely. 8th tier? Not so much. Resolute 13:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Far too marginal a topic for inclusion. Qwghlm 15:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons said for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. United of Manchester season 2005-06 User:KRBN 20:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteFar too much detail for a club playing at the 8th level in English football.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. — Scientizzle 17:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deal-Mendenhall Hall edit

No assertion of notability. These pages are simply a copy of the single source given, and the only reason I didn't nominate for speedy was that I wasn't sure if a simple table of info counted as a copyvio. Anywho, delete for zero assertion of notability. Someguy1221 04:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. The source may be a work of the U.S. government and thus not subject to copyright, but that doesn't mean these private, single-family residences warrant encyclopedia articles. --Metropolitan90 04:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above comment Corpx 05:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although one option could be to stub, since these are National Register of Historic Places listed properties, I have no objection to deleting these database cut-and-paste substubs. --Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - both are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. They're part of the Springville, Utah Multiple Property Submission. The MPS document has information about why the district is notable, and it sounds that the Deal and Mendenhall families were locally notable. There are several other historic houses in the city, as shown at List of Registered Historic Places in Utah#Utah_County. I wouldn't have any objections to merging these two articles and writing something about the historic district in general in a different article, though. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Multiple Property Submission is not the same thing as an Historic District. A district can include many buildings which are not individually notable. An MPS is for buildings (usually non-adjacent) that are thematically linked in some way (a common event, architectural style, etc.) --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that. :-) I guess the question I should have asked, then, is whether we should write a single article to encompass all of the historic resources in the Multiple Property Submission, or whether separate articles are more appropriate. I checked out the Multiple Property Submission document some more, and it looks like they don't mention much at all about the individual buildings. I'm undecided as to whether it's better, in general, to write a single article about multiple-property submissions as opposed to writing one article for each submission. This might be a better topic for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places rather than in this AFD. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up... I'm inclined to think things on the NRHP deserve pages, assuming something more informative than the current cut'n'paste can be written. I'd guess that any building that manages to get listed has sources out there in local newspapers or books on historic sites. Pinball22 16:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tentatively, Merge into an article for the group of buildings. from the discussion we don't seem to have a good precedent--it's in the middle between an individual building which is N and a neighborhood which isn't. I think Elkman's suggestion is good, but agree with him that this AfD should be listed at the project site. DGG 02:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: An MPS is a way that thematically linked properties can be evaluated to see if they meet the National Register of Historic Places criteria for inclusion. The MPS itself is not the Register listing. Every building that is nominated for the Register through an MPS really just meets the MPS' criteria, nothing else. The nominations themselves are done on an individual basis (though when the MPS is first developed several properties may be nominated once). Multiple Property Submissions can be and are added to on a continuing basis. Each property that is part of a Multiple Property Submission is listed on the National Register by itself, complete with its own reference number. IvoShandor 20:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perusing the interwebs, I haven't checked any scholarly databases yet, I found a few scant references to a Thomas Deal Mendenhall in Springville as well as some references to the Mendenhall's as an important family there. I am sure a good library in Utah, or Springville itself, would have the National Register nomination form as well as other sources of information including a lot of old and out of print books. A lack of Google information isn't sufficient to delete this particular article. IvoShandor 20:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Both are registered historic properties of historic value. The Roe A. and Louise R. Deal House article needs a serious clean-up though. --Oakshade 16:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles were copy vios, the site nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com isn't a government website. I cleaned them up, they are currently stubs but could easily be expanded. IvoShandor 17:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was transwiki to commons. Mango juice^talk 14:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs of Dublin edit

Wikipedia is not a repository of images. Any useful information on this page should be moved to Dublin or Commons:Dublin and the article deleted. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nicely written article, but unencyclopedic collection of content. Hard to believe it survived since 2005. Someguy1221 05:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should be at commons, but has to be uploaded there by the original uploaders. Corpx 05:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Commons. MER-C 05:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons. Keep if information relating to the pictures can not be conveyed in the Dublin article. Think outside the box 11:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To Dublin pn ~ G1ggy! _{Reply | Powderfinger!} 00:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, move all images to Commons The article had photographs of many landmarks of Dublin, with some short description. This makes it look like a tourist guide, and this is something Wikipedia is not. However, the images are valuable to anyone who would work on articles related to Ireland, so move images to Commons.--Kylohk 10:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki or move or whatever the correct syntax is, to Commons, grouped with other images of Ireland and Dublin. Some excellent images, but no article explaining why these images are notable as a group. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 17:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brainwashing 101 edit

Non Notable 'Film' /TheDeciderDecides 06:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. "A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Here's three: The New York Sun,[10] The Chronicle of Higher Education,[11] and The Times Higher Education Supplement[12] (free copy). I strongly suspect this is a bad-faith nomination by a POV-pushing sock-puppet of an experienced Wikipedia, and urge a speedy keep. CWC 13:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It could also be an experienced anonymous editor who had to create an account to make the AFD.--Ron Ritzman 00:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am an editor in good standing using a new second account as allowed by WP in order to avoid harassment. /TheDeciderDecides 06:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Judging by the edits of the OP I agree there is something suspect going on. Definitely someone trying to make a WP:POINT or just sockpuppeting. Ben W Bell talk 15:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close. Creator of the AfD is an SPA, possible sock. Clear cut case of bad faith nom. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. Extremely difficult to assume good faith when a user's first edit is an AfD nom. Likely a WP:POINT violation. Resolute 05:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - remains me of Duke and Tome Wolfe's story about country girl one Charlotte Simmons, but still good written and in style. greg park avenue 19:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Throne edit

Delete No verifiable assertions of notability, no reliable sources, No evidence that it passes WP:WEB, previous AfD was a No Consensus train-wreck, no improvements to the article since then have got it up to inclusion standards. DarkSaber2k 08:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. DarkSaber2k 08:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only independent reference I can find is [13] a mention at orpgames.com, which is pretty flimsy. Perhaps the charity drive appeared in the press? Marasmusine 13:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article! It helped a lot! I am begging you! — 72.94.26.62 (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic.

Delete No sources, reliable or otherwise, fails WP:WEB now same as it did back then. QuagmireDog 04:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesnt indicate why this game is notable. It is odd that it is in beta, yet it has been rewritten and the company has donated money to charities. I'd need to see a lot of reliable sources added before this could be kept. John Vandenberg 10:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Crystal ball (game is in beta), fails WP:N. --User:Krator (t c) 15:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The humanity! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Women and children edit

It's hard to see what this is doing in an encyclopedia. The first 100 Google results do not reveal this to be a common Muslim phrase, or any kind of Muslim phrase at all. It's difficult to see what the article is trying to say about the phrase--it's used by Muslims? by Israelis? by women even though "more" men are killed? killed by whom? Qworty 09:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; seems like original research. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-08 09:55Z
Delete per nom; seems to mainly reflect personal views --Jvhertum 10:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maybe redirect to Women and children first. Zetawoof_(ζ) 11:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Silly article. Original research and not very good research, totally pointless, probably attempting to put forward a POV. This phrase is better known when the ship is going down and it's followed by 'first'! Emeraude 11:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Then recreate as a plausible redirect to Women and children first. Serpent's Choice 11:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per {{db-nonsense}} Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 15:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, but it isn't "nonsense" because the article is coherent and comprehensible. CSD G1 doesn't apply here. --Strangerer (Talk) 03:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopaedic POV-pushing, poorly written and argued Karldoh 13:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP - several suggestions to rename, or merge to People (magazine). Nabla 22:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sexiest Man Alive edit

POV list of celebrities, no source or context Clicketyclack 09:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on whether the list should be kept, but just noting that the version of the article as initially nominated was a vandalised one. I've restored the introduction that was removed by vandals. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-08 10:05Z
Delete This is a completely unsourced list that details one particular feature of a magazine. --Cyrus Andiron 12:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect to People Magazine article. Preferably just redirect until we can be sure the coverage there is accurate. But this is a quasi-notable feature they run (for whatever reason) so it is a term people will be searching for and wanting info on, and it could be sourced. --W.marsh 13:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: PLEASE read this explanation before casting your vote! This article can easily be sourced by referencing the specific issues in which each years candidate is announced, and while most features would not merit their own article, People's Sexiest Man Alive is a cultural phenomenon. Each year, the winner is discussed in many other magazines and television shows unrelated to People, both in the celebrity pop culture genre (Entertainment Tonight, The Soup, etc.) and other genres (eg, The Colbert Report). This indicates a significant impact on pop culture and wide name recognition for the feature. Also of note is the fact that 11 different Wikipedia biographies link to this page. While it may seem to some to not be important enough to merit an article, the number of pages linking here begs to differ, and remember, wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Definite keep. Zelmerszoetrop 13:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I guess. Vapid but notable feature in a vapid but notable magazine. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and rename: The article should be sourced and renamed to People Magazine's Sexiest Man Alive. --Kimon^talk 17:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Kimon, above. I'll check the companion piece for vandalism. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If kept, rename per Kimon above. Carlossuarez46 19:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This may be celebrity pap, but it's notable celebrity pap. The award has been known to turn around careers. As for the name, I'm not certain that further disambiguation is necessary. How many "Sexiest Man Alive" awards are there, anyway? --Dhartung | Talk 20:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & rename Per Kimon. --Random ^{Say it here!} 23:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Kimon. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to User:JayHenry. Thanks! --JayHenry 04:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very notable, easily sourced. - Peregrine Fisher 19:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:

Part of the problem with this page is the title. After I AfD'd this list, User:Resurgent insurgent dug down a dozen changes, and discovered that the context had originally been established in the intro, but had long since vandalized been out, leaving just a list titled "Sexiest Man Alive", with no clue that it's a list of nominations by a magazine.

A list like that just begs for "contributions" from every boy that searches WP for "sexiest".

Please also note that People magazine is entirely unknown outside of the USA & Canada, and so likewise People's "SMA" list. Without the explicit context of it being a magazine feature, the list makes no sense whatsoever to anyone who's never been to the US - that is to say, most people on the planet. That could be seen as a {{Globalize/USA}} issue, but I can see now that the title is really the underlying problem.

So if consensus is that this list really is a notable feature of USA culture, and that this isn't a matter of WP mirroring content for People magazine, then it should be merged into People (magazine), or at the very least renamed, to stop its essential context being repeatedly removed. Thanks, Clicketyclack 08:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: there's a related debate going on over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Most Beautiful People, though in that case the consensus so far is strongly for deletion, since its meaning as (another) People magazine celeb award was never mentioned for that article. Clicketyclack 11:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. How is this possibly deletion-worthy? I can understand if there may be some sort of cultural shift here, but this is no doubt a well-known thing that gets major press every year it's published. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment above: it's only well-known in one country, and lacks context, press or notability for anyone from the rest of the planet. Clicketyclack 08:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No source, massive WP:NPOV issues, and it probably fails WP:N too ~ G1ggy! _{Reply | Powderfinger!} 00:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Over 5000 Google news hits for "sexiest man alive". The top ones? National mainstream coverage of the named stars for 2006 and 2004. There's no question about the notability or NPOV issues of this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment above: it gets national mainstream coverage in one country only, and lacks context, coverage or notability for anyone from the rest of the planet. Clicketyclack 08:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are entirely relevant. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine you're searching WP for "sexiest man alive", and it takes you to a list of men awarded that title annually by a magazine called Celebs, published only in New Zealand. The list consists almost entirely of celebrities from New Zealand, most or all of whom you've never heard of. It wouldn't make much sense to you, or to people from anywhere else outside of New Zealand. But the magazine is wildly popular there, and Wikipedians from New Zealand (WiKiwis?) might argue that the designation is very notable in their country, gets talked about on TV there, gets covered by the press there, etc. Is it encyclopedic material worthy of an article on WP? That's a matter for debate. But even if it is, the right thing to do with that list would be either a merge to Celebs (magazine), or at least a rename to Celebs Sexiest Man Alive list.

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias - Clicketyclack 12:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is countering systematic bias - if you haven't heard about it outside of the US, it doesn't make it non-notable. If the NZ magazine's yearly list gets press in every major publication in NZ, then I'd defend the list's inclusion here as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find much evidence of systemic bias against US pop culture on WP. :-) Note that it's not nominated as non-notable, but as "POV list of celebrities, no source or context". Are you also opposing merging it to People (magazine)? Clicketyclack 13:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the point being is that the assumption that it's not notable because it allegedly only gets coverage in one country is the definition of systematic bias. The nomination, however, is completely spurious (nothing POV, unsourced, or uncontextual), and may have been based on a previously vandalised version. And yes, I'm strongly opposed to a merge. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I haven't nominated it on grounds of non-notability, so no such assumption's being made. Also, the nomination is demonstrably not spurious:

POV: An encyclopedic entry on the sexiest man alive, assuming that that should be in WP, shouldn't be based solely on a nomination by a single magazine, especially one that's only published in one country.
Unsourced: I can find no sources cited in the article that People ever nominated any of them for SMA, or that Mel Gibson was the first winner, Clooney twice, etc. Nor can I find sources in any of the articles linked.
Context: Context has been restored to the article's body (though not the title) by User:Resurgent insurgent after nomination, though looking at the edit history that's highly likely to be deleted again. That problem could be fixed by merging, rather than deleting, as I've noted above. The other two remain grounds for a complete re-write or deletion. Clicketyclack 14:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to People (magazine), which created this list, and let the editors there decide how much detail is appropriate beyond a simple list with links. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John L. Lee edit

Subject was supposedly "a Central Intelligence Agency field operative involved in a covert military intelligence rogue operation undertaken by the CIA" ... "By the age of 21, Lee had become one of the primary high value assassination targets of the KGB First Chief Directorate in South East Asia.", etc. The article on the film Spy Game claims that a character played by Brad Pitt may have been based on Lee.

This was nominated for speedy deletion, but it seems reasonable under the circumstances to bump it to AFD: It has incoming links, makes assertions of notability, but is unreferenced and concerns a possibly living person making claims which are sensitive unless sourced. I don't find any hits on Google for anything resembling reliable sources. Pharamond 09:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources provided in the article, thus nothing can be verified. Also, the article was created by an anon user who only edited for one day and then never returned [14]. My guess is that this is a hoax article. It was wikilinked by a well meaning editor, not the creator of the article. --Cyrus Andiron 13:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know where I could find a source for this, but keeping an article with these assertions really needs to be sourced before it is added per WP:BIO. Slavlin 16:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Somebody who knows about these things should take a look at the two articles on operations which link to this one: Project Pale Horse and Phoenix Program. Pharamond 16:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PHOENIX, the CIA's assassination program in South Vietnam, is absolutely notable and largely verifiable (for instance). I can't find anything credible about Pale Horse, though, or Lee. I'm leaning toward WP:HOAX, but this at least fails WP:V that I can see. --Dhartung | Talk 20:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that a very large part of the Phoenix Program article appears to consist of material contributed in 2005 by IPs beginning with 207.118, similar to the ones that created the John L. Lee and Project Pale Horse articles at roughly the same time. Just removing the links is probably insufficient. (I will add a comment to Talk:Phoenix Program). Pharamond 05:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excellent detective work, Pharamond. I agree that more than a few links may need to be removed. --Dhartung | Talk 01:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless there is some source somewhere I don't see how we can keep it under BLP, and from the nature of the notability claimed we can't really expect sources.DGG 02:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it doesn't seem to be verifiable. Plus, I highly doubt the CIA would let out facts about a active op. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carbonmotion (talk • contribs) 17:04, 10 May 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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo (band) edit

Reposted after speedy. One album, released a couple of weeks ago, no independent sources, I don't see the claim of notability but that might be systemic bias. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trying to promote the album Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 15:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs some work - ??? not allowed, also blood types are irrelevant. Please, get rid of that. Japanese rock groups are practically unknown just like Iranian - "Hypernova" - first Iranian rock team ever - still notable, even if they play at "Fat Baby" - a bar on Lower East Side. New York Times lent them a full page though, and I see that this Japanese group also has some references. Let them "go", give them brothers a chance (Monroe doctrine doesn't neccesarily apply here). greg park avenue 20:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article and Kirito and Pierrot. All articles fail WP:Music on the basis of what I can find on the web. Granted, however, that I cannot read in Japanese, so if it turns out they are actually the biggest band that Tokyo has ever seen then I will reconsider this vote. A1octopus 13:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lukewarm Delete. If reliable source info were added, Pierrot would certainly be notable per WP:BAND and that, by extension, would make Angelo notable ("at least one member who was once a part of a band that is otherwise notable"). Closenplay 17:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy and delete. I've moved the page contents to User:BodyPride's user space. The article can be recreated if/when more secondary sources are available. MastCell ^Talk 04:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Body Pride Ride edit

I asked the page creator a couple days ago to find sourcing for this event, and none has been found yet that mention it by name. If none can be found, then the article qualifies for deletion since it is not notable. I will withdraw the nomination if I see that there has been explicit discussion in the media of the event. nadav 09:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found another source which mentions this event saying:

In 2005, a third naked cycling event, Body Pride Ride (BPR), made its debut, joining the Painted Solstice Cyclists and Seattle WNBR and establishing Seattle as the city with the most annual naked/painted bike rides in the world.[15]

I'm sorry that the online coverage in the SGN in 2005 didn't mention the event by name, but the printed edition did. BPR is not a flash in the pan, and I'm working on finding more "good sources".

Since the AfD flagging, I'm posting my reply here, rather than double posting to the articles discussion page. Right?

The problem seems to be the definition of "good sources". Google finds 186 entries when searching for "body pride ride" + Seattle [16] ranging from other Wikipedia articles [17], Wikia entries [18], a local Seattle paper's website (see link above). Can you clarify what "good sources" requires?

I have a few photos that document the rides, body painting and some en route. Would adding those help establish the existence of this event? Since this is my topic, I guess it's not appropriate for me to say Keep here, but I'm not sure. BodyPride 02:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Event is a unique and significant addition to clothing-optional cycling events. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 00:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Origional research--Sefringle 20:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know why this article is being requesting for deletion so soon after critical comments, while other articles flagged simply with {{unreferenced|January 2007}} are not flagged for deletion. Where is a concern like this supposed to be posed? Today I'm adding a {{todo}} to the article. Is there a place to prepare a wiki article "offline" or is "under construction" acceptable? BodyPride 19:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're more than welcome to work on draft copies of articles within your namespace. For instance, you could create the article at User:BodyPride/Body Pride Ride and work on it until it meets WP's notability and sourcing criteria. Caknuck 00:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable event. The ride has only been going on since 2005, and it is unclear if there was one last year. The sources are inadequate, as the SGN link makes no mention of the ride and the Bicycle Paper article only contains a trivial (two sentences). Caknuck 00:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 17:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bekki Janssen edit

Notability and verifiability seems pretty low - a few appearances on local radio stations does not a celebrity make. ~Matticus ^T_C 11:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. The myspace link is just the icing on the cake. Resolute 05:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to serious WP:V concerns, WP:RS, etc. No other articles link to this one. Six Google hits when I checked, all MediaWiki. Heather 19:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gravimotion edit

A "revolutionary interpretation of motion", brought here by its author. There seems to have existed a self-published book, but hardly any reception [19], not to mention in journals [20]. Tikiwont 11:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - Please note that all three "keep" opinions present so far were placed here by User:Henrisalles, the creator of the article. --EMS | Talk 14:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR (to be polite about it). andy 12:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is true that the gravimotion interpretation of gravity and motion has not been endorsed by physicists. It is true that the book "Gravimotion" had little success.

But is it not true also that new concepts are rejected as such, just because they are new! Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for endorsing the heliocentric theory. Galileo was forced to write essays he did not believe in. Newton had to delay the publishing of his famous Principia. Ludwig Boltzmann killed himself because nobody wanted to believe in his theory. I do not by far compare myself to these great men, but nowadays physics took over; any new idea, not in "physics" way of thinking, has no merit! Just read the comment above it has no valid argument! Please express what you understand is wrong with gravimotion's interpretation of nature. You can contact me if you need detailed explanations. In case my reference to my website "gravimotion.info" were to be the culprit, I just removed it. For ten years now I have been working at trying to get some exposure. A third book will be published this year. If this article is removed, it will prove once more that comments that are irrelevant are nowadays more important than innovative ideas are. User:HenriSalles8 May 2007

delete, delete, DELETE! No cites, no content, no evidence that anyone ever cared about this.... it's just crankish nonsense! DELETE! Mangoe 13:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Asserting it is "crankish nonsense" doesn't prove anything. Whereas the initiator's search is: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=Gravimotion&btnG=Search everybody else search is: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=gravimotion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Henrisalles (talk • contribs) 13:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment-- If you do this search, and exclude Wikipedia, what you come upon is a walled garden of sites all of which seem to be authored by the creator of this "theory". And the inevitable Amazon.com reference. You also get hits on singers who indendently used the word, and so forth. There is no evidence that anyone of any importance ever took this seriously. Mangoe 13:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer to commentThe “author” had contacts with physicists at CERN and had many discussions with many people who (granted) were not of “any importance”, but who had the intelligence at least to read about gravimotion. The truth of the matter is that none of the people, scientists or not who read about gravimotion, without endorsing it did ever emitted the opinion that it was wrong. Henrisalles
  - Response You say these things, and yet you do not produce any citations to back them up. Surely by now you have caught on to the fact that we (and anyone else who happens along) are going to expect some proof that these interactions took place, and that they resulted in some positive replies from the real physicists. At the present, however, all the evidence points to this being pure nonsense. Mangoe 14:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It should be clear from the nomination that I did both Google searches.--Tikiwont 14:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable due to lack of references. If nobody even thinks enough of a crank theory to write "this is a crank theory", it's not wikipedia-worthy. "People make fun of it" isn't a reason to take it seriously—the Galileo case is only interesting (and is a rare exception) because he had evidence to support himself. What's the old saw, "they laughed at Galileo and Newton, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." DMacks 14:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment A glim at the bookseller links shows that the article author is also the author of the book on this stuff. I've looked at the gravimotion.com website, and as someone with passing grades in introductory college physics, I can say that it is obviously complete twaddle. Mangoe 14:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously some are so entrenched in their own thinking, they can only laugh at whatever is not their thinking! At the image of these people, but maybe for a Lee Smolin or a Peter Woit, physics frozen in whatever it is cannot tolerate dissent! And when dissent has a point the only weapon left is laugh and contempt!Henrisalles
- Wikipedia is not a place for weapons or battles among ideas, it is a place to write about things—all ideas—that have acchieved at least some level of notability. This AfD is not about the idea of Gravimotion per se. We actually do have many articles about non-mainstream-science topics. The issue here isn't that the idea doesn't pass scientific muster, but that the article itself (regardless of how might-be-proven-right-someday you think the idea is) doesn't meet wikipedia standards. DMacks 14:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DMacks, thank you for your balanced arbitration and your politeness. Please give it a few days and let see what happens.Henrisalles
Delete per, well, all deletion arguments given above. Classic case of fractured ceramics. Anville 16:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per DMacks. Stammer 18:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no evidence that a single reliable source has even mentioned this theory, so the article completely fails WP:N, and arguably WP:NEO as well. EALacey 21:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR, if not speedy delete as patent nosense. At best it fails WP:N, WP:SCIENCE, WP:ATT, and (based on the mention of "my webiste" above) WP:COI. --EMS | Talk 21:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete bollocks. Someguy1221 22:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get it over with Nature and the science of physics fascinate me.
OK, gravimotion is deemed “unworthy of wikipedia”.

That is a lesson of humility. It occurred so fast!

And I am sorry but I have to write it, some are so full of themselves its pathetic!

On the other hand discipline is good! I agree with all of it: maintain high standards!

But please stop the beating!Henrisalles
I regret that thre best way to "stop this" is for you to type {{db|creator requests deletion}} at the top of the article, which will promptly result in its deletion and closing of this AfD. I know that some people really are entrenched, but as someone whose own choice has been to keep their original research out of the article space, I find it very hard to sympathize with you. --EMS | Talk 02:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I notice that on User:Henrisalles " I intend to open a new item in WIKIPEDIA labeled gravimotion, which will introduce my theory. I did that over a year ago (in 2005). But deleted the item after reading about Wikipedia's "No original research policy". I felt at the time I had to delete the item because there were no refrences to it. Now I have a website and a book, to which I can refer and which will be published this year by a reputable publishing company." DGG 03:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DGG I read your own user page and I appreciate your ethics. But why did you not take a position (Delete or delete weak, or whatever)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Henrisalles (talk • contribs) 12:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete OR Feydakin 11:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this bollocks. Excise this type of nonsense from Wikipedia as quickly as possible, please. --ScienceApologist 18:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis in Bible edit

Original research. Copyvio from the author's own book Atlantis the Final Solution. A previous version was speedily deleted. This one is mainly irrelevant to the title, being a retelling of Genesis. Fork of Atlantis anyway. -- RHaworth 11:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencessary and possibly POV fork of Atlantis, where the author's book is mentioned anyway. --Tikiwont 12:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the link to the author's book was added by a single-purpose IP address. -- RHaworth 13:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I was mostly implying that there is nothing to merge. Morover, the Atlantis references are full with ominous 'sources'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tikiwont (talk • contribs) 13:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete looks like the editor put some material from his book into a Wikipedia page. Definite OR and a little conflict of interest for flavor. Maybe someone isn't selling so well... Cyrus Andiron 12:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense Mangoe 13:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Gillyweed 13:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Close to the heart of original research. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely WP:OR and even a little promotional to boot. I guess you could say that makes it a little soapbox-y. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Boricuaeddie^{Talk • Contribs • Spread the love!} 23:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 07:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mumbo jumbo WP:OR. IZAK 07:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonsense (scientific evidence of the Flood etc). Alan Liefting 08:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure nonsense, the article refers to "scholars" and "scriptures" without providing references to any of them. More or less it appears to be a "cut & paste" of whatever scriptures are used as basis for the article with some personal interpretations added in. Almost sounds like "bible bashing". Sweboi 11:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While not patent nonsense, agree that article in its current state represents original research and an essay, not an encyclopedic article. --Shirahadasha 04:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. --Wafulz 22:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Palmer edit

No sources provided. Suspected hoax. Search for "Sabrina Palmer" deaf returns zero hits. Search for "Sabrina Palmer" blind returns 6, all unrelated. --Onorem Dil 12:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. No ghits. The editor has recently been blocked for vandalism. andy 12:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unverified and no assertion of notability other than being 'famous' and the unsourced claim about Welsh teaching. -- Mithent 13:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say this could even class as a speedy deletion quite honestly. Mentality 17:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. the author has now managed to get themselves permanently blocked. I really don't think we need to agonise about this article. I'm going to mark it for speedy deletion. andy 21:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, without prejudice towards recreation (delete comments focus on the current state of the article and the motivations of its author). If Rustavo is still interested in creating an NPOV stub from scratch, he may. The following are the references from the article.

Mango juice^talk 16:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Holland edit

Blatant (self?)-promotion. Totally unencyclopedic in tone and that's unlikely to change as the article is unlikely to be of interest to any editor save its owner. Somehow this serviced an earlier deletion attempt. Let's do it properly this time.--Doc^g 22:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless properly sourced by the end of AFD. The awards accord minimal notability but without third-party independent assessments a balanced and non-promotional article is impossible. --Dhartung | Talk 20:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reluctant Delete. Bless his heart, I am certain he is a great guy - well loved by everyone who knows him from school and "work". But I just cannot find anything notable that would be of interest to anyone outside of himself, his family and friends, his "community of believers and well-wishers", and perhaps a possible future employer. Reads like a combination resumé and a personal website, and smells like self-promotion. I do not see this article as passing WP:BIO or WP:VANITY. Maybe some day he will be some big stuff - with lots of notability with sourced references and national recognition and such. Just not yet. Sorry Joel. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but.. This is a close call, since the Business Week article does give him some claim to notability. However, the article as written is blatant self promotion and a violation of the conflict of interest rules. IMHO, it would be acceptable for an unrelated user to entirely replace the current content with an NPOV stub containing info from the BW piece. I am willing to do this. It should also be made clear to this individual/user that he is not to continue editing articles about himself or his company. Note that the previous AfD discussion cited several other significant publications which discuss this individual. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 00:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious violation of WP:AUTO. If the subject was anything more than marginally notable, I'd opt for a weak keep. Caknuck 00:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotion, clearly against WP:AUTO and WP:COI. I hate to stomp on a young man's ego, but this isn't the place to post his resume. KrakatoaKatie 11:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 17:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Bird edit

AFAIK, reality show contestants are supposed to have an article only if they are known for something else, which this one does not appear to, according to the article. Tizio 12:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian icon. And listed as one of Tasmania's Top 200 "movers and shakers".[21] Definitely keep.

*Comment At number 167.Ga rr ie 08:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just above Richo. StAnselm 08:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She was not only a contestant but a winner who has had ongoing media coverage from reliable sources. [22]. Capitalistroadster 02:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that is all about Big Brother, and happens to mention Bird - even the fire would have been a non-event if a winner of Big Brother wasn't on the scene.Ga rr ie 08:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn reality contestant. Will change my mind if someone shows non-trivial coverage - ie, not coverage about Big Brother, Dancing on Thin Ice, or Virgin Blue but coverage about Regina Bird.Ga rr ie 08:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia's primary notability criterion - multiple non-trivial references in reliable sources - is easily satisfied here and overrides subjective opinion of the notability or triviality of reality TV show winners. --Canley 10:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added and fixed up the references. I have never watched an episode of Big Brother, but the show itself, and its winners are a big deal in Australia, and do satisfy notability criteria. Recurring dreams 11:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't believe I'm saying this, but unfortunately with better sources she would be notable. Tag for cleanup. PS. I can't find a policy on reality television. Assize 13:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Canley. I elliot 15:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage in the Women's Day four years after winning the show would seem to meet Garrie's requirement for coverage on her rather than the television.--Golden Wattle ^talk 06:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, winner of BB with continuing media coverage per Golden Wattle. John Vandenberg 03:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, most of the references I can find refer to her stint on Big Brother. Call me crazy, but I don't think that appearing on, or even winning, a TV game show is sufficient to make someone notable. Lankiveil 03:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (and redirect to Roman London), no reliable sources to verify information or notability. Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia; whether or not the game has a "huge following" does not trump this. Krimpet (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Londinivm edit

Delete - No verifiable assertions of notability. No reliable thrid-party sources, fails WP:WEB as far as I can tell. The latest in a long-line of browser-game articles that either fails to assert, or fails to provide sources in support of notability. Procedural AfD since Admin removed prod stating it has already survived one, although 'survived' seems a strong word considering anyone can simply remove the prod to cancel it. DarkSaber2k 12:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. DarkSaber2k 12:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yup, no reliable sources given and none likely to be forthcoming given the lack of relevant Google hits. [23]. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-08 12:29Z
Delete per Resurgent insurgent, and create a redirect (alternative spelling) to Roman London aka Londinium. --Tikiwont 12:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - found the following reference: [24] (gamesindustry.biz). Less convincing reviews are at [25], [26], [27] These are pretty much just games listings sites with user reviews. I think the gamesindustry.biz article is strong, but another good reference would be required to satisfy WP:NOTE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marasmusine (talk • contribs) 14:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and redirect per Tikiwont. Carlossuarez46 19:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to London as London's ancient Roman name. 132.205.44.134 00:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete - Plenty of references and reviews available to add to the article. Also, to the user wanting to redirect to London.. Londinium was the ancient name, not Londinivm. 85.211.88.254
The game is listed as a free browser game in the Wikipedia, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_browser_games —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfor (talk • contribs) 18:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Don't delete - Londinivm has a huge following (over 20K). Dlmarti 19:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete - Notability is not a useful metric where few (if any) independent, reliable secondary sources on the subject exist. Londinivm is a thriving, worldwide community with tens of thousands of members, and an excellent example of a free browser-based MMORPG. This success is more than enough reason to maintain an article, especially when doing so has no ill effect on Wikipedia as a whole. Antangil 19:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete - It is a useful article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.242.143.246 (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Don't Delete - Website has huge following

Don't delete - Notability is merely a guideline used on Wikipedia. Yes, it is generally accepted, but it is still superceded by the cardinal rules of using common sense. With a fanbase of currently 20,418 active users, the fact that there are few independent, reliable secondary sources (perfect wording, Antagil, thanks) on the subject shouldn't be cause in itself for deletion. Gawayne 01:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete - Londinivm is an interesting, fun, albeit limited game. There is no reason for deletion. Wikipedia needs to end this deletion frenzy. This is an encyclopedia by the people and should reflect whatever they want to add to it. This is becoming another example of a site that grows too big and loses care for every little part. An exception must be made when there is little information to back it up. Conciseness must be valued.--Metallurgist 01:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by The Rambling Man. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Brockman edit

A non-notable sex offender. Criminals aren't encyclopedic unless they do something particularly out of the ordinary, and sexually assaulting some kids isn't. Also, a somewhat suspicious edit [28] makes me think this is an attack page on a high school principal; the sources aren't easy to verify. R. fiend 12:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly an attack. The subject of the article runs the South Carolina Governor's School for Science and Mathematics. The creator of the article added a link from that school's article. I've marked it for speedy deletion. andy 15:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, following WP:MUSIC. Teke 04:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music is Live Andy Hui X Denise Ho Music is Live (Live Album) edit

Not translated to english, marked since Jan 2007 99DBSIMLR 12:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not in English and no assertion of notability for this particular album anyway. -- Mithent 13:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Maybe speedy delete as it looks like a {{db-nonsense}} job. Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 16:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC: "the general consensus on notability of albums is that if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia". Also the opening paragraph is in English; the part that is not in English consists of the song titles. cab 00:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. cab 00:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per cab above. Luke! 06:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - need more work; there are many free programs to translate Chinese or Korean to English like Altavista Babel or similar ones on Google. Live is live, no one can possibly cheat that i music. If lyrics are OK - no politics or personal excursions, just poetry with some kick (something new or relatively new - may be coming with territory - i.e. - We're like Viet Cong now, travel on ground, and live off land), I'll vote for 'keep". greg park avenue 19:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I tried to translate the song titles, but I have no idea if they are even close. If you speak Chinese, clean it up! 99DBSIMLR 12:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I've cleaned up the translations. Although I did enjoy some of your original translations. :-) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, failure to assert notability. Teke 04:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Leonard Larson edit

Non-notable aikido teacher. The bio is not that unusual. He's the instructor at a non-notable clubPeter Rehse 12:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Generally the situation with aikido teachers ranks above 7th Dan in the Aikikai are considered notable in itself. Those listed with 6th Dan have something else adding to their notability and that would have to be exceptional for 5th Dans. There are an awful lot of 5th Dans around.Peter Rehse 08:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page was created in error with Sensei Larson's middle name. Any of Sensei Larson's published works do not include his middle name. Therefore a second page was created using his first and last name, which you had deleted. In this case it would be more pertinent for you to have removed the page including his middle name in the title and then you could have done some research using just his first and last name and Aikido. You would have found much of value. This page was linked to Morihiro Saito Sensei's page because Larson Sensei had trained with Saito Sensei for an extended period as well as traveled the world with Saito Sensei.

Please delete the page titled Mark Leonard Larson so that I may create a new page with just Sensei Larson’s First and Last name. And you are correct, there a lot of fifth dan’s around, but there is only one Mark Larson Sensei and any research done would further substantiate the cause for this article.

Respectfully MNAikidoka 17:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- If it needs to be moved, we can move it. The question is, if he's only 5th Dan, what makes him sufficiently notable for an article? Georgewilliamherbert 23:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are several Mark Larsons that come up with google - use of the middle name is better for Wikipdia and with the correct use of redirects the search will work just fine. Please leave the Mark Larson page as a redirect instead of a duplicate article at least until this AFD debate is completed.Peter Rehse 06:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A search for "Mark Larson" Aikido on google gives 307 hits which is not that many. The same exercise using my name by way of example falls just short of 12,000. Spending 10 years studying under an Aikido master in Japan is also not that unique.Peter Rehse 08:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed that this is a non-notable. Feydakin 11:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The whole article reads like an exercise in name dropping. Apparently his notability derives from who he has known and travelled with, while doing Aikido shows. Basically a member of a travelling circus? --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as original research essay.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Rights in Religion edit

Reads like a school essay; very clearly original research. -- Merope 13:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as patent OR. Mangoe 13:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if and only if it can be properly sourced. It's a valid topic that I would like to see in Wikipedia. --Kimon^talk 17:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is original research and can never be anything else but. Yes, a nice essay could be written here. But no chance of it being encyclopaedic. Besides which we already have Gender and religion Religious feminism Religious aspects of marriage God and gender -and 100 article on women in every particular religion. -Doc^g 21:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with maybe a redirect to Religious feminism. I hope the editor that created this article will apply some of the information (properly sourced) to the articles Doc linked to. — Scientizzle 03:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this violation of WP:OR and WP:CITE. (For Judaism there already is a long article Role of women in Judaism and more in Category:Judaism and women.) IZAK 08:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - it looks like a school paper to me. --Bachrach44 19:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that in its current form, this article is essentially an essay and hence represents WP:OR. Would encourage the author to help improve the Gender and religion and Religious feminism articles. --Shirahadasha 04:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear POV fork--Sefringle 05:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, although it should be merged with Religious feminism. It contains some information not included in article Religious feminism. This article has been created a few days ago. Can we give the author some time to improve it or merge?Biophys 23:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but encourage author to expand existing articles such as religious feminism (though should take heed of WP:NOR). nadav 00:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR per Mangoe Feydakin 11:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (all). Mango juice^talk 16:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Coletta (Australian Journalist) edit

Non-notable substitute Australian news reporter - article is unreferenced. Also nominated are similar articles of other substitute news readers

Delete this and similar articles. The notability criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people) for the category that includes journalists is:
- ... regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
- ...known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
- ...who have created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
- ...who's work either (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument (b) has won significant critical attention, or (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance.

While this is only a guideline - none of these journalists - nor many others that have wikipedia articles and would fall into the same category would meet any of these guidelines. There are no references for these articles and there is no assertion that they have made contributions to their profession in any sense as per the guidelines above. "A long history in the media" does not equal notable.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Golden Wattle ^talk 22:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep All three journalists are reasonably notable, having taken hosting duties for a significant continous period on a prime time broadcast. Referencing these should be easy to bring them into line with BLP and make them a reasonable article. Thewinchester ^(talk) 23:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are no references for any of them and there is no assertion of notability - being a substitute news reader is not a notable profession.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:If they are notable, then yes, referencing should be easy. Despite this, none have been forthcoming and the main contributor to these articles blanks their talk page (including warning messages) rather than archiving which makes following discussions with them rather difficult.Ga rr ie 01:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All have a relatively long history in the media, with several roles at different networks. And references can be found. Recurring dreams 23:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If references can be found, please do but for now - and for quite some time now - the only references which have been provided have been trivial coverage, or primary sources. Primary sources cannot be used to assert notability.Ga rr ie 01:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no criteria at WP:N which states a history in broadcasting or entertainment. No non-trivial secondary sources for this article have been supplied or have been found. WP:BIO has not been met because this person is a relieving presenter, that is not a significant role in television. Garrie 01:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The correct criteria in this case is actually WP:BIO Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And in my opinion, these presenters pass neither WP:N nor WP:BIO. Some people pass one or the other. These people pass neither.Ga rr ie 08:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reading from a teleprompter in front of a camera does not make you notable, and no other evidence has been presented of notability.--Grahamec 03:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, for those commenting who've not used Google to check what they're on about - here it is. Firstly, Coletta stood in the 2006 Hornsby City Council By-election [29] on a number of local issues, is a supporter of Cystic Fibrosis NSW on account of having a child suffering CF. He is also a member of the board of Australian Health Management since 2001. In his over 20yrs experience in the media industry across print, radio and television, with organisations including Sky News Australia, the Australian Radio Network and Fairfax newspapers. He’s also worked extensively as a freelance journalist with SBS radio, the National Soccer League and Australian Associated Press. He is also a fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors and is a NSW Justice of the Peace (Listed under Francesco Anthony Coletta). He also caused a minor uproar when during the Cronulla Riots, he read out in full, the text message that is supposedly doing the rounds at the moment, imploring the ‘lions of Lebanon’ to meet at a particular place, at a particular time, with the intent of committing violent crime. [30]. I think that covers it. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response - the articles cite no sources, whether or not sources can be googled is not the point. Notability is not adequately asserted and therefore it is not a matter of requesting sources to support claims of notability; not one of the people are notable. The facts you give about Coletta immediately above may be sourced but not one of them makes him notable. History in the media is not a claim to notability - is he "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by [his] peers" - no! We do not have articles on justices of the peace - they are not notable, nor are people who support charities - many of us do. Company directors are not intrinsicaly notable, nor are people who stand for local councils - successfully elected mayors perhaps but just standing ... The Cronulla Riots incident might have pushed it over the edge but all he did was read somebody else's words - he is not mentioned in the article on the riots so I don't think that pushes him over the notability threshhold. In fact perhaps one test for notability is where the article links - at present the only link within article space is to Ten News; Jacinta Hocling and Richard Davies only link to a list of television presenters. I also suggest, if you have some additions to make on a person, you imnprove the article, not merely place them in the debate - an improved article provides different considerations. I personally don't think the additions you could make from the above would push it over the line, but perhaps it might look different if edited ....--Golden Wattle ^talk 11:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article has no secondary sources so therefore not notable.Assize 07:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources are cited indicating notability. I can't find sources for Coletta, Jacinta Hocking is best known for wearing a low cut blouse [31] and I cannot find anything for Davies. Capitalistroadster 03:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only notable journalists actually merit an article - I'm not seeing evidence of notability here (quite independent of the WP:RS argument) Orderinchaos 03:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three unless notability using secondary sources can be established. Of the 3, I think Coletta comes the closest, and I still think his notability falls well below the line of notability. I did a check on the Fairfax News Store and found very little --Takver 05:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Coletta - Secondary reference from Fairfax media: WOOPS! We overpaid ourselves $262,000 Illawarra Mercury 24/03/2007 "DIRECTORS of Wollongong-based Australian Health Management have overpaid themselves $262,000 and must ask members to let them keep it......"

Jacinta Hocking - Secondary reference from Fairfax media: 2 one star references from the Sun Herald, likely to be incidental.

Search on 'Richard Davies AND Ten' found 1 one star reference, likely to be incidental.

Keep - I don't know much about Australia, but on Park Avenue anybody's innocent until proven guilty in the court of law, until now at least. Why you don't believe this Aussie? They even ain't got proper telephone lines due to activity of flying foxes, forget broadband and high speed internet. All right, imagine that Frankie is one of us from Hoboken, NJ, who sang "I did it my way". And he is not guilty of anything except of being himself. So what's the charge for AfD? greg park avenue 21:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is any of that meant to mean?Garrie 23:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apparently being helpful!?! or so I was informed when I asked the same question. I assume the user thinks all and sundry should have wikipedia articles and one is notable until proven not to be rahter than the other way around. --Golden Wattle ^talk 02:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was meant to mean that Frank Coletta maybe not that well documented as Frank Sinatra, but it comes with a territory - one village distant from another of about 500 miles and connected by railroad and telegraph, schooling by radio, medvac only by a plane, no broadband, TV and internet only by satelite - what do you expect - an avalanche of cyber space data on Australia? Someone who's AfDing an article supposed to proof that an article is not notable, not the other way around. I only once succeeded with that, proofing a tendency of an article about a list of hip hop albums which omitted Shakira. greg park avenue 14:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - We are talking about Australia and not the Democratic Republic of Congo here? I live in a city of 1.6 million with an asphalt street in front of my house, two primary schools in my suburb, two hospitals within 8 miles of me, DSL broadband and a choice of 5 TV stations (more if I had Foxtel...) :D Orderinchaos 15:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete judging from search engine results and an overview of the article details I agree with the nom Feydakin 11:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, provided a source of some sort can be found to verify that he's co-anchored the 5pm news in Sydney on a regular basis. That would be notable enough for me. Lankiveil 03:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Frank Coletta (Australian Journalist) and Frank Coletta (linkies added to both); Redirect Jacinta Hocking to Seven News. Within Category:Broadcast news analysts can be found sufficient practical evidence that news anchors are considered notable for being on millions of TVs every week. However for Jacinta Hocking there is little reliable information available, so a redirect is sufficient until more info comes to hand. John Vandenberg 06:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Of the three references now on the article, only the second one - Channel Ten likes to make the news, not report it by the Chaser - I reckon is non-trivial. The others show he is a company director and plays amateur sport, which provides background but does not contribute substantially to his notability. Maybe another non-trivial secondary reference and I might be persuaded. --Takver 08:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Article may be need to be cleaned up, but it satisfies notability requirements.Madchester 06:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of long-living organisms edit

This article is very inproper.having an article on long living organisms first of all should be longest living, because that should be what it is describing as it is useless to simply list organisms that have had a relativly long life time.And even if it was the oldest living organisms, that is a very contraversial topic that can not be covered by a list because there is so much contraversy as to what is the oldest arganism.If necessary, I propose atleast having an article like the one on largest organism, an article which does not list the ones generally considered the largest but talks about the indecidedness about the topic and has examples of possible candidates, and does not specualte at which is "the largest". Rodrigue 21:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator seems to be requesting cleanup, anyway, and not deletion. If there is a problem with the format or the wording of the article that is very easily fixed. Anyway there are sufficient sources here and the article is sufficiently encyclopedic. It could do with a rename, perhaps, and some cleanup as advocated by the nominator but there are no policy-based arguments to delete this article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think you understood.What I am saying is the information on the article is entirely useless, because there can't be a list of oldest organisms if there is dispute about it.I was saying the list should be deleted, and that a very different article could be written about the topic, and there is no one "oldest organism". Rodrigue 16:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the author defines "long-living". JuJube 16:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep and cleanup. List needs more information, but it is encyclopedic. merge if there is a list of longest-living organisms —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rebent (talk • contribs) 17:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as a good almanac type list. Having an article doesn't mean there can't be a list or the other way around. "Long living" is self evident, and should not require deletion. The rules for entry can be tightened or better defined, without deleting the list. I think "longest living" would be the best title. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richard Arthur Norton. Carlossuarez46 19:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Rodrigue is attempting to prove a point because one of his articles is up for deletion. DCEdwards1966 19:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my article is being deleted so I want to delete an unrelated article just for fun.I don't appreciate your allegations towards me, especially when I have a reasonable argument anyways.At the very least the article should be moved to Oldest organism and get rid of the redirect, because then it would be more like the article on Largest organism.The reason that article is not a list is because there is no universally agreed upon "largest organism", and the same goes for this article.

And what is with the tittle being long-living organisms and not oldest living.There can be an endless list of organisms that have lived very "long" depending on your definition of the term, but it should be about the organisms ones that outlived mthe other ones.Can the tittle atleast be changed to the right term first of all. Rodrigue 21:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my article is being deleted so I want to delete an unrelated article just for fun. Nuff said. Speedy close, please. JuJube 21:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was being sarcastic man,I was merely responding to what another person said about what my intensions for this deletion was.

And for the record, that article he was referring to was being deleted because it was a list of most valuable comic books, and I'm deleting this article for the same reason because a list doesn't qualify for this subject, so by that logic I would want my own article deleted as well, which is rediculous.This is useless, this is a discussion of whether or not to delete a page and if someone wants to make allegations that is what talk pages are for. Rodrigue 22:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Improving the article would be nice.--sin-man 09:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MoveWell the article may not have to be deleted, but it should be more like the largest organism article, in addition to moving this article to the proper tittle.The other list is more of an article but it has a list of largest organisms in addition to a good lead-in that describes the complexity of measuring such a thing. Rodrigue 13:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's sourced, harmless and a good read for kids. Stammer 17:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment its sourced, harmless and a good read for kids, what kind of argument is that?Rodrigue 20:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically a jocular rephrase of Richard Arthur Norton's "good almanac type list". Stammer 06:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perhaps if this list was made more like a list for a biology article it could be considered encyclopedic Feydakin 10:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting list. Axl 21:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 23:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please the list is interesting but maybe can be renamed like richard suggest yuckfoo 00:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 01:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was reslisting at RfD. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prajwal kulkarni edit

No content - created in error Drdan14 23:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and relist at RfD where it belongs. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - does anyone know if Prajwal kulkarni is something likely to be typed into the search box and searched for by someone who is interested in the topic? If so, then Keep. Otherwise, if it was created truly in error, and can serve no useful purpose in the Wiki-Universe, then Speedy Delete or Speedy Close this AfD and send it on to RfD. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard J. Cairns edit

Non-notable head master of a minor public school. --Counter-revolutionary 22:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like speedy-bait to me, but I guess it can't hurt to let it run. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per {{db-bio}} Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 15:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per my nom. --Counter-revolutionary 15:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, being just a headmaster doesn't make him notable. Jacek Kendysz 15:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No assertion of notability whatsoever.--Hús ö nd 15:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per all of the above. Why is this still here? RFerreira 08:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape holiday items edit

deleteThis article is not necessary. It is of too small a scale to merit inclusion as an article. Holiday events have not received much media attention. If it is decided that the content is worthy of inclusion, then the content of this article should be mergd with Runescape. Allhailthepowerofbauerforjackisback 12:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, delete. Pure fancruft, and really adds no value to the articles on RuneScape. Also badly worded and confusing, even somewhat inaccurate. Pyro spirit ^Shiny! 13:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure fancruft, and unnecessary information. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Already deleted by AfD once here, and the new content, while not the same as the deleted version, is actually even worse. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superior Art Creations edit

This group is not relevant in the demo scene or any other context that would justify the existence of this page on wikipedia. I see violation of WP:BIO and possibly WP:COI since this page was most likely created by members of that group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qdr (talk • contribs) 2007/05/08 04:25:08

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COI and WP:CORP. The article fails the Primary Criterion of WP:CORP that there are no independent, reliable, non-trivial and non-autobiography secondary sources to pass the notability criteria. — Indon (reply) — 18:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject is notable within its field and has had repeated non-trivial coverage by the French media. SAC is one the oldest and most predominant art-warez groups alive, and commonly seen if you've ever downloaded anything using bittorrent. From what I've heard, not that I would know of course. ;-) RFerreira 19:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WTF KEEP - SAC is one of the most important artgroups in the demoscene - just check any of the SACpacks. // Gargaj 19:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RFerreira. --Myles Long 19:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable within its field. Allegations assuming anti-WP:AGF are wholly inappropriate without any evidence whatsoever in an AfD. Xihr 20:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep claim of WP:COI is completely invalid... article was created by User:R.123 who is not and has never been associated with SAC... it was cleaned up by a member of SAC (User:Cumbrowski) which is entirely acceptable per policy. Group is highly well known, with major media coverage, and massive distribtion. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please notable in its niche with coverage by magazines and books too yuckfoo 00:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Redirects should be nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. WjBscribe 06:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White Ninja edit

I don't think this redirect should go to a NN wrestler. If it's not going to the webcomic, then it should just go nowhere.

-Rebent 02:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close this is more appropriate for the redirects for discussion page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrozenPurpleCube (talk • contribs) 13:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep should be on RfD Hut 8.5 14:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was g11 -- Y not? 03:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yesh Din edit

Appears to be self-promotion/non-encyclopedic peterl 11:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as blatant promotion. It is written in the first person, includes a mission statement, and lists headings that suggest a format that is more suited for the group's private website than an encyclopedia article. Pan Dan 20:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James David Honsaker edit

Contested prod; {{prod}} (and {{stub}}) tag removed by anonymous IP with no explanation. Not quite speediable due to the "award winning", but no indication of what these awards are, nothing to indicate what sort of composing he does and no information at all about the man himself. Needless to say, 0 Ghits on James David Honsaker and 1 ghit on Jim Honsaker, that 1 ghit being his Friendster page - which I'm not totally convinced is a reliable source — iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He's 21, the only source is an inaccessible page on the Sibelius website. Mangoe 13:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, no sources cited which can count as reliable. I got to the webpage cited, and it further weakens the claim of notability by saying the awards were "regional". Hut 8.5 14:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a modern composer known for lighting effects. That's all well and good, but where are the sources that verify this? Until they are produced, notability cannot be asserted. --Cyrus Andiron 15:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's no indication of sourcing the pivotal claim of refereeing at the olympics, so I consider this basically unanimous.Chaser - T 20:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bester Kalombo edit

Prodded by User:Indrian with reasoning "Importance of subject not established". This might not be the case, so I'm bringing it to AFD instead. Punkmorten 12:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if and only if, it can be sourced that he refereed at the Olympic Games. - fchd 08:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per fchd user:KRBN 12:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - a few group matches in an Olympic Games isn't really that notable. Doesn't satisfy multiple non-trivial works crtierion for notability in WP:N as far as I can see. Qwghlm 09:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking briefly at the article List of football referees, and then having a glance through a number of the referees listed, many of them seem to have articles about them for refereeing at matches in the World Cup, rather than for an Olympic Games. I'm not really sure whether this should be deleted or kept. Looking at the article it seems that because he was a referee at one Olympic Games he has an article. Is that reason enough to be notable? If so then fine. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 12:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:N or WP:BIO and I see no particular case for notability.--Kubigula (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO - the Olympic football tournament is a minor event, both in terms of the Games and football. Couldn't find any non-trivial coverage of him (he also ran for the Malawi FA presidency and was the Director of Sports in the Malawi Ministry of Sports). --Ytny (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 17:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Searwar edit

Prodded by User:Jim62sch with reasoning "notability -- the guy is DEAD an no one seems to have noticed". Seems borderline, so I'm bringing it to AFD instead. Punkmorten 13:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a stub. Sounds like someone who is likely to be notable, at least in Guyana, but the article would be better with more details and sources. --Russ (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and find a Wikiproject that this would fit under. Yet another likely notable person from a developing country that doesn't have a strong online presence. I wouldn't expect most notable Guyanese to have much online presence. --Charlene 13:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. Once someone is notable, they remain so, even after their death. --Eastmain 00:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Briggs edit

Autobiography. References are subject's affiliations' websites and anyway do not verify the article content. De-prodded with comment edited due to faulty assumption by pam...I've checked with sources, etc...pam has not...just her opinion...but don't mess up wikipedia over opinion. (For the record, I am a he.) Pan Dan 13:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again...you have to watch this Pan Dan...he likes to tag pages he does not like...emotions and opinions do not belong here. I too checked the links and they reach far beyond suject's affiliations....shame on you Pan Dan...you need to stop your nonsense and deleting pages without proper wikipedia process...this pages was discussed and reviewed long before you...get with the program...

Florenda 15:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent sources. If this isn't proper Wikipedia process, what is? Phony Saint 16:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent, reliable and verifiable sources. The process is being followed by bringing the pages up for discussion. Attacking the nominator personally is what's not following the process. DarkAudit 16:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lots of sources, but they aren't reliable --Haemo 01:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As nom said, the sources do not verify the article content (aside from establishing the existence of the guy and of some of the organizations mentioned). When all of the extraneous tinsel is removed, what's left is not enough to satisfy WP:BIO, I think. Deor 01:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete in case there are no sources. At face value, the work done seems to have reached beyond the ordinary expectations for a clergyman. And if so, there should be independent sources; I am not reassured that the claims for number of affiliates and missions does not seem to be well supported by the actual ones listed in his group's own web site. As for any person or organization where there certainly ought to be many good sources, and there do not seem to be, we need to be particularly careful. DGG 03:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Punkmorten 08:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Perez edit

Delete. Biography of high school student with no assertion of notability. Was tagged twice for speedy delete, but tags were removed by an anon IP who is almost certainly the original author. Russ (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have nothing against a bio of a high schooler as long as its verifiable with at least one published work.Callelinea 15:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. This is 'just some kid', really. DarkAudit 16:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second the Speedy delete motion. Allon Fambrizzi 00:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[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. Not really any sourced content to justify a merge. MastCell ^Talk 15:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burger dot edit

Unverifiable, source that is linked to has no mention of it[32]. Lack of support from search engines[33] suggests it is therefore not notable. Was prodded, but template was removed by author at 5 day mark. Sounds like a bullet point to me. |→ Spaully^₪† 13:44, 8 May 2007 (GMT)

For reference the author has linked to a number of sources on the talk page, however they are all blogs or forums so I suggest do not adhere to WP:RS. |→ Spaully^₪† 14:10, 8 May 2007 (GMT)

Delete; if this is notable, any information on the subject probably belongs at bullet (typography). Not quite the same as Benday dots, and beware of dangerous Kirby dots. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with bullet (typography). Damn, I thought they'd figured out how to miniaturize burgers into bite-size snacks. Phony Saint
Delete. There is nothing here that is sourced and therefore nothing that ought to be merged. Speculative at best, hoaxy at worst. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bullet (typography). This type of information should be consolidated into one article. --Ybbor ^Talk 02:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Personally I don't see any reliable sources even to merit a mention on the bullet page. |→ Spaully^₪† 09:49, 14 May 2007 (GMT)

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 06:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live Rostrum edit

Advertising text (see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox), written in the first person plural. Notability is not established, the (few) facts are unsourced. High on a tree 14:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertising. At least part of the page is a copyvio from the organisation's website [34] (though I'm not sure if the rest is) and fails notability tests as well. Hut 8.5 14:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisement per WP:SPAM and it fails the notability criteria of WP:CORP. — Indon (reply) — 07:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Nebula edit

The article is about a non-notable dust cloud in a nebula. Even if the dust cloud is notable, it is difficult to identify what it is. This object's name is a neologism that was made up at this internet discussion board. The SIMBAD Astronomical Database and ADS Abstract Service produce no results for a search on "Philippine Nebula". The page has no useful references or information. Even turning it into a redirect for NGC 2264 would be a bad idea, as the name is not in widespread use. This should be deleted outright. Dr. Submillimeter 14:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neologism, non-notable and not an official name. If you remove references to Wikipedia and Enrico Africa (who seems to be the "discoverer") then there are no meaningful ghits. andy 15:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Going to have to concur with the above, there are no references given with the exception of links to forums/blogs which are clearly not reliable sources. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable nebula, and unreliable sources. --TV-VCR watch 06:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There has clearly never yet been a need for a name for this thing, and we shouldn't try to cast around for one. Chrislintott 12:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Okay, I'm from the Philippines, and this vote might be deemed "anti-patriotic" if you want to put it that way, but I can't remember having heard of this so-called "Philippine nebula". If this was an official name for a nebula, this is something that every student in the Philippines should have been aware of. So, I'll have to agree, it isn't something that I might consider serious and official. --- Tito Pao 06:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The International Astronomical Union names these things and it obviously hasn't rung their bell. andy 06:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mental Health Software Development Companies edit

A combination of original research and a list of external links. De-prodded with comment wrongful tag..pan dan has a hx of deleting contributions without following proper wikipedia process...shame.... Pan Dan 14:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Linkfarm, possibly crystal ball given that the companies are predicted to succeed. FrozenPurpleCube 15:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to watch this Pan Dan...he has a hx of tagging things he does not like...emotions and opinions do not belong here...wikipedia wants worthy contributions that are in the public's interests...shame on you...

Florenda 15:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that attacking the nominator doesn't actually make for a good case. If there is any validity to this article, it's best to explain that first. While there are certainly times when a nomination is bad faith, I don't believe this is one, and I'd say that this user has been responsible in regards to this nomination. Therefore, if you do believe the nomination was mistaken, I suggest you try to convince the rest of us, not by attacking Pan Dan, but by telling us why it should be kept. FrozenPurpleCube 15:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research, and no independent reliable and verifiable sources. This reads more like a promotional tool for the links listed. DarkAudit 15:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Deor 01:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though i would not call it OR--there is no OR necessary to accumulate an indiscriminate directory--but this article seems the very essence of linkspam, and the sort of list that definitely is not encyclopedic. DGG 03:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mystic Realms edit

No assertion of notability, and no reliable or verifiable sources beyond it's own web page. DarkAudit 14:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced and, in all likelihood, unsourcable. Source it or lose it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately. A search on Google turns up nothing sourcable for Mystic Realms. Regardless, I believe the following article should be added to the AfD:

Realm of the Five, based on the fact it's a offshoot of the Mystic Realms article. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 20:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Concur with addition which is just as not-notable and unsourced. Maybe more so. DarkAudit 21:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of WCMA, World christian ministries association edit

Spammy, but perhaps less spammy than a previous version that was speedily deleted. A quick Google search suggests that there are no reliable in-depth sources about this institution, so it is not notable. Pan Dan 14:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction...this is not spammy...I too checked the sources and they meet or exceed all other similar wikipedia contributions...Pan Dan has a hx of tagging things he doesn't like...mere opinion...not looking out for wikipedia's need for valuable contributions that the public seeks.

Florenda 15:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability asserted with reliable, verifiable, and independent sources. Merely attacking the nominator does not help one's case for inclusion. DarkAudit 15:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Adding World christian ministries association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to the discussion. Appears to be affiliated with the University of WCMA (or vice versa), and same concerns re: spam and notability. Pan Dan 15:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bringing in anything other than fact only adds to my point...unfounded opinon(s). Sure nobody likes it when you challenge their hasty choices and actions...but wikipedia wants and needs worthy contributions...not advertising or spam as you feel...a comparative contrast of all similar contributions are formatted, styled, sourced and worded almost exactly the same way. I've checked...why don't you tag all the others that are the same as this one? Hmmmm...I thought so. And by the way DarkAudit, Pan Dan deleted the reliable, verifiable and independent sources and now they have to be researched again and added again. Hmmm...some good wikipedia process.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.252.58.209 (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Please note the difference between an article that should be deleted and an article that shouldn't. The key is: reliable sources that (1) discuss the subject of the article in depth, (2) are independent of the subject of the article, and (3) actually verify the content of the article. By the way I didn't delete any sources from the articles. I assume you are referring to the fact that the articles have been previously tagged by me and deleted by an administrator. Articles that are blatantly promotional may be deleted at any time per Wikipedia's guidelines on speedy deletion. This is because Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, not an advertising service. Pan Dan 16:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this even an actual accredited university? The article as written doesn't sound like it is, and "University of WCMA" gets just one Google hit... from Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with the above, I find no evidence that any such institution exists. THe article itself is utter rubbish. Mangoe 20:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per WP:N. "Utter rubbish" is the mot juste here. The approach to sourcing in all these Daniel Briggs–related articles is very amusing, but unconvincing to say the least. Recreation after speedies suggest that these people are not going to give up. Deor 01:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I share Andrew's concern whether there is a university there is a university at all. Their web page is the first one for a university that I have ever seen that mentions no faculty--just "associates" and I notice from their "catalog": *University of World Christian Ministries Association if Authorized to Operate by Florida Department of Education’s State Board of Education" Read it slowly. DGG 03:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; disregarding the accusations of bad-faith towards the nom, which do not actually pertain to whether the article should be kept or not, the arguments for delete outweigh those for keep. Krimpet (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of micronations edit

This should really have been bundled with the "coats of arms" article; however, as I've only just discovered this article it's too late to add it. My rationale for deletion is the same as my extended rationale provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coats of arms of micronations; please read that debate before commenting here. kingboyk 15:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related announcement: Skeleton page for guidelines/policy in this area: Wikipedia:Micronations. --kingboyk 17:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm just spitballing here, but isn't it redundant to have the flag and coat of arms on separate pages, when they are listed in each micronation's main article? Is there any reason for having them on here twice? They're micronations after all, they aren't even recognized. Hell, I can start my own if I want. --Cyrus Andiron 15:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fake flags from fake countries. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per {{db-nonsense}} Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 16:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That most micronations themselves deserve a Wikipedia article is debatable enough - that we need a gallery of their flags seems baffling. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
week keep based on no consensus at related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coats of arms of micronations —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rebent (talk • contribs).
Delete. The article is even more specialized and on an even more tenuous topic than say, Toilets in Japan. Though we do have pages for thumbs of flags/coats of arms for real countries, these aren't "real" in the same way. I DO agree with having the List of micronations, though, since it is a legitimate and encyclopedic topic. This however is not. —Scouter Sig 19:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have grave doubts about even the existence of master articles for these "micronations", and as for their "Coats of Arms"... Where are the secondary sources that these flags exist? - fchd 19:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what's next Flags of Federation planets? Carlossuarez46 19:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the above votes are all full of dismissive language about the legitimacy of the countries, when what's at issue is whether an index to them should exist. We have hundreds of articles about things that aren't true, because they still were worth writing about. Micronations aren't recognized as states, but we still consider them worth writing about for articles. Why not offer an index to their common symbology? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable flags from non-nations. Edison 23:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The items are restricted to "nations" which have been talked about sufficiently to have WP articles, and have a flag as part of the article. If it were compiled indiscriminately, it wouldn't be a sound article, but as it exists, I think it is. It's encyclopedic=something that people would reasonably expect to find in an encyclopedia. DGG 04:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But this AfD is not about the articles for the ~~tinpot~~ mini-"nations" themselves, it is about an article which groups together their flags. Even though I think the articles about Sealand etc. should be deleted, I respect their sourcing and the consensus to keep. Where is the required secondary sourcing that these flags exist, or the need to have a gallery page of them? - fchd 11:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Spurious nomination by editor on a mission to expunge content not to his personal taste from Wikipedia. --Gene_poole 07:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're on a mission to get blocked if you keep accusing me of bad faith. I've seen it from you so many times: somebody comes along and attempts to clean up micronation articles and along comes the owner Gene Poole, with accusations of vandalism, bad faith and (I'm waiting for this one) sockpuppetry. The micronations articles are going to be decrufted and brought into line with Wikipedia policies whether you like it or not. Specifically, I am on a mission - to remove original research and fancruft. --kingboyk 11:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kingboyk, AFD is rather specifically per its policy not a replacement for article cleanup procedures. It's clear you do have a bee somewhere unfortunate; if you actually want to clean stuff up, starting with the policy (good) and talk pages discussions (not started yet, for the most part) are the necessary prior steps. Georgewilliamherbert 16:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I believe the article should be deleted. Some others agree with me. Here is the place to discuss it. I don't want it "cleaned up", I want it deleted as unencyclopedic, trivial, copyvio etc etc. And, yes, I have a bee in my bonnet alright: that a small group of editors want to inflict this garbage on Wikipedia in defiance of our policies and guidelines. --kingboyk 17:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The only "defiance of policy" is a disagreement about notability, for which a real policy is the only solution. For a long time, Gene's unofficial policy was the only thing (and please, if you think Gene's a nutter inclusionist, look at the cruft he and I and others have been fighting to keep out all these years). Your policy you just started largely is based on Gene's. Where on earth do you come up with this sudden push of deletions being reasonable? Georgewilliamherbert 17:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll be working on this until I've finished the category; then I will move on to the next thing I find. Something totally unrelated, hopefully. I don't think Gene is an "inclusionist nutter" at all. I think your small group can't see the woods for the trees - you see deletion debates or the removal of material as some sort of attack; and you are happy to present all micronations in the same format regardless of their legitimacy. Look at this, which was acceptable to Gene but totally non-neutral, and this, which tells it as the sources do. We shouldn't have been presenting that scam as anything other than a scam. We shouldn't be presenting micronations as countries. We must stick to the prevalent view from the reliable sources. Incidentally, the policy I started isn't "mine"; I'd hoped we could work together on it and indeed Gene has edited it today. --kingboyk 17:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You couldn't wait until after there was a policy to start randomly deleting things, and claim you intend to do it to the whole category, and think we're unreasonable? I have no problem presenting frauds as such, but fraudulent micronations are still micronations. They usually aren't notable as frauds; they are notable within the scope of micronations and should be treated as such, including describing what they were proposing to do, even if it's believed that they had no true intent to do that. You're cherrypicking sources to replace micronation related info with pure fraud info. That's not NPOV or RS. Georgewilliamherbert 17:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Stop with the accusations please. I used the sources on the New Utopia article that Gene had left when he last edited it! By all means you go through them again and see what I left out that was cited in multiple sources. (Clue: Not a lot). "they are notable within the scope of micronations" - so? This isn't MicronationPedia, it's a general encyclopedia. --kingboyk 17:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not a lotofthingsPedia, but we cover just about everything. The fact that you started work on a notability guideline for Micronations makes my case here. You seem to admit that they should be covered if they meet the criteria. The criteria you used seem to be the ones Gene's been informally proposing we use for years, and what several of us use to filter out true cruft and stuff made up in a day. What's the problem? Georgewilliamherbert 18:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I started with his criteria, as a courtesy. That doesn't mean I agree with it (there's some good points there, but it needed work imho). However, please discuss this at WT:MICRONAT if it's still a live concern, thanks. (It may not be a live concern as that page got tagged as rejected). --kingboyk 13:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, highly not encyclopedic, borderline WP:NFT, and gallery of trivia. >Radiant< 12:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the entries are plainly notable. Delete the few that aren't, perhaps, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The article is useful. PubliusFL 14:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How are any of the flags of these micronations "plainly notable"? - fchd 15:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - None? --kingboyk 17:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant the micronations are plainly notable (a couple may not be, and the flags of those micronations should be deleted). If the micronations themselves are notable, and the designs of their flags are verifiable, I think a list of this type is appropriate. Similarly, I don't think we need multiple non-trivial sources specifically on the subject of the flag of Zulia (one of Venezuela's 23 states). If Zulia itself is notable, and we can verify what Zulia's flag is, I think it's appropriate to include Zulia's flag on List of flags. YMMV. PubliusFL 19:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same reasons as the coats of arms. If the subjects of the articles are notable, features such as flags, coats of arms, etc. in a list are as well. Georgewilliamherbert 16:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Non sequitur. >Radiant< 08:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alas, the closing admin on the coats of arms deletion debate obviously didn't think the community held that view, as the article was deleted. --kingboyk 13:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given that Coats of arms of micronations was wrongly deleted by a trigger-happy admin when there was no consensus justifying that decision (8 to delete, 7 to keep does not a "consensus to delete" make), your argument holds no water. You would do well not to perpetrate porkies of this nature. --Gene_poole 09:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, and sanction nominator - the nominator is nominating in bad faith edits in his quest to redefine micronations to suit a personal POV. This is a bad faith nomination and should be speedily closed, but in case it's not, please look at the case. Most micronations on this list are not things made up in school as he claims and as has stupidly been asserted to and agreed to by other users, who haven't done their research and evaluated how significant some of these have been for the countries from which they seceded - the Hutt River Principality and Sealand have been major constitutional and legal battles with Australia and England respectively, for example,- they are well documented phenomenon in political geography, history and politics, and their flags are a notable and interesting part of that. If there's something that is made up, get rid of that, but nominating the whole list is quite ridiculous and not on. I would be happy to merge this to List of micronations along with the respective coats of arms and details on each micronation, but that should be done in the correct fashion - not in a mass bad faith edit as is being done here. JRG 14:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refrain from targetting me and stick to the nomination. If this and other nominations were in bad faith there wouldn't be all this debate, with well-respected editors on both sides. Your keep rationale seems to be a version of WP:ILIKEIT, and if you can't justify with references to policies and guidelines why this should be kept when the coat of arms article was deleted your !vote should be discounted. --kingboyk 14:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no reason why a small (50px or so) flag could be added to the list of micronations page—but this page still needs to go, as I do not believe it quite fits the term 'encyclopedic' and 'notable' by itself. —ScouterSig 14:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I quite agree. That would be a sensible solution. Keep an eye on the copyright notices though, some of the images rely on fair use claims and it's probably not fair use to have them in any list or gallery type article. --kingboyk 14:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flags are, I would think, by their own nature copyrighted to their creator or the sovereign state concerned - there's no way you could get around that; you could always draw your own, I suppose. JRG 00:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a lawyer mate, but: I don't think there's copyright in old flags of "real" countries, the same may apply to historical micronations (especially if the artist is long deceased). Coats of arms generally seem to be copyright (see {{seal}}). Some of these micronations are of course recent, private entities, and copyright undeniably applies to their flags and coats of arms unless they have specifically released them into the public domain or under a free licence. Copyright doesn't have to be claimed, it's automatic. Creating your own copy doesn't help, that's likely to be a "derivative work" and copyright to the original artist/micronation too. In summary, you'll have to proceed on a case by case basis: some can be used in a list, some can't. --kingboyk 14:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per DGG above. Lankiveil 04:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Arbitrary break edit

Comment the second sentence of the article is nonsensical: "This is not intended as a list of all micronation flags; only those flags the actual physical existence of which can be verified photographically or through other third-party historical sources should be listed here." I believe it means that there had to have been a cloth-version of the flag to make it onto the page; htough perhaps the sentence's author meant that the micronation had to be notable. While most wikiarticles are subject to having at least one bad sentence... This article has only TWO sentences total, and this second sentence is a description of what the article is! —Scouter Sig 04:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the sentence in the Queen's English, and it's meaning is clear as crystal. Unless there's documentary or photographic evidence that a fabric flag of the documented design has actually physically existed in the real world, then don't list it. --Gene_poole 09:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. An argument for keeping arrived too late to be heard widely, but (1) that doesn't address the concern that this is an ad, and (2) based on the few comments afterwards, it seems to me unlikely that this would have changed the outcome. Mango juice^talk 17:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bomberblitz edit

Disputed speedy. Assertion of notability ("...one of Australia's most important sporting websites and is well known in the Australian media") is not sourced. Their one claim to fame is a newspaper article describing how a newspaper was burned by using Bomberblitz as a source. That is one minor article, not sufficient in my opinion.Herostratus 15:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn fan site. Merge the exceptionally small proportion of text that's notable and sourced to Ricky Mott. --Dweller 15:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fan site and almost verging on advert Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 15:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unreferenced, no reliable sources, does not appear to pass WP:N. Moreoever, it's not verging on advert, it is an advert :) Moreschi ^Talk 17:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find one WP:RS, as noted on the talk page, but that's it. --Haemo 01:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a well known site in the media and was referenced on multiple occasions in newspapers and on TV Stations last year. It led a campaign against a new rule being brought in by the Australian Football League and was commented on by many, including Eddie McGuire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scmods (talk • contribs)
Keep - If the Australian Labor Party can have a Wiki so can Bomberblitz. Same can be said for MySpace. The site is well known amongst the Australian Footballing community, just as MySpace is amongst the WWW. The Media are aware this site exists and regularly quote from it, and base stories in both the Herald Sun and Age newspapers on information found at this site. Deleting it achieves nothing. Mcmda 11:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)(user's only edit --Dweller 12:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 12:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an ad for a non-notable website. Euryalus 12:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable fan site, largely unsourced, and written in a entirely unencyclopedic tone. The content suggests a breach of the guidelines on conflicts of interest and even if notable, none of the existing article is salvagable. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 12:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. No secondary sources. Only incidental mention in reference source which only involved a "fan" from the website.Assize 12:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quoting the site isn't enough, The Age has to write an article about the site. And then somebody else does too so there are two secondary sources.Ga rr ie 03:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As it is, the article is not very good. However, there are some sources that could be used to write an encyclopedia article. [35]. Capitalistroadster 04:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:WEB there is quite a high bar for websites and forums. TVAus, for example, was deleted last year for similar reasons even though it was regularly referred to in newspapers at that time and had considerable primary content as some of the show contestants posted on there. As for the ALP comment... well, a quick search of my state library reveals 615 references, about half of which are independent of the party itself. Bomberblitz returns "No entries found". Even Factiva, which references most Australian newspapers, can only find 3 mentions in the past year, none of which are about the website and all of which are in Melbourne. Orderinchaos 05:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is one of the better known AFL fan sites, but until secondary sources become available, no show. —Moondyne 10:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, this site has been included in Pandora Archive at the request of the State Library of Victoria. This site is of national significance. [36] This is of particular significance as the archive is predominately used to archive govt sites. This is the first time I have seen a website of this nature in the archive. John Vandenberg 08:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's inclusion in Pandora is significant in the Australian context, but the key issue here is notability. And as noted there does not seem to be enough coverage in the press to justify the notability critera. Further to this, the site is generally unknown to those outside it's targeted group of interest. If no reasonable references can be found, then this article should be deleted per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 00:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMO notability has been determined by the Vic govt and the archivists that have agreed to preserve this. Its inclusion in the archive means that we can absolutely 100% guarantee that in 100 years someone will be asking, "What is/was Bomberblitz?" Anyway, I've added some refs. John Vandenberg 02:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Inclusion in the Pandora archive does not make it any more notable than any other item held in the collection of the national or state libraries in Australia. An item included in a library collection is not automatically notable and the Pandora archive is solely a way of preserving some websites the same way books are preserved, as an historical record. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 10:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MC Luka edit

This article, which has been marked as unsourced for over a week, does not establish the notability of its subject. Apart from a mixtape which does not seem to have been released commercially on a record label, the only accomplishment is an announcement of a demo album which "will be released only on the net" in summer 2007, and whose title "is still unknown". (Note: For "MC Luka", Google finds also a Brazilian musician, which seems to be unrelated to this Croatian MC.) High on a tree 15:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nom. DES ^(talk) 15:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are lacking sources and evidence of notability for the same reasons:

Regards, High on a tree 15:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. Per the article, first album to be released "Summer 2007". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 delete all articles nominated without predjudice against future recreation if his first album sells by the million. Unfortunately no assertation of sufficient notability to meet WP:Music yet, however. A1octopus 18:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A DJ that has just begun his career, hasn't released any albums, and has not been quoted on many publications is not notable.--Kylohk 22:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moot. I believe the amount of cleanup that occurred during the debate was so substantial that it's hard to draw any conclusion from this one. I considered a simple relist (I would have archived most of the lengthy discussion below) but some of the earlier comments no longer apply to the revised version. I am going to begin a new AfD right away, though, because letting Flyer22 continue to work so hard is not right if the article topic is deemed to be improper, so I think we really need to figure that out. Mango juice^talk 16:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey edit

This page consists of noting but an excessively long plot summary of various episodes in a TV series. There are no significant secondary sources. It is full of Original research synthesizing plot elements and explaining the motives of characters. It has far too many fair use screen shots for our image policy. Most importantly, it has nothing but plot summary. According to WP:FICT Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. and Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction and Plot summaries should be kept reasonably short, as the point of Wikipedia is to describe the works, not simply summarize them. It is generally appropriate for a plot summary to remain part of the main article, not a lengthy page of its own. This article violates all of these guidelines, and seems unlikely ever to include much "real-world context and sourced analysis". DES ^(talk) 15:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nom. DES ^(talk) 15:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Right now this reads like a plot summary. It merely details the events between two soap opera characters. Also, no sources are provided that could verify any of the information. Unless a major overhaul occurs, delete per nom. --Cyrus Andiron 19:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Not sure how much improvement has taken place since the gargantuan series of comments below, but there is currently nothing on this page that couldn't (and shouldn't) be summarised in a few lines on the television programme's page. A1octopus 21:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most recent comment, after everything below. The plot has been greatly edited down more so to focus on the work rather than reiterating the plot. Mention of the couple's popularity is provided with a SID poll article. And an exmaple of their media press has been given with such articles as TVGuide, and the magazine Celebrity Living. Overall, of course, I'm very much dedicated to the article, as well as other articles on Wikipedia Flyer22 16:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. J.R. and Babe have a history separate from being about that of the show All My Children, as many couples of television shows have, which is why an article for that particular pairing may be created. The J.R. and Babe article has been improved to the point where it provides more references and sources than any other article similar to it. The setup has been changed/improved to give detail to the origin of the couple, and the summaries have been trimmed, but focus on the most important aspects of the couple's history, as do articles on fictional characters such as Anakin Skywalker go about doing. The J.R and Babe article stands at least as an example for what other soap articles should attempt to include in their pages. TVguide, about.com, Associated Content, and MediaWire are all reliabe independent sources apart from the television show and or company producing the show. More independent sources will be attempted as the article is improved. As I stated below, I don't feel that this article should most definitely be deleted. Flyer22 18:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please provide sources which show that this is a genuine supercouple? Have they won an award, or been cited as a supercouple in major press? --El on ka 00:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call them a supercouple, but I will try to find more sources apart from the production company proving that the couple is popular.Flyer22 06:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improving This Article edit

I am the creator of this page, and will work on improving it while it is up for deletion. All I ask is that it is taken into great consideration (as I'm sure it will be) in not being deleted. I am very new to wikipedia and am just learning the ropes. I'd read on creating pages, and didn't feel that this article was that beyond help, if needed improvement. When I first came to this page a year ago, it seemed fine. Then, as I came back to it a few weeks ago, it was deleted. I was not the creator of this article then, but I decided to register and create the article since it was popular as to some of its fans before. I welcome the most skilled editors to please assist me in improving this page, so that it is not deleted. As for the summaries, I was contacted by a friend on how one of his favorite pages Spike (Buffyverse) was greatly detailed, and that the detail improved the enjoyment of that article, thus I wanted the J.R. and Babe page to be detailed in the same effect. If it truly required for me to cut back on the summaries, which it seems so...unless I provide a link to such quotes within it, then I will, or I will provide the link within the quote. The Free Use Images, I'm not certain if I should have tagged all of them Free Use. I have noticed a few screenshots on some articles only needed the appropriate license, and not the tag of Free Use. I will work on all of that as well, of course.

I am greatly sorry for having caused this inconvience my first time out on a page. I truly do welcome any help from editors who would like to accompany me in bettering this page. Flyer22 18:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I am quite prepared to assume good faith, and to presume that you want to improve the article and the project. And given some of the articles that are out there, i can understand why you thought this would be wanted. The problem is that this is just a long summery of an aspect of the plot of a soap opera. Wikipedia is not in the business of re-telling stories of TV shows, novels, or other works of fiction. Articles about works of fiction should have relatively short plot summaries, enough so that the reader can understand what the work is about. Most of such articles should be about critical reaction to or analysis of such works of fiction, or their effects and influences on the non-fictional world, or the like. Please read our guidelines for fiction on this subject. Note that Wikipedia is not a directory says that wikipedia articles should not be a TV or Radio Guide, and that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information says that "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot."
- In my view, for this article to survive, the plot summery would need to be cut down to one or two par graphs, maybe three, and a significant amount of content would need to be added dealing with the "achievements, impact or historical significance" of this aspect of this soap opera, and all of that would have to be supported by reliable sources, at least some of them independent of the show's producers. Note that fan sites are rarely reliable sources, because of the lack of an editorial process. I doubt that can be done on this topic -- i don't think the material is there. If not, the existence of these characters and their relationship could be covered briefly on the articles on the show as a whole. DES ^(talk) 21:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem that I have here is pretty much summed up in WP:FICT, an that we're not a soap opera guide. Now, if there were a wiki dedicated to soap opera, then we'd probably have something - but only over there. =^^= . Flyer22, kudos on you for creating this, but you might want to stick it in your user page somewhere and work on it there, if only to preserve the data. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editing Article. Thank you for your understanding. I have edited out the main trivial quotes in this article. And trimmed down the summaries, added sources, but I notice that you state that you feel that this article should be limited to only three paragraphs as one of the goals to save it. Please don't misunderstand my question of asking this, but can you please explain to me how my article on J.R. and Babe differs all that much in describing the events between this couple as compared to other articles on popular couples such as Ethan and Theresa or Shawn and Belle in which also describe the events of those couples?

I ask that, because if such articles such as those are allowed in their current format, I want the J.R. and Babe article to come as close to those articles in playing by the same rules as possible.
- I haven't looked at those, perhaps they should be deleted or trimmed also. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is generally not considerd an impressive arguemnet, the fact that soem articels do not meet standards does not mean that others don't have to. DES ^(talk) 00:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, the summaries in the article J.R. and Babe do not differ that much in length from an article such as J.R. Chandler, and I really do want to know the questions I pose so I that I might better understand the differences in what is mentioned in my article in comparison to such other related fictional articles as those.

I will read the guidelines for fiction and do what all I must to save this page. Please try to answer the questions I posed. My main interest on this matter is to improve this page, thus is why I asked the above questions.Flyer22 23:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I contemplated a "weak keep" based on my belief that an otherwise valid article which contains too much plot summary should be edited, not deleted. Deletion is not a tool to improve articles. However, both J. R. Chandler and Babe have their own lengthy articles and it seems to me that the argument for keeping this as a separate article on the two of them as a couple is weak, despite the fact that, as the article's creator points out, there are similar articles on other soap opera couples. If the information can be readily incorporate into their individual articles, it seems to me that is the best solution. If the article is improved and shows a reason to exist as an independent article, I may revisit the issue. -- DS1953 ^talk 23:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am well aware that just because other articles similar to mine in layout exist doesn't mean that mine will be spared. However, I could see why mine was nominated for deletion earlier, but now I have trimmed it down, taken out uneccessary quote-mess, added valid sources, and stuck mainly to the history of the two characters just as other couple articles have. My main reason for mentioning the other articles is that I saw that one could mention the events of a character (and in more than three paragraphs) or couple as long as it's not total trivial matters, and as long as it has references and or valid sources linked to validate the claims. If my article is still considered for deletion now, I was only very much perplexed as to why, considering that many more fictional (not just soap opera) couples follow the same format as mine, and I wanted to know, if possible, why mine was pulled aside when it doesn't differ much from the others in format. I was only trying to better understand, and am sorry to have asked those questions if you found them besides the point. It's just those articles were very much the point when I decided to re-create the J.R. and Babe article. When I took a look over at guidelines for fiction, I saw that the character details in laying out a character's life does not differ all that much in format as to how my article is now. My article lays out the note-worthy events of J.R. and Babe's life as a couple together. I did read on major characters and or minor characters though, and I'm sure that I still need to better familiarize myself with wikipedia as a member here, which is why I will go back and read more extensively, seeing as though I didn't have enough time before.

On the subject that another editor here brought up that a J.R. article already exists, and that a Babe article already exists, I don't feel that those facts should have a huge weight as to deleting my article on J.R. and Babe. I would argue that the J.R. and Babe article is one in which combines the two for their own section, and gives important information on such events as how it was confirmed that J.R. is the biological father of Little Adam, and if it was confimed at all, which are two answers to questions that some AMC fans (to this day) still ask for information on, and sometimes don't find the details, but it is given in my article, and yet seems to always be excluded from other articles on J.R. and Babe. There are other links to validate other questions people frequently ask about this couple. And in the Notes section of J.R. and Babe, I mention what a huge impact the Babe-death had on the very real-life audience during the biggest animosity-filled fight between J.R. and Babe, giving added significance to this couple's history, in which were also big moments in the show's history. The J.R. and Babe article as it exists now pertains to the central knowledge of the couple, rather than how the article was when you first addressed me on this matter.

If you still feel that this article needs more slimming down when it comes to the summaries, I will do my best to ensure your wishes. Addressing the big moments in this couple's history is quite challenging to do in only limiting it to three paragraphs, thus I feel that as long I have provided the valid sources, and kept it to the huge facts as of detailing this couple's history as briefly as possible without eliminating vital information, the summaries shouldn't be cut down too far extreme than how they are now.

I look forward to working on this page a lot in the future, and with every added big incident between this couple, the above summaries within it will have to be shortened regardless. This couple seems to be if not over, then in limbo right now. Again, I will try my best to edit down even further on the two biggest sections of this article at this moment, and those sections are "The Baby-Switch Drama" section and the "Babe's Almost-Death And Fake-Death" section. If "The J.R./Babe/Josh Love Triangle" section can be edited down even further without deleting important facts, I will tackle that again as well. Thank you for your patience. And if you still are not satisfied with my aricle after that, please let me know of this, which I'm certain that you will.Flyer22 06:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not solely a question of what needs to coem out, but what needs to go in, remember, "...articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot."(from WP:FICT and WP:NOT) Unless you can add such context and analysis, sourced to one or more reliable sources then the whole article ought to go, IMO. If you can add and source such, then the plot summery ought to be cut down to just enough to give context to that part, also IMO. DES ^(talk) 17:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. DES, I just got some very helpful information on fixing my article via my talk page. I am doing everything to gain more knowledge on how my article should be. I realize that you may be worn out in dealing with me by now, but I really do appreciate your time and effort in addressing me on these matters. I stated that I would ask you the same question as I asked at the help desk for your take.

The question was/is... On the subject of "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance" I thought I had provided many valid sources in my article, but now I'm told that it shouldn't be limited to what it was. I needed to know exactly what I was missing in the "real-world" context issue. I mean, as for reliable sources, Wikipedia states that "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" and I thought that I did that in my article. Reliabe sources are about a trusted publisher making the same claims as you. Well, when addressing certain sections like "The Baby-Switch Drama"...I added sources as to that section's claims. And I'm thinking that TV Guide interviews on certain incidents as of a certain section would be a reliable source. But as for real-world context, I kind of got lost there, but thought something like "Cultural Impact And Popularity" that I added to this article is what you meant, what effect certain storylines as of this couple's history that were of historical significance.

I've read the guidelines for fiction, of course, but I was wondering if you could provide me with information directly. I just don't see how my article differs all that much from a soap couple article such as Luke Spencer and Laura Webber. But now I was told that even that article is poorly sourced. I'm not naming them to say that my article should skid by, and I don't mean to come off as slow in understanding things, but could you please tell me exactly what is meant by "real-world context" on this matter? I mean, if the Luke and Laura article adds enough of this, I was trying to be on the same lines as that article, because I really do like the way in which that article is set up, but if I shouldn't follow it, as it now seems apparent, I'm looking for a better example so that I may get a true representation of how my article should be. I looked at the Superman article and some other fiction layouts to learn, but, of course Superman has huge historical significance anyhow. And I thought that I should get get in contact with some editors who work on editing some soap opera articles to help me, but a few I clicked on didn't seem to have active talk pages. I also love science-fiction/action-adventure material, but I was more so focusing on looking at soap opera articles for this matter, which now I'm told isn't a great idea to base my outline on soap opera articles.

If you feel that you can answer my questions in better detail, please do, such as the "How to add reliable sources" issue. I finally feel as though I'm getting the hang of what needs to be done as of "Historical significance" and or "sources"...but I still would love to read your comments further concerning this. Flyer22 22:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By "real world context" I mean that such an articel should indicate the effects of the fictional work or character outside the fictional context. For example the artilce on Sherlock Holmes discusses how the character has been an influence on other writing, and how real people have writen about the character (outside of the original stories) and how such things as museams have been created focusing on the character. Another possible aspect of a valid articel would be sourced analysis, menaing that people not affiliated with teh show have writen about this couple (as a couple) analyizing ther characters or somethign about them, in a citable source (not a blog or fan-style web site, but a published source). Comments on how they relate to or differ from other characters, how they ahve influenced other actgors or writers or shows, or the effect they ahve had in the wider culture would als be appropriate, again only if proerplyu cited to a reliabel source. Part of teh poitn is that fictional characte such as Superman can have such articels written about them precisely because they have "huge historical significance" and it appears that these charactrs do not.
- The "Cultural Impact And Popularity" section does begin to address the kind of think I mean. But it still has problems. For example you say "The J.R. and Babe romance is considered one of the few soap opera couples that have super couple potential" Who says so? There is no source cited. The sources you do cite are interviews with cast members or polls taken by the producer, which are not independant sources, and one article that looks to me like a blog, but perhaps woudl qualify as a reliabel source. But look at the huge disproportion between this section and the rest of the article. The plot info should be ther jsut to expaln what this is about, so it should probably wind up shorter than the "Cultural Impact" section. Overall i can see that you are trying hard, but i just don't think this topic has much place here. DES ^(talk) 22:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you mean now, DES. Another editor even broke it down to me like this:

-- J.R. and Babe are a fictional couple. Real world context would be things like:

the actors who play them

inspiration from their lives which the actors use for their characters (that is, what they bring to their roles)

the people who developed the characters, the romance, and wrote their lines

the inspiration for the couple and their ongoing relationship (how the writers came up with it)

behind the camera politics

the impact the fictional couple have had on viewers, politics, society... and the world

the fictional couple's popularity

number of posters, t-shirts, and coffe cups sold with the couple on them

...and so on --

I thought that's what real world context meant. I get what is needed, and I feel that I can do it. If you are willing to give me some more time to gather the article as it should be, then I should have an even futher overhaul soon. I'm thinking that I won't have the changes show up on the page yet until I've pieced it all together. Here's good luck to me. You're terrific in your assistance. Flyer22 00:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - long and tearful story just like most soap operas. Recommend to shorten this out to one page just like them scientists in Physical Review demand and conserve the important references. One page will do it. greg park avenue 22:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated The Article edit

Well, DES, I fixed up the article, added everything that needed to be added, trimmed down the summaries once more, such as The Baby-Switch section and The Love Triangle section, and now the summaries pretty much match in length to that of such other fictional characters' life, like Spike (Buffyverse), and I really do believe that this article is valid now. I feel a lot better about it, and I am glad that you called me out on fixing it up. It really does seem like an article combining the characters of J.R. and Babe, rather than what it was before. All I can do now is wait. Flyer22 13:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this is somewhat improved, there are still multiple screenfuls of plot summery, versus a few paragraphs of other stuff. Also the writing is rather incoherent, but that is an editorial matter ("...the power of their love has been referenced more than once in the show to that of supercouple..." [is compared meant here?]; "One of her character creations in general, Babe Carey, first sprouted up in 2003" [mixed metaphor]; "This time between J.R. and Babe would come to be the day in which Babe would describe as the happiest day of her life." [misplaced word]; "When J.R. tried to murder Babe, and yet the couple was still portrayed as true loves to each other, it sparked a perplexing, 'former debate among soap opera viewers and viewers of television shows in general" [when did is stop being a debate? and who was perplexed by it?]; "Jacob Young's very realistic portrayal of an alcoholic battling his inner demons, who also couldn't fully grasp why he'd tried to kill his wife got him and his character noticed by PRISM..." [Wrong antecedent, unless it is the demons who had trouble understanding Young's motives]; etc). There are also lots of weasel words ("dishing out what many considered a complete overhaul of their beloved drama"; "Many fans felt that J.R. should have served time for his crime.") and grandiosities ("The events listed in this section occur from the huge history-shaping AMC/One Life To Live crossover"; "The events listed in this section occur from the greatly controversial AMC Satin Slayer, The Fusion Serial Killer storyline"). The current version also seem to have lots of [[WP:NOR|original research], and many of the sources now cited are either bloggers, fan sites, or provided by the production company or the network, i see few if any reliable, independent sources. I still thank this is worth deleting, perhaps after it is copied to the new soap operas wiki on Wikia, but it is a significant improvement over the earlier version. DES ^(talk) 16:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Note I will clean up what you mention on the writing aspect.

As for the references, I wouldn't consider TV Guide a fansite, but I get that you mean more of the references should be like that of TV Guide or the Associated Content reference. I know that I mentioned one blog site, but as for the ones pertaining to Dixie's death, that was more so to validate the impact of Dixie's death, but I will delete those. By "fan site", I would have thought that you meant a J.R. and Babe fansite, which, of course, isn't in my references. But by "sources supported by the production company or network"...you must mean the fact that some of it comes from abc.com. I would argue that considering that J.R. and Babe are a couple from a soap opera, the fact that most of their portrayers and or the creators of their characters' interviews would come via abc.com is to be expected. Sure, they are not characters from a show such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, where tons of sources are available apart from the production company in which supported that show, but I don't feel that it makes the notion of a J.R. and Babe article on Wikipedia being useful and or sound any less valid.

I really do feel that this is one of the better soap opera couple articles on Wikipedia, though there is always room for improvement, which I will continually work on, but I strongly disagree that deletion is the best way to go here. This article at least attempts to provide and or does provide some valid sources and references...while other soap opera couple articles do not. This, I feel, is what sets the J.R. and Babe couple article apart from the other soap couple articles. If all soap couple articles went by the criteria in which you make known, DES, then I feel that we would be on the road to better soap articles in general as well. As for the summaries, I was under the impression that the length of the summaries are in accordance to other such fictional characters' summaries. However, I take what you state on all matters regarding this article into great thought and apply it as necessary.

I appreciate your thoughts on this article having been significantly improved. It is because of this improvement that I feel that this article would be better addressed on the topic of cleaning it up instead of deleting it. I will look over the editorial issue, and do what I must there. I just cannot agree with you that this article should be deleted.

All that said, you truly have made me better in composing articles on Wikipedia, though this (as I'm sure it showed when I first started) is my first one.Flyer22 21:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Of couse, i rather doubt that any "soap oepra couple" is likely to be the subject of a properly encyclopedic article, and some others that exist may need to be addressed after this one. Perhaps it is time to hear from editors othe than Flyer22 an myself. DES ^(talk) 22:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, whoever created and or helped to update the soap couple article Luke Spencer and Laura Webber could have/can still have access to a lot of sourced material apart from ABC or a publisher of a soap opera magazine for that couple, I feel...with that couple's impact, and how they spun the supercouple definition/era. That's definitely one soap opera article that one could have total unlimiting gain with.Flyer22 23:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback. I know that this won't help save my article, but I thought that I'd mention it, because it made me so proud of the article. It's not feedback that I asked for either. In other words...I didn't go to any forums and say, "Hey, what do you think of the J.R. and Babe article on Wikipedia?" I mean, really, I want to stay anonymous as having created anything on Wikipedia, because it just feels right. So I was pleasantly surprised when I recently came across comments that have made me believe in this article all the more. The best thing is that these weren't comments from fans of this couple. It seems that a few people, such as fans of the Zach Slater and Kendall Hart couple, and a few others have noticed this article and have expressed that they wish the Zach and Kendall article was like this one, or that this article is the best soap couple article that they've seen on Wikipedia (I know, huh, my exact thoughts in this debate, though I'm biased), but they mentioned things such as not knowing that the J.R. and Babe romance was based on the Adam/Dixie/Tad love triangle, or that Jacob Young had been nominated for PRISM for his role of J.R. Chandler during that highly alcoholic, homicidal state of his. They even discussed clicking on the link, and being surprised that the proof was there, although my personal feelings are that Wikipedia is pretty valid most of the time.

Again, I know that this will play little role, if any, in reconsidering to delete this article, and what AMC fans think isn't weight to if an article is deleted or not, but I feel even more now that this article is valuable in information. It's more than what you'd get from just reading the J.R. article, or the Babe article alone. I'm improving this article everyday, and can't help but wonder how helpful it will be to people in the future. Flyer22 20:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Narayana Nethralaya edit

Non notable hospital. Reads like an advert, notability not asserted, unreferenced. Majorly (hot!) 15:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 15:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like an advertising brochure. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert page Hut 8.5 17:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted. Should be WP:CSD for blatant advertising. — Indon (reply) — 08:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Hop albums by year edit

unmanageable list, appears to be the exact same as List of rappers' discography, already nominated for deletion here. Calliopejen1 15:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unmanageable and created as duplicate. --Tikiwont 09:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unmanageable, unsourced, unencyclopedic, redundant to "Year in music" articles, and appears to suffer from systemic bias besides. Heather 19:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced, potentially vast, no objective inclusion/exclusion criteria. Moreschi ^Talk 19:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Jay-Z is OK with me, but what's missing? Shakira's 2003 Rotterdam concert live is missing, and anything by Shakira too. No green light for this hip hop article without Shakira. AntiSpanish or antiArab tendency? Please, recycle. greg park avenue 17:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. I likewise object to the absense of Eedris Abdulkareem, Tony Tetuila, Ruggedman, etc. AntiNigerian bias, anyone? LOL. (Seriously, though, many of our hip hop articles do suffer from an anti-African bias, and this one is no exception, which is what I was complaining about above.) Heather 11:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As far as I see, an initial systemic bias would by itself not be a reason for deletion, unless it is a deliberate POV fork. In any case, the same question arises with respect to the idea of having articles of the type 'year in hip hop', which I mentioned as a possible alternative to Mr Green, the creator of the list discussed here. For further discussion and input, please see at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_hip_hop#Years_in_hip_hop--Tikiwont 12:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. IMO, the absence of non-American artists may be indicative of a slight systemic bias, but hip-hop is a predominantly American medium (and was an exclusively American medium at its birth). Therefore American artists should outnumber (by far) artists of other nationalities. Other nations have hip-hop music, true, but it is much less notable. Calliopejen1 16:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft on basis of inclusion criteria being to wide and unmanageable. A1octopus 22:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too broadly defined and nebulous to be managable or of use.—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 22:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Rappers/Groups/Producer edit

unmanageable list. Calliopejen1 15:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, big, bulky and needs deleting Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 16:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources, no objective inclusion/exclusion criteria given, the list looks to be unmanageable, plenty of possibly non-notable people listed. Moreschi ^Talk 17:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete - As pointed out to the originator in an intermediate proposed deletion: This has already been tried in the past and the list was then broken-up. See List of hip hop musicians.--Tikiwont 18:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unmaintainable list given a lack of criteria. Categorization better serves this purpose. Resolute 23:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 23:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craig White (footballer) edit

Non-notable footballer in a local league - not expandable using reputable third-party sources. Orderinchaos 15:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless reliable sources are provided per WP:N. The club's only semi-pro, so I find it a bit hard to believe he's really notable. Moreschi ^Talk 17:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 00:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aquinas cruft. nn non-pro footballer. I'm tempted to add his team article, South Fremantle Football Club.Ga rr ie 08:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My criteria for sportsmen is representative state level. ie. AFL. —Moondyne 10:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are a few articles in Google News Archives, but I havent found any Category:WAFL players that were not also VFL or AFL players, so Moondyne's criteria is consistent with existing practise. John Vandenberg 06:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep Ryan Postlethwaite 12:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal number edit

Original research and speculations based on recent developments (AACS encryption key controversy). No reliable sources. While the listed refs do tackle the issue, the term itself is not introduced and not discussed, making the content of the article inadmissible Original research. Not to mention that 2 of 3 refs are not reliable sources. `'mikka 16:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. Not to say it contains plain false parts. `'mikka 17:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to say "it contains plain false parts" because "it contains plain false parts" would not be a legitimate grounds for deletion. Please identify them - and by actually naming the parts in question, not just giving vague perjorative descriptions - so they can be fixed. 67.158.73.188 23:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you look into the article recently? `'mikka 00:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes. 67.158.73.188 01:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good. I guess you are not familiar with wikipedia conventions, but you still may see a half-dozen tags "citation needed", which is a polite way to say "bullshit suspected". `'mikka 01:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said, that's not grounds for deletion. If you think there are false statements in the article, deleting the article is not the correct way to solve that problem. Neither is "The subject of this article doesn't exist" acceptable grounds for deletion, which you're arguing elsewhere on this talk page. We have a page about unicorns, even though they don't exist, and we should have a page about illegal numbers, even if you think they don't exist, and even if (and I agree with your POV on this point) all right-thinking people should feel deeply offended by the very idea. 67.158.73.188 01:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I am no longer playing verbal games with you. My grounds for deletion are stated in the nomination. And FUI when the number of dubious statements covers all major bases, the article is a goner. `'mikka 02:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Which two refs - would you enumerate please? Anyway, I don't think this is original research - the article seems to have been created because the AACS encryption key is not an illegal prime, so the general concept of an 'illegal number' should not be included in that article. I'd suggest merging the content of illegal prime into illegal number, then redirecting illegal prime to illegal number. WLD^talk|edits 16:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Which two refs": the blog and the single-purpose opinion-pushing site. (but again, they do not define "illegal number" ) `'mikka 17:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you thing it is not OR, please provide the sources that use this term. `'mikka 17:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Register has two articles written discussing illegal primes, where their primality is not the salient point: here:[37], and here:[38]. If you read Phil Carmody's site, [39] you'll see that primality was simply a method of making a number that encoded some allegedly illegal information notable in some other way. WLD^talk|edits 17:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This should not be a contest of "Can we find a reliable source that has used a specific phrase?"; to treat it that way is just as much faulty magical thinking as the original illegal-number situation. However, Information Week, reprinted in EETimes, has used the phrase ([40]) and they're a reliable print source. I don't know if people like Slashdot, but they've used it as well [41] The Google test is flawed, too, but the phrase "illegal number", excluding "number plate" and "number plates", gets over 63000 hits.[42] The current article is one of the top ones, but it's hard to believe that all those people are only talking about this concept because some original researcher on Wikipedia made up a neologism. As for having a "reliable definition," I defy anyone to find a reliable definition that would satisfy the standard being applied here, of a common phrase like "red wagon." Nobody reliable defines that because there are reliable definitions of "red" and "wagon" and it's normally thought acceptable and un-original to put the two words together. But under the standard being applied here, we shouldn't be allowed to talk about red wagons because to do so must be original research. 129.97.79.144 20:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with London Dweller. The articles could probably be merged and cleaned up, but the topic is definitely encyclopedic regardless of current events. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 16:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- YOu are not listening to me. I am not questioning whether it is encyclopedic. Regardless the merits of the topic, it is not referenced. If I start deleting unreferenced text, nothing immediately relevant will be left. `'mikka 17:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with major cleanup. Topic itself is notable, thuogh the refs cited are weak on WP:RS grounds (need some news or scholarly refs, not just blogs). Some of the refs in illegal prime and/or AACS encryption key controversy probably discuss the general issue, and so would be good sources for the page at hand. I agree with WLD, illegal prime is just a special case, and could be merged into here. Or else the whole Illegal number Illegal prime AACS encryption key controversy trilogy could be refactored to put the common info in illegal number. DMacks 17:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Illegal prime" is a well-referenced peculiarity. "Illegal number" is a wild unreferenced overgeneralization. Before you start "cleanup", please find me the reputable reference for the very definition. `'mikka 17:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not a wild overgeneralisation - read Phil Carmody's log of creating the executable prime. Note that he spent a goes to the effort of finding a prime of 752 bytes(digits) that is a linux ELF format executable of decss - he had many candidate numbers - 32,768 of them; all of which would possess the property of being allegedly illegal. WLD^talk|edits 17:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - read my lips: "Whe-re is the re-fe-ren-ce for the term "il-le-gal num-ber?" I already wrote I have nothin against "illegal prime". `'mikka 17:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - needs cleanup, but still ok -Rebent 17:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep I agree with mikka, we should not be coining our own names for things. This article should only be kept only if we can find a reference that uses this term. If not then it needs to be changed or deleted to avoid original research. --Ray andrew 18:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for a sparkle of common sense. One correction, though: we need a reference to the definition, not to just random babble. If you read carefully the current article, it is a bunch of nonsense I don't even want to discuss here, since, if the article survives, I will delete 80% of it as an ungrounded speculation. `'mikka 18:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If we accept that the idea is viable but the title is an unreferenced possible neologism, rename it to Numers that are illegal and then we only have to define the terms not the title expression...see the later examples in the Article titles policy. However, still Illegal numbers might be preferable as a compound word not a technical expression per the Naming conventions rationale. DMacks 19:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Numers that are illegal": sorry colleague, it is a logical and legal fallacy. Logical fallacy is you are tring to derive a good title from bad one by a grammatical trick. Legal one: these numbers are not illegal. `'mikka 00:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, so now the root of your argument is that no number is actually illegal. Thank you for finally stating that! Unfortunately, we have WP:RS references and whole reliably-sourced other pages that do seem to point to the idea of certain numbers being illegal in some respect. DMacks 00:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - the key word in your reply is "seem". `'mikka 01:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Fine, we have reliable sources that explicitly propose, state, and/or support that some numbers are or can be illegal. "Seems to the RS", not "seems to me based on RS"...only that second is OR. DMacks 01:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The major problem is that we have bits and pieces, from which the disputed article is concocted, which is called original research, which looks cute beyond criticism for some, which is why we are bickering here. `'mikka 01:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly redirect Illegal prime to Illegal number. The article also needs an international angle - illegal numbers outside the US. If we accept the fact that illegal prime numbers are, in fact, illegal, and that they are numbers, then we must recognise a class of illegal numbers. The article is getting more and more references. For those so inclined, I have just created redirects for Forbidden number and protected number. The former is a translation of the name of the Swedish page. And honestly, Mikkalai, stop whining at every entry that disagrees with your proposal. Try to be a bit more mature. Saying "read my lips: "Whe-re is the re-fe-ren-ce for the term "il-le-gal num-ber?"" is not academic, and does not even resemble a formal discussion.samwaltz 19:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah? Respectable "academics" are just ignoring my major objection and voting "me likes it too". And you've jusr contributed more nonsense to wikipedia, thank you. No big deal. It already has quite some garbage. `'mikka 20:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems encyclopedic given the controversy, but I wonder if an illegal number would include any machine (binary) encoding of not only kiddie porn, but copyrighted material (like mp3s illegally downloaded), and images of fake IDs, and could really be unlimited, but let's see where the article grows. Carlossuarez46 20:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep topic seems worthy of inclusion. Article could do with some cleanup though, and the merge looks like a good idea. Hut 8.5 20:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but probably move the title seems a little arbitrary, if sourced, it should probably be moved to a name used in said source should one exist. I doubt anyone is going to search for(or think to link) "illegal number". i kan reed 20:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All what is properly sourced is already covered in illegal prime and [[AACS encryption key controversy]] articles. The rest is high school wikiwiki. `'mikka 00:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete. I understand deep phylosophical and social issues related to the controversy in question, and I was not inclined to delete the article, converting it into redirects for now, because I believe that the term eventually will go from blogosphere into mainstream, because it is very catchy. But at the moment the article does not stand a minimal ground. Not a single provided reference (including added during the votes) gives a definition of "illegal number" "Illegal prime number" was an elegant mathematical exercise. The guy didn't want to take any number (clearly, a binary executabe code, like anything in the computer is a finite string of biots, i.e., a binary number): he wanted it specifically prime. the current article is a lousy attempt to draw a generalization of the two buzz-cases without solid foundation, rewuired per wikipedia:Attribution. Mukadderat 20:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The inevitable Google gives a few hits to the incident in question, a lot of references to illegal license plates, and a bajillion pages on error messages. Mangoe 21:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I myself am fascinated with this idiotic idea to forbid numbers. In fact, there is a simple Theorem: All numbers are illegal. Lemma: At least one illegal number exists. Proof: it is the AACSkey. Proof of theorem ad absurdum: Suppose you say that the number X is legal. I publish the number Y=X-AACSkey on digg and tomorrow if your birthday is X, you will be in danger to be sued your ass off when you start e-mailing invitations to the party. `'mikka 00:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am concerned about the speculative nature of the article, the fact that it is undersourced, and its POV nature and lack of balance. This seems like one of those bits of net-paranoia where false rumors of government regulation spread very quickly across the internet. Allon Fambrizzi 01:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
Keep Mikka, you need to be a little more civil. Why are you trying so hard to get this deleted? Whether or not it needs more references, the reasons for deletion are notability only, and while this definately needs some cleanup, the solution is not deletion -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 03:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge to illegal prime or AACS encryption key controversy. There is very little here that is both xourced and not in one of those two articles; but I see no reason to delete. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject is notable, and the references could be ~~multiplied~~ ~~added to~~ supplemented. The only part that is in any remote sense OR is the 2nd paragraph, the one with the fact tags, and I think there would no no problem in finding citations. As with many difficult topics, the quotations from the sources speak for themselves. And, unlike perhaps some other recent news stories, this is clearly going to get more N regardless of the immediate resolution. DGG 04:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. The AACS encryption key controversy is an interesting topic, for sure. Illegal prime may seem related to it, but legally, it's not so clear they are really part of the same issue. This is a tricky one to call, but when I thought about why it was so tricky, it became clear this was actuallly OR. When somebody reads about Carmody's illegal prime and then reads about the encryption key business, it may be easy to start theorizing about illegal numbers, e.g. "wow, everything is a number...we can't copyright anything unless we copyright numbers!" But this kind of theorizing, while pleasant to do, is just OR, unless it is published in reliable sources. And any such speculation that connects "illegal" primes (which AFAIK no legal experts actually think are illegal) with a particular (allegedly) illegal number by creating terminology to connect them together, is just that – speculation, unless properly sourced. --C S (Talk) 18:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - interesting subject, notable, etc. Georgewilliamherbert 23:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WHO CARES IF IT'S HERE! It isn't spam, nor is it any other questionable content. HOW CAN IT POSSIBLY HURT WIKIPEDIA BY EXISTING?!?! tylermenezes 17:25, 9 May 2007 (PST)
Keep With some editing and expansion, this article could be better. Sseballos 00:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has undergone some important changes since I last saw it (the last version I saw was probably a few hours before my delete comment a few lines above). Based on these changes, the article should definitely be retitled as something like "illegal number speculation". In addition, the changes have only raised more concerns for me. Is this speculation noteworthy, sourced reliably? The two sources given for the definition of "illegal number speculation" are Phil Carmody's webpage and a very brief mention in a Register article. Is this really sufficient? Recall that a main function of the NOR policy is to keep unnotable internet speculation off Wikipedia. If I blog about something, Phil Carmody blogs about something, and then Slashdot mentions it, it doesn't necessarily belong on Wikipedia. How are things any better in this situation? Obviously if this speculation reaches the pages of the New York Times, it is certainly noteworthy by then...but right now it seems to be at the opposite extreme from that. --C S (Talk) 09:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's mostly WP:OR and definitely a misleading title. The number itself is not illegal, but exposing certain types of information is. To use an example, Scooter Libby was not convicted because Valerie Plame's name was illegal, but because he exposed information connecting her to the CIA. In the same way, the number isn't itself illegal (after all, it would be useless without knowledge of its purpose), but the exposed key to DRM software or some other secret information. Besides, in this day and age any piece of information can become a number, potentially making this article too vague to be useful. What good information is here should really be merged with more appropriate articles, such as Classified information, Trade secret, or AACS encryption key controversy. It might be worth considering merging Illegal number and Illegal prime into a new article, i.e. Illegal information. Sxeptomaniac 21:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, let's all keep WP:COOL here. I see some people getting a little hot under the collar about this whole thing. Sxeptomaniac 21:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. There are OR issues with the article, but nothing that can't be fixed with a little editing. Lankiveil 11:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Clearly, the subject of illegal primes has encyclopedic value. This article, as presently written, does not have the same value but is a necessary expansion. However, both entries could be improved by adding references to academic papers. Academic papers are more likely to "last" in a historical sense, and thus to prove the encyclopedic value of these entries. The likelihood of increasing debate also supports keeping the article. Janbrogger 13:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge illegal prime into this article. Gandalf61 20:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, mikka, here is your reference: [43] from 2001/03/19 mentioning _‘illegal’ prime number_ and _possibly illegal number_. --MarSch 09:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please these kind of numbers are very notabel really yuckfoo 00:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until rewritten, it does seem like OR in some places. Also I hate seeing "keep, its notable" and "keep, its interesting" reasonings. Bulldog123 04:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep Either merge with with illegal primes or improve article. ASH1977LAW 11:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 06:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Sandercoe edit

No sources. A search on Factiva turned up only passing mentions, none that I could see would be any use in building an article, let alone satisfying WP:N, and every single one of those was from the same local paper (the Newcastle Herald). Delete unless non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources is found. Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. No reliable sources, provided, no article, and I doubt that anyone will really be able to find any. Moreschi ^Talk 17:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article certainly includes claims of notability ("His music has charted nationally and won numerous awards.") but doesn't back them up with reliable sources. I'll change my vote if reliable sources are found and the accomplishments turn out to be more than trivial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ABC (Australia) did a piece dedicated to him [44]. --Oakshade 06:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being the subject of a single article does not satisfy WP:MUSIC, and the ref provided does not substantiate most of the article's claims; WP:V and WP:RS issues remain. Heather 15:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be another case of self-promotion. When the article is notable, it will be acceptable, but it appears to fail WP:MUSIC now Gretab 23:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's also some information about Mr. Sandercoe in this article. I think it's possible to make a brief, reasonable article about him, though the present version sucks. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It also seems like the movie on which his songs were featured was fairly prominent within Australia, picking up awards from the Australian Cinematographers Society, Australian Film Institute, and Film Critics Circle of Australia.[45]. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On reviewing those links and the one above, my view is still delete. The Courier article is a passing mention, and the other article isn't enough on its own, especially as "Searching for the next big thing" seems to cover the theme of the piece very well; a short article on an 'up-and-coming' artist, with nothing in the way of critical commentary. If he was the next big thing in 2003, when the article was written, then where are all the more substantial articles in 2007, when we're being asked to believe he's become the big thing? As for the IMDB awards, they don't sway me in any way because there's no way to judge the awards' notability without reliable sources; if winning any of these awards makes a person notable, there will be substantial non-trivial coverage of that person, which still isn't evident here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep: Provided that his achievements are backed up with reliable sources. Since if the claims are true, it is notable enough.--Kylohk 21:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless claims to notablity are backed up by proper references before the end of this AfD. A1octopus 21:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 07:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Stern edit

Unnotible biography 99DBSIMLR 16:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per {{db-bio}} Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 16:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not speedy as there is indeed a sliver of notability in there, but not enough for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article seems to have been redirected during the discussion here.DGG 04:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The author changed the title, but it's still the same unnotable bio. 99DBSIMLR 12:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted (db-bio). -- JLaTondre 17:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan levine edit

non-notable person C5mjohn 16:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No assertion of notability, so it can be speedy deleted. You can tag such articles with {{db-bio}}. Good catch. Pan Dan 16:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a hoax.

Degarts Utar edit

Stuedgar created this page, claiming that Utar was briefly leader of the Knights Templar, but I did not know of any such person, and I can't find him mentioned anywhere. The page on templier.net given by Stu does not exist, and Utar is not mentioned in David Nicolle's "The Third Crusade 1191", in which Stu claims to have read two paragraphs about him. He gave another reference to a book by Peter Edbury but does not know which book it was; I am pretty familiar with Edbury's work so I am sure Utar is not mentioned in any of his books either. I looked at all the books I own about the crusades or Templars, as well as all the Templar books (both scholarly and popular) at my local Chapters, and Utar is nowhere to be found. Stu says he got this info from a professor, so perhaps the professor is making things up, although I can't explain why Stu says he read two non-existent paragraphs in Nicolle's book. I was also suspicious because "Stuedgar" is an anagram of "Degarts Utar", if you add another A and R, and because Stu says "Utar" is also spelled "Uktar", which is a month in one of the Forgotten Realms calendars. (By the way, Stu's previous Joe Jacks article is probably nonsense too, despite the failed AFD.) Adam Bishop 16:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete pending verification from reliable sources. Pete.Hurd 16:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: "Degarts Utar" in an anagram of "Stuart Edgar" not "StuEdgar". Note also, Stuedgar has been warned for making vandalistic edits to unrelated articles in the past [46]. Pete.Hurd 19:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I didn't even think of "Stuart", that's even better! Adam Bishop 20:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Joe Jacks deserves another AfD, or DRV. IMHO, it should have come out like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Brett did. Plus, can anyone verify that Fisah Ketsi is for real? Pete.Hurd 19:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, since its captain, Ted Sugar, is another anagram of Stuedgar. Adam Bishop 21:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And also, Fisah Ketsi is an anagram of "shit is fake". Adam Bishop 23:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probable hoax, sourceless in any case, even the name sounds made-up.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless properly sourced. 0 Gscholar and Gbooks hits. Stammer 18:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I deleted this and Stu's other articles as obvious hoaxes. Adam Bishop 23:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There clearly is insufficient community will to delete this, and sources have been added since Moreschi's "original research" argument, which is cited by most of the opposers. That said, I think the article needs a complete workover. It's emphasis is on the workings of this system, not on encyclopedic information about it such as its history and influence. I cannot delete this right now, but I do think if its principal authors don't rethink its approach it will be deleted. This is not a website for gaming manuals. Chick Bowen 23:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DKP (2nd nomination) edit

I nominated this for deletion 6 weeks ago - here's a link to that discussion. My argument was that, while this article is undoubtedly very well written, it is completely devoid of reliable sources and therefore is 100% original research. The keep !votes in that discussion amounted to "DKP is notable!" without providing any sources to back up that claim, or even worse, "This information isn't available anywhere else, how can we get rid of it?" My question is how can we keep information that isn't available anywhere else? Wikipedia is not a place for original thought. Anyway, in the meantime, the only additions to this article have been more links to guild wepsites advertising their particular version of DKP. Take a look at the external links section - they are all to guild websites and DKP calculators and not a single one is to a reliable source describng DKP. A google search turns up one student whitepaper on the subject that might qualify as RS, but even then, the effort to rewrite this article with that source would require starting from scratch. Since there has been no improvement on this article and none forthcoming, I am renominating it for your consideration. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Tarinth 12:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The whitepaper you mention (I assume, since you provided no link) is actually authored by university professors, not students. Edward Castronova, one of the authors of this paper, is actually a noted economist that focuses his research on virtual world. I linked this whitepaper in my vote below. Psychochild 10:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete A fan-made concept with a lack of reliable sources isn't notable. Phony Saint 17:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An absurd statement. What is "fan-made" supposed to mean? Is that supposed to belittle the concept? Are significant pieces of software used within an Open Source program made by "open source fans?" I hope you comprehend the parallel. We're talking about a category of software used by millions of users. Tarinth 12:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's completely unreferenced and seems mostly complied of original research. No reliable sources provided, no article, WP:N. Moreschi ^Talk 17:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep there are plenty of sources, they are just not footnoted. This is a relevant article and well made. -Rebent 17:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment - this is totally untrue. --Haemo 01:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep This article is well written and extremely useful. -NickKovacs 18:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, it's useful?

just because some thing's useful doesn't mean it's useful -Rebent 01:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep The article cites the best sources available at the time for a very real, very prevalent concept. Indeed, it fits perfectly into the milieu of of an encyclopedia. Declaring that this is original research is at best, misleading, and purely agenda driven at worst. The information is available at the links provided. The challenge to their notability is refuted when one accepts that traditional legacy media and sociological researchers lack the frame of reference necessary to address this concept, and are thus, not experts. The individuals designing and using the systems for distributing digital wealth then, become experts themselves. Their notability arises from the widespread use of DKP as a concept for said digital wealth distribution. With over 8.5 million users subscribing to World of Warcraft in the US alone (see http://www.blizzard.com/press/070307.shtml) and a significant portion of those subscribers using DKP to assign loot (see the aforementioned whitepaper) it's clearly prevalent enough to warrant an entry - I havn't even mentioned individuals in countries like Korea or Japan or other countries. The article should be updated to include references from the whitepaper and other research as soon as such research becomes available, not deleted out of some misguided devotion to a culture and a research community just barely coming to grips with the consequences of digital wealth. Research regarding this top may soon become available. I would encourage those so eager to delete the article to visit http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/ for research, published and otherwise, in progress on DKP and similar topics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cylus (talk • contribs) 21:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC).— Cylus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 21:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To be fair, the 8.5M figure is worldwide subscriptions. The linked press release shows that there were 1.9 million purchases of the expansion in North American territories; in other words, this is the minimum number of subscriptions in the territory. Psychochild 10:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This is rapidly becoming a re-hash of the original debate. Yes, it's WP:USEFUL. Yes, it exists. Yes, it is true. None of these things satisfies the the problem that this article does not have a single reliable resource per WP:RS. That's what makes it original research. If it's just going to stir up the single purpose accounts to come out and cast their !votes to keep it because it's a great article, then fine, but please would someone who wants to hang on to it provide at least a compelling argument as to how it satisfies policies and guidelines? Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think my contribs clearly document that I'm not a single-purpose account :) Frankly, you've made the argument for why it should stay for me, Arkyan. You essentially state that removing this article would remove a real, useful, and true source of information from Wikipdeia. The article does lack good sourcing, but the AfD has already identified sources amongst scholars and media. My objection is using the AfD process as a forum for article improvement--other alternatives could be being bold by trimming the article or blanking large sections you think cannot or will not be sourced. By deleting the article, it suggests to everyone that the subject itself is hopelessly unnotable and unverifiable. I don't feel either of those are true. I'd like the article to have an opportunity for further improvement. Tarinth 13:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - On the contrary, I would argue that the sources cited ARE reliable. Further, they are some of the ONLY sources available. This is not original research in any intellectually honest sense. I also note the ad-hominem snipe. I made this account some time ago, and haven't used it much, yet this has no effect whatsoever on the logic of my statements, which you failed to address. If you've bothered to read the WP:RS entry recently, you might note this: "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." This is an exception, as it is an exceptional topic. Cylus 22:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cylus (talk • contribs) 21:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment That WP:RS is "just a guideline" does not mean you can ignore it when you feel like it. We could just go to the relevant policies, WP:V and WP:NOR: it is original research and unverifiable according to Wikipedia. We can always recreate the article if and when reliable, independent third-party sources publish research on the concept, but not before then. Phony Saint 23:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Ignore it, no. I read it, hence I haven't ignored it. However, the nature of the topic warrants exactly the kind of EXCEPTION mentioned on the page. The sources are unusual, but so is the topic, so it should stay. Wikipedia, and those that read it, gain nothing from this article's deletion. The attempts to do so exhibit a blind devotion to the letter of a rule without any fundamental comprehension of what that rule was meant to accomplish coupled with a dogmatic insistence on undermining the legitimacy of anyone who is not a "professional" journalist or researcher. Merit is more important than a certificate or some other arbitrary pedigree. 167.10.240.127 16:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep As an enduring concept used in at least a dozen MMOs I can name. Sure it's a fan-made concept, so are virtually all internet memes. Wintermut3 01:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is totally unsourced! There are literally no sources in this this entire article - if this is seriously a "notable" and "enduring" concept, then where are the facts. I could go through this with a ^{[citation needed]} gun, and literally every single fact would be suspect. I mean, the lead of the article contains a factual assertion with no sourcing! I can't believe people are willing to totally ignore policy and keep an article that violates policy so blatantly basically because they like it. Source it or delete it - don't dither around with content like this. It's either encyclopedic, and you can source it, or it's unverifiable original research and should be deleted. --Haemo 01:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a quite notable MMORPG concept. I came here to double-check a link because I wanted to share this information with some fellow game developers on an online RPG project I am consulting on, and was mildly surprised to see it up for deletion. One problem with citing sources is that most sources are on individual guild pages which tend to be ephemeral. Each individual MMORPG guild have a different system and policies, and these will also be different between games, so there is no one "universal" source of information on the topic. I'd also notable that this page is referenced by quite a few external sites (such as this site) as a detailed article about the concept. There is an academic whitepaper on DKP that could be used for citation, although it focuses more on the effects of and theories of the system rather than a detailed description of such a system. I'd add the citations myself, but I have consulting to do. Brian Green 10:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is the topic notable? A websearch suggests so and it has even attracted scholarly interest ([47]). Can this article harm Wikipedia? Hardly. Does it provide valuable information? Very, very likely. So keep. Stammer 18:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC). Ooops, I see Brian Green got that before. So, as per Brian. Stammer 18:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although this lacks footnotes, it is highly accurate. The problem with articles of this genre are that there is nothing "real" to footnote. The DKP systems relate to games. The items that it is used for are virtual. All of the DKP systems noted above are conceptual. They are systems used and manitpulated by guilds in MMOs. This is currently the only consolidated article available online. All of this inbformation in one form or another can be found online. Refrences are difficult to comeby since there are literally thousands of versions of the systems explained in this article. As, the only consolidated reference available online, it would be truly a shame to delets it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.9.10.2 (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment In other words, it's original thought not published anywhere else? If WOWWiki or any other gaming wiki wants to write about DKP, they're free to. A single whitepaper does not constitute multiple independent reliable sources, so it doesn't belong here. Phony Saint 18:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Moreschi Gretab 23:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per previous AfD. Iceberg3k 01:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATT and WP:NOR. The complete lack of sources is undefensible. Jtrainor 03:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is actually cited as an authoritative source outside Wikipedia. This scholarly paper, by Edward Castronova, contains the following statement, "The wiki page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DKP contains further systems developed by gaming groups,and some of the allocational and political goals the systems further". Stammer 04:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, the whitepaper cites this page? That's even worse then; you're using the whitepaper as a source for this article, and the whitepaper uses this article as a source. It's not an independent source at all. Phony Saint 05:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yeah, it cites this page, but why are you asking me? Can't you verify it on your own?~~ I pointed out the reference because it confirms the topic's (not the article's) notability. And in any case, I did some work out there checking facts ~~(ever heard of that?~~) that I could share in this discussion. Stammer 05:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC). I realise that my tone above is unnecessarily abrasive. Apologies. Stammer 07:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a rhetorical question; at any rate, it's not notable if it lacks "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic." A single whitepaper which seems to draw information from the Wikipedia article itself does not confer notability. Phony Saint 13:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty stunning that a professor would cite Wikipedia in such a manner. --Haemo 05:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be equally stunned if it cited the Britannica? Is reliability out of question for Wikipedia? Stammer 05:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said cited in such a manner; impermanence is the nature of Wikipedia, and a citation like that doesn't give context. --Haemo 05:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is non-trivial, however "impermanent" weblinks are routinely provided as helpful references in newspaper articles and in informal scholarly discussions (e.g. seminars). I guess that permanence of relevant information should be a goal of Wikipedia, but that's just a personal opinion, which arguably does not correspond to policy. Stammer 06:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC). Actually it does correspond to policy, through WP:V, which is at the core of this discussion. Stammer 06:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But my point was, what academic would cite a web resource in such a way - especially in an academic paper? I know it boggles my mind, given all of the training we have centered around citing accurately, and the positively reams of material based around how to cite web resources. --Haemo 06:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In essence, you're arguing that because Wikipedia is a useless resource, it should not be cited by an academic. Thanks for the vote of confidence; let's take the site down. Castronova is a well-respected academic in his own right. Why don't you take a look at his Wikipedia page? Saraid 05:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, in essence, you're reading a lot of hookum into my comments. I'm saying that citing a web reference - ANY web reference - without giving a date is a bad idea, because of the nature of the internet. This is elementary material, and any college English covers explains exactly why you're supposed to do this. It surprised me that a professor did not do this, given that any given freshman would in a their paper. --Haemo 06:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The purpose of WP:OR is to prevent pet theories, not to remove articles that describe current and undeniable phenomena. The article does not, in any way, advance personal agendas on the part of any of the editors, near as I can tell, except the desire to, I don't know, create an encyclopedic entry on a specific topic. Previous usage of the term in academic paper is also discoverable on Google Scholar. In other words, the term not original. Also referenced by Nick Yee in his MMORPG Lexicon. You ask for reliable sources, but fail to note that all of the external links are, in fact, primary sources. They are examples of DKP systems in use. Saraid 05:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We aren't asking for just reliable sources, but multiple independent reliable sources. Yes, there's a whitepaper, but the whitepaper cites this article itself as a source. Even the article's talk page indicates that people are doing their own analysis on this. Phony Saint 18:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, why don't you take the contents and merge it inside another article? Having established that it's WP:USEFUL, why delete it? I would recommend placing it inside the MMORPG article, since it pertains to that subject. It would fit well in the Economics section. Saraid 06:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was one of the principal contributors for the economics section of the MMORPG article, and while I think that it would be a good improvement to that article to include some passing reference to DKP, I think the subject is far too large to consider merging. It really needs to stay in its own article. Tarinth 14:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per previous AfD - nothing about this has changed in the last two months. The DKP article contains about as much in the way of citing as is really possible -- as Saraid points out, we really only have primary sources to go on at the moment, and the list of external links at the bottom of the article is a reasonable good assortment of such. Particular points might be more closely attributed to a particular source, but that's a matter for edits, not deletion. Kemayo 17:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC) — Kemayo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Keep~~, (changed to speedy keep, added at bottom along with reference documentation for the sake of indentations...) this is a widely recognized cultural phenomena/meme/social-self-organization/what-have-you within the online gaming universe. Perhaps the article can be improved considerably, but AfD isn't the appropriate forum for article improvement. I also suggest to the nominator that resubmitting the article for an AfD so soon after the last one is poor form and tends to waste a lot of time. Tarinth 13:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nearly seven weeks is considerably sufficient time for an article to improve, at least in some small measure. It has seen no improvement whatsoever and there is no reason for myself or anyone else to assume the situation would change in an additional six more weeks, or six more months for that matter. What, then, do you suggest is long enough to give an article a chance to improve so as not to waste time? Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think establishing a "deadline" is artificial. The article will be improved over the next few years just as most of Wikipedia shall. The notability of the subject isn't in question; it defines a category of software used by millions of users. I suggest that WP is better served by enhancing and improving articles closer to one's own domain of expertise. Tarinth 12:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the record I am quite familiar with DKP, I have been playing World of Warcraft nearly since its inception and have been well exposed to the concept. However that something exists or is even popular is not in and of itself a reason to keep an article. My contention from the beginning has been the lack of reliable sources and that is still the case. While I appreciate your opinion that this is a WP:IAR case and the inherent notability of the subject trumps the lack of sourcing, it is my contention that no amount of inherent popularity dismisses the need for reliable sourcing. If Wikipedia is ever to become a truly respected source of information then we must be adamant about ensuring the information we provide is sourced, factual and reliable. That cannot be accomplished without reliable sources. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never thought I would have to create a Wikipedia account just to keep a reference that is known so well by the MMORPG community and has been adopted by millions of gamers worldwide due to the objection of one person. The personal attacks in this section have gone far beyond what the rules of this website allow. I have made the necessary corrections for validity. I encourage others to do the same as their knowledge of the history to this subject allows. I hope this ridiculous debate will then come to a close. If Wikipedia deletes the entry, know that WOWWIKI.COM includes it as valid subject matter. --Jadess 04:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is sourced. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 04:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If by sourced you mean "It has a collection of links to a bunch of fan-created guild sites and doesn't source a single statement in the article, let alone source its notability," then yes, it's sourced. Phony Saint 04:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT That is a false statement. One of the sources, in the very first paragraph, is the originator! That is NOT just a fan link! The entire misunderstanding here, is that some people did not bother to read, nor click on the first paragraph. That has been now corrected to reflect that they are the source. AFTERLIFE is the source. It was first archived 7 years ago and has a tremendous following of outsources including [48] Everquest's own reference to it in their Knowledge Database. Please read before you make these comments. --Jadess 06:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That source provides no evidence to support that - in fact, it doesn't even assert that. Phony Saint is right about about the sourcing for this article. It's not only bad - it's non-existent. --Haemo 06:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It was from 7 years ago and hasn't changed. That's the source. The system is likened to the early DIKU MUD point systems and inherits its originality by formulating points for Everquest boss mobs; an original history page of which has been provided in the Wiki page for reference and accountability. Tailored modifications thereafter stem from its use specifically to MMORPG hobbyists, known as DKP, across genres of MMORPG-specific games. If you persist in attempting to delete subject matter based on your ignorance, that I know for a fact to be true, I will start reporting the people responsible. Learn the subject matter or refrain from your malicious, untrue, unfactual, statments. Or email AFTERLIFE yourself. Nevermind, I already did, since I know you won't. Rather then just ask the source yourself, you'll just deny the validity of it here. --Jadess 06:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think you understand what kind of a source we're talking about here, and I don't appreciate being talked to in such a way. I have made no "malicious, untrue, unfactual, statments" on this page, and I resent being characterized as such. Encyclopedia articles should not require emailing Guilds to establish a fact a reference is supposed to provide. --Haemo 07:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The large number of software packages that self-describe themselves within the DKP category makes the subject notable per se. This is certainly within the latitude of WP:N and if not, WP:IAR should be adequate for justifying its existence. I completely agree that the article could be better sourced and could be enhanced considerably. In the course of the AfD, people have already identified scholarly sources amongst noted economists that have recognized the subject, and perhaps there's some opportunity to improve the article further after the AfD ends. Tarinth 13:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        FYI Hameo, I emailed the creator of the system. DKP, as a gaming point system, is not so earth-shattering that anyone would have felt it needed such precise bibliography akin to SCOTUS legal citations. It should suffice that many, who were there for its inception, provided the synopsis. I note further, that not ONE person, out of the countless who have viewed this entry, allege the stated source as false. Furthermore, per Wikipedia, the guideline suggests entries "should be sourced", not that they "must" (see also: Tarinth's notes). The purpose is to avoid "plagiarism or copyright violations", none of which applies here. This is a valid entry and has a source as submitted and has not been contested by ANYONE known to these games. All arguments to the contrary are out of ignorance of the subject matter and a veritable enjoyment at griefing, well after countless explanations and attestations have been provided; activity of which will be reported if it continues. --Jadess 15:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        To be fair, verifiable sourcing of an article is quite central to Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. It's just my contention that the subject is patently notable, and that it's likely that reliable sources could be found. In my opinion, articles of clearly notable status that have the potential for great improvement should stay and be improved, and without establishing artificial deadlines within which to do so (this is a volunteer organization, after all). Perhaps the article is a candidate for the Article Improvement Drive. Tarinth 16:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) "Likely"? You think we haven't tried to find sources already? We have two sources: a bunch of guild sites, which don't fit the "reliable, independent sources" category, and a single whitepaper which uses the Wikipedia article as a reference, meaning it's not independent or multiple. There is no "patent notability": you're confusing popularity with notability. The threshold for inclusion is Wikipedia policy, not just a notability guideline. Phony Saint 18:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - - COMMENT**** Again, mistatements, untruth and biased prejudice. What part of "All images and text on this page, unless noted otherwise, belong to the organization of Afterlife. Any reproduction in part or whole without consent of Afterlife is prohibited", did you not understand? This is the bonafide source. It has confirmed 7 year archival references by independent sources cited herein. Enough said. You are wrong. Contest the validity with proofs to the contrary or withdraw your argument for lack of factual contradictions. --Jadess 00:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - We're not contesting the validity of their claims - because they don't make any. Nowhere on that "source" linked do they claim to have invented DKP. That means it's not an adequare reliable source. If I linked to a book by Milton Friedman where he talks about his wife, and said it was a "source" for the face that he was a Chicago School economist, would I be right? No, of course not - that's what this reference does here. --Haemo 01:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break edit

Speedy Keep recommended due to new reference additions. I recognize that since DKP is an overwhelmingly popular concept, that it makes locating the scholarly and media sources amongst the huge number of other Ghits difficult. Since I'm hoping we can stop wasting time with this AfD, I've located the following sources which I believe are quite reliable, and amending the article. The references I've added are:

A scholarly work by Edward Castronova and Joshua Fairfield that documents the subject: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=958945

(Note: I don't believe this is the same scholarly article by Castronova previously mentioned during the AfD; this article actually documents the subject, as opposed to providing a passing reference to WP's article.)

A Ten Ton Hammer article on the subject of DKP. Ten Ton Hammer is a significant website within the MMORPG media with a large number of contributing writers (I'm not referring to their forums). They've been used as a source in numerous other places. Their article: [49]

A Stratics article on the subject of DKP. Like Ten Ton Hammer, they're a significant MMORPG media website. Their article: http://wow.stratics.com/content/features/guides/raiding/raidloot_oppenheimer.php

A reference to Nick Yee's MMORPG lexicon:

[50] Nick Yee is a PARC researcher noted for his extensive scholarly writings on the psychology and sociology of MMORPGs.

Since I found these sources in about ten minutes of careful Google sifting, I stand by my earlier assertion that sources are "likely" and not only that--but that additional sources would continue to be likely amongst the 4 million+ Ghits on the subject.

I've gone ahead and edited the article to reflect the additional references, and I've removed the "unsourced" tag from the article head. The two media sources are sites with multiple contributors that assert editorial authority over content, meeting the requirements of WP:RS and Nick Yee also meets the standards of WP:RS as a noted scholar who is widely published and acknowledged by his peers; Castronova's credentials are certainly not in question and his paper deals entirely with the subject of DKP. I hope this brings the debate to a close. Tarinth 19:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the Castronova article people repeatedly state is a reliable source despite its reference to this article. If that whitepaper takes information from this article itself, how can you cite that as a source?

I have just read the whitepaper. Have you? If you have, then you'd know that the statement here is untrue. This is a relatively long paper (on the order of 10-20 times longer than the WP article) that documents a number of things, utilizes a bunch of other sources, and is written in a scholarly tone. Yes, it is true that the Wikipedia article is mentioned within the whitepaper, but the only purpose in doing so is to refer readers of the whitepaper to a list of known DKP systems (presumably he's referring to the "external links" section of the article). The vast majority of the article deals with a description of what DKP is, and is a rather good source for the content of the WP article. I find the notion that simply mentioning Wikipedia in a scholarly article somehow undermines its credibility as utterly absurd. Tarinth 21:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect to Ten Ton Hammer, Stratics, and Nick Yee (I'm familiar with the former two, they're nice sites for guides), but they're not sources on the notability of DKP, just how to use them. Are you proposing we write articles on various types of aggro and tanks simply because the MMORPG community uses them a lot? I assure you I can find plenty of articles on how to use those, but I'm not about to write an encyclopedic article on them. (Actually, there is an article for Tank (computer gaming), but it's not reliably sourced either. See the problem?)

The fact that a media source discusses a concept or topic has consistently been a criteria for establishing encyclopedic notability on Wikipedia. That's exactly what those articles do, as they are articles that deal entirely with the subject in question. Tarinth 21:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough to cite 2 sentences out of dozens (if not hundreds) in the article to reliable sources; the majority of the article must be cited or derived from a source somehow. If the talk page wasn't a big enough clue, the majority of the article - comparison charts, economics and all - are original research by the editors here. Transwiki it to a gaming wiki if you must, but this article does not belong here. Phony Saint 21:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Email sent to abuse@wikipedia.org regarding this ongoing harassment. --Jadess 01:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good luck, and next time read WP:HARASS. Phony Saint 01:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I did. "This page in a nutshell: Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information." That's all you've been doing despite numerous attempt to educate you. You are, unteachable. This is nothing more than griefing on your part and you enjoy it far too much; hence the report. Your threats are noted. Your personal attacks laced with repeated sarcasm are noted especially. Good luck yourself, seriously. Get a life! --Jadess 01:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Show me any edit where an editor did any of those things. --Haemo 01:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In cases where a source is established earlier in the article and additional information is derived from the same sources, it isn't necessary to pepper the document with "ibid"-type references to the same source over and over. In any case, a lot of additional citations could be developed here, but these sources were provided to bring the article above the standards required for inclusion. We've had similar discussion over on the Evolution page where it's been agreed that you don't need to have citation on every single fact in the article (which would result in near-unreadability) when the facts are reasonably well reflected in the sources already presented. In any case, the fact that there's 4 references now probably takes it above the current level of referencing for about 99% of articles. Tarinth 21:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So where does the economics analysis come from? Who started the DKP controversy? Who decides what basic and variant DKPs are? None of that comes from any of the sources you listed, and is never going to come from any independent reliable source because it is OR. If you want to create a new DKP article based on reliable information, be my guest, but the current incarnation with rampant OR and lack of notability has to go. Phony Saint 23:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but you don't seem to understand what the guidelines regarding WP:OR are.

On OR: Wikipedia itself does not *publish* OR, but it most certainly does use *outside* original research to support articles when the sources of such research are reliable sources. The Castronova article is a primary source, written by a recognized economist with expertise in this field, and deals directly with the subject matter. The TenTon and Stratics articles are secondary sources that deals directly with, among other things, one of the subjects you questioned (variations of DKP systems). When primary and secondary sources such as these deal with a subject, we regard them as expert in their domain and as such they are used to support articles in Wikipedia. Ultimately, *all* knowledge that is used as source material is traceable to original research since there's no codex of perfect knowledge that we can refer to in all matters. In any case, I beleve it is evident that subjects such as the economic implications of DKP and the variations of DKP systems is quite thoroughly reflected amongst the references I added.

On notability of article content: WP:N establishes the notability of the subject article itself, which can now be established through the references provided; see the subsection on "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content." All you are doing now is arguing for improvement of content, which is not an argument for deletion; and in any event, individual sections of the article need not establish notability on their own--if they did,articles would be threadbare indeed! May I suggest you learn a little more about Wikipedia before you adopt entrenched positions that involve the destruction/deletion of other Wikipedians' work? Tarinth 00:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I very well know what Wikipedia's guideline on OR is; my point is, the majority of this article's information has not been published anywhere else before. Most of the article needs a rewrite, either to delete wholly unsourced information or to make current information actually reflect sources. The economics section goes beyond what Castronova discusses; half the DKP systems aren't mentioned in any source; most of the pros and cons aren't discussed anywhere. Were it just a problem of OR, I would go with a week keep.

However, in addition to the OR problem, notability has not been established; Ten Ton Hammer and Stratics are primary sources, the articles being written and published by players. You can use them for information, but not for establishing notability itself. There aren't any independent, reliable secondary or tertiary sources.

I am arguing for deletion because the article:

Is content not suitable for an encyclopedia (specifically, not a game guide)
Fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (presumably WP:N, or possibly WP:WEB)
Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources (the weakest of the arguments, but it's still technically one)

Those are valid reasons for deletion, backed by policies and guidelines. Phony Saint 01:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Actually, all of the sources cited (TenTon, Stratics, Castonova) are secondary sources (I incorrectly stated earlier that Castronova was primary, but he's offering analysis and has not written a DKP system). The only primary sources are the DKP systems themselves (i.e., the software written that has categorized themselves as such), DKP documentation, and the authors of the DKP systems. The writers at TenTon and Stratics are journalists analyzing the information; the fact that they might also play games in which DKP is popular isn't relevant. Castronova is clearly providing analysis and synthesis. On your specific points:

* 1) There's no guideline specifically regarding "game guides," so presumably you are referring to the section that eliminates such content as an example of "indiscriminate information" which this is not (it isn't an instruction manual). This clearly isn't a "game guide" (it isn't giving you a walkthrough of how to do something in a game). It's documenting a real and verifiable social/economic phenomena which heretofore has only been criticized due to the lack of good sourcing, which has now been addressed.

* 2) WP:N requires multiple sources. WP:WEB doesn't apply because this isn't an article about a website. WP:SOFT probably applies since the article describes a category of software. In any case, it appears that this article is well-above the minimum bar established by the relevant guidelines.

* 3) Originally, the argument that it could not be attributed to reliable sources was the "strong" argument favoring the article's deletion, because there were no sources. This has now been addressed. You admit that it's now the weakest argument, except that I'd go further to say that it is a non-argument for the reasons already presented. Tarinth 11:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Journalists? That's stretching it. TTH's article is written by a WoW community manager - he's paid to write for WoW, and the Stratics one was written by a WoW player ("Submitted in the WoW Stratics TBC Beta contest" is a clue as to its origins.) WP:N requires multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic, and I have severe doubts about the independence and reliability of articles written by WoW players from a WoW perspective. Castronova would be okay were there other sources as well, but his reference to the Wikipedia DKP article is troubling. The original problem is still not addressed, if all you have is a whitepaper and a couple of game guides on how to use DKPs. Phony Saint 15:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get off the "Castronova used Wikipedia as a source" argument? That simply isn't true. Read the whitepaper. All he did is mention in a footnote that Wikipedia maintains a list of known DKP systems. The paper itself is scholarly research. You aren't really adopting that position that Wikipedia must disqualify any source that simply mentions Wikipedia in the article? Is Yochai Benkler's definitive text, "The Wealth of Networks" not a valid source of knowledge about social and collaborative networking efforts because he mentions Wikipedia extensively in his book? There's really no difference here. And as for TTH and Stratics--I see no distinction between their writers and the people who contribute, for example, reviews of gadgets to Popular Science. Naturally, the people who write the articles are going to have knowledge of the domain, and are likely to be players! Tarinth 23:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the DKP system back in '99, and wrote the article on Afterlifeguild.org referenced above. Jadess emailed me asking if there is anything I can do to help with this deletion conflict. I have never published anything stating I am the creator because I'm not interested in self-promotion, but it seems that humility is creating problems. What can I do now to help? Thottx 18:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's not a whole lot that we could use from the original creator; we're not questioning if you actually created the system, we're questioning if it's notable in the Wikipedia sense, which is described at WP:Notability. The only coverage that we can find are guild sites, MMORPG guides, and a whitepaper, none of which satisfy notability requirements; if there are any independent sources discussing DKP systems that you know of, that would help tremendously. Should the article survive deletion, we could use your help in rewriting the article. Phony Saint 21:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks, Thott! Actually Phony, you guys did question the source and we had to actually trouble this man to take time out to come here and authenticate himself. Scroll back, it was refuted several times but I think you know that, you're just backpedalling at this point. As to notability, we already told you why it needs a separate entry. It's because the system is cross-platformed among so many games today, it requires its own entry. To bury it amongst a single title doesn't do it justice and deprives those interested from even finding it from the adage it is known to be, which is DKP. --Jadess 01:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We didn't question Afterlife as the original creator; we questioned it as a reliable, independent secondary source. You still haven't defined how DKP is notable according to Wikipedia guidelines instead of your own opinion on the matter. Phony Saint 01:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per WP:V, Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The policy further goes on to state that self-published sources are not acceptable as sources. For this reason I must discount the links to guild websites as unacceptable, as they are all self-published with no editorial oversight. I must also discount the links to Stratics and TenTonHammer for the same reasons as being self-published sources of information lacking reliable accuracy and fact-checking. This leaves only the Daedalus project website - which, while self-published, appears to be published by an expert in the field - and the whitepaper. Unfortunately the link on Yee's website is to a barebones dictionary definition that provides no contextual information and is insufficient as a source. The whitepaper, depending on its content, could be the trump card needed for this article, but as the whitepaper references the Wikipedia article, its utility as a reliable source is severely limited, as we are therefore effectively self-referencing. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. Given the fact this article still lacks any reliable sources it is still a gross violation of WP:OR and I must decline Tarinth's request to withdraw my nomination, and will strongly reiterate my opinion that this article is not fit for inclusion on Wikipedia. Something like this is better suited to some place like Wowwiki, and I strongly advise the interested editors to move this information over there where it belongs. Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is wrong with Stratics and TenTon? Those sites, along with a handful of others, are the media of the MMORPG industry. They certainly are not self-published sources (they both have contributions from dozens of journalists). They both assert editorial authority. Your judgment that Daedalus "looks" better is simply an opinion. The fact that independent journalists from the MMORPG media have covered the subject of DKP is what makes it notable. What is the difference between prominent online publications that deal with the subject of games--versus, say--boating, programming, management, etc.? Tarinth 23:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stratics is more akin to GameFAQs - that is, anyone can get an article or guide published there. The TenTon article is written by a WoW community manager (who is paid by Blizzard, unless I'm misinterpreting that title), so you can hardly call that independent journalism. Just because Stratics and TenTon have some news articles like this one does not make every article published by them reliable or journalistic; in this case, they're written by people who have a vested interest to write wholly about WoW-related topics (a player and a CM). Phony Saint 00:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're misinterpreting the roles. The "WoW Community Manager" title refers to a role within the website itself; paid Blizzard staff don't write articles for Stratics or TTH. It's untrue that "anyone" can write content for Stratics; it isn't GameFAQs, it isn't a Wiki, or a general blog. Articles have to be accepted by the editors of both sites. They have forums where anyone can contribute, but that's separate from the library of articles developed by their editorial staff. The fact that it was published in an area geared toward WoW players is not relevant because it still meets the definition of "independent of the source," i.e., it is not written by Blizzard but by the people who cover the news topics pertaining to Blizzard. Virtually every consumer industry that has attracted millions of enthusiasts have their own media dedicated to them, and the fact that they're interested in the subject matter doesn't disqualify them as independent media (unelss they're a house organ, i.e., a magazine owned and directed by the company soley to promote them). In any case, we're not even dealing with an article about Wow or Blizzard or its products, but a economic process (DKP) that existed *before* WoW as documented in the other sources presented. Tarinth 13:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP or take every single contribution on gaming references off of Wikipedia entirely because those people will then be called liars despite their proofs as well. Take it ALL off. We don't need another web page advertising nothing more than a game anyway. That is, in effect, all you are reducing this information to include, so why bother having millions of fans look for an encyclopedia that can reference valid, individual and well-used contributions when the Wikipedia will obviously be lacking in that area. Just take it all off and give it to Wowwiki who doesn't give us these hassles. We'll just distribute the information on well read boards that this place doesn't allow it and recommend everyone delete their entries voluntarily. The old forums have thousands of entries of testimony that the source is the original source. Arkyan didn't bother to look those up, but we don't need further proof. Most of the people here knew that much. The original Afterlife website stamped their ownership which is good enough per copyright law, stated as much on their forums, but apparently that isn't good enough here. Just put this link on the major boards, especially WoW General where millions read, and everyone can go just go elsewhere so Arkyan and friends can be happy.

I don't think you're grasping the substance of my argument. I have no qualms with Afterlife's claims to have invented the DKP system, and "ownership" of it is not what is being disputed. Nor are there any questions regarding copyright status here. The only question is one of the factual reliability and verifiability of the sources in question. They don't satisfy Wikipedia inclusion standards - that's all there is to it. Arkyan  ^(talk) 22:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there must be enough independent, reliable secondary sources to establish notability. It's all well and good if millions of players know about it, but if it's not notable, it's not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability is not popularity. Phony Saint 22:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)*[reply]

Comment I suggest you peruse WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, poster of the above rant. Jtrainor 01:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First you guys balked that Afterlife wasn't the source. Now you're saying you have no qualms with it and that the problem is "notability". Then I look up notability and that says it just needs to be "sufficiently notable to be included as a separate article in Wikipedia", which this is, because this is a system that is used in just about every MMORPG. If you stuck it under World of Warcraft and someone from Everquest II was looking for it, they wouldn't find it. Gamers know to look up DKP, not the game name. Basically, you go back and forth baffling people with a bunch of nonsense so why bother? You're losing out on a great viewing audience for doing this. People have bent over backwards to inform you why it needs to be this way, but there comes a time when it's not worth it anymore. You have stated outright to go put it on Wowwiki, not here. Ok, whatever. True, there are alternatives to Wikipedia. Duly noted. I don't recommend you continue treating contributors this way because someone else is going to pass you that doesn't waffle around in what they require. This is a loss you made for Wikipedia, and a promotion for Wowwiki whether you realize it or not. That's what you did. --Jadess 23:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't seem to understand what we say when we say reliable source. No one is disputing that they invented DKP, or whatever else. That's not our job. What we are debating is the fact that the "source" provided from them for claims in the articles does not back up that claim. That's what it's not a reliable source. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not about everything, and we're not in competition with WoWiki - they are welcome to this article, because that's where it belongs. --Haemo 02:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be gentle. Obviously some of the people who have come here don't understand the nuances; they are simply people who have come to know of WP as a good source for information and are shocked that a long-standing article is being debated for deletion. This debate isn't really about Afterlife or who created or it or whatnot. I agree that Afterlife is a primary source that isn't considered suitable per WP:RS. On the other hand, we have a number of other sources that have been identified during the course of the AfD (a couple media, at least one scholarly) and a fair likelihood that more will continue to turn up. The arguments against the sources presented have been: a) that the scholarly source mentions Wikipedia, and therefore cannot be considered valid--yet in fact, if you read the source, you'll note that it simply mentions that WP contains a list of known DKP systems and that its analysis contains original synthesis separate from the WP article, and relies on a number of distinct sources. In the case of TTH and Stratics, the argument is essentially that they don't qualify because they are independent (which is untrue, they aren't funded by any company with a material interest in DKP), or that they don't actually assert editorial authority (which is true of their *forums*, but certainly not their article libraries, from which these sources were obtained). Tarinth 13:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break, again edit

Comment - 4 more references added to those already added during the AfD; a small amount of content added as well. The new references and content enhance the controversy sections. Specifically, the references include an article from Escapist Magazine (a magazine that covers business and cultural issues of the MMORPG industry), a GamesRadar article (the Web arm of PC Gamer, the PC game magazine with the largest paid circulation in the world), a CNET article, and a thesis on MMORPG addiction (which probably wouldn't normally be considered a RS, except that in this case it was republished by Gamasutra, which is about the most respected of the game design publications.) Tarinth 13:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense intended but the addition of these "references" and the content they "source" make the case against this article even stronger. Not a single one of those four sources are about DKP, and at best relegate it to a passing mention. Worse still, the claims made that are purportedly based on these sources are spurious at best. The first claims "DKP can make the game feel like a second job". Absolutely nowhere in the Escapist article is this even implied - the article is about the business of raiding, not DKP, and DKP warrants a whole sentence there. How about the claim that "DKP systems can contribute to game addiction"? Please show me where in the thesis hosted on Gamasutra that this claim is supported. Again, the only mention of DKP in this thesis is a quick mention of it as "one example of guild complexity". To try and use these sources to make these claims is wrong, and nothing more than a point of view interpretation and yet more insertion of original research by trying to put words in the mouth of these authors. The other two "sources" give DKP a one-line mention but have absolutely zero contextual information about what the system is. The fact of the matter is that this article is still original research. It was written with zero reliable sources, and these attempts to "source" it have been dropped in after the fact. This article is original research, has been original research and will continue to be so until it is completely rewritten on a (thus far nonexistant) reliable source. The policy on original research is crystal clear : "The only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.". No one has demonstrated this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arkyan (talk • contribs) 15:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

* I fail to see how adding more references can make the case for deletion "stronger." These references were not added to support a case for the notability of the subject, as this was already established through the earlier references. We already have three separate, independent sources that deal entirely with the subject of DKP. It is clear that you don't agree that those sources are reliable, although you've never given a good reason why (or at least one I can agree with). As for these additional sources: they are simply supporting relevant content within the article itself,and it is certainly within WP norms to do so. When a source has something important to say about a particular subject it is more than acceptable--it's encouraged--to identify such references, even when that information is drawn from the context of a larger subject (example: the MMORPG article, which is rated a Good Article, contains numerous references to factual information from a variety of sources in which MMORPGs are not the exclusive subject of the source.) Tarinth 15:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* And on your note regarding the addiction thesis: DKP is described within the context of an analysis of organizational systems used to obtain long-term commitment to a group, which the writer believes is something that contributes to addictive playstyles. Tarinth 15:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is your interpretation of the thesis. Nowhere does the writer state he believes DKP contributes to addiction. The only statement of fact given in the thesis is the one I pointed out, that DKP is an "one example of guild complexity". Reading anything else in to the fact that a mention of DKP is included in an article about addiction is reading between the lines - and reading between the lines is inappropriate as far as sourcing an article go. As far as your original statement, when a source has something important to say about a topic, then of course it is encouraged to include it in the article. The problem is not one of these sources has anything important to say about DKP - they are brief mentions at best that do nothing to source the claims they are attached to. My argument has never been about notability - it has been about addressing OR concerns. This has yet to be satisfied. It is obvious you and I have different opinions as to what qualifies as a reliable source for the purpose of demonstrating a topic is not OR, and the debate is becoming circular so I won't belabor the issue further. My point is made, your point is made, and both are based on an interpretation of policy and guideline. I leave it up to the closer of the debate to judge which holds more weight within the context of the other opinions offered here. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on the addiction reference. I probably read too much into it which may have led to a POV interpretation. I've moved the reference to the lead paragraph, and changed the content accordingly; now I am simply relying upon the source's direct analysis, which claims that DKP is the most common point system used in online games (which itself is an argument of notability, I suppose). Tarinth 15:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arkyan's arguing based on OR, while I'm the one arguing based on notability concerns. Three of the new sources mention DKP in passing - a single line in an article is not coverage at all. The thesis devotes about half a paragraph and doesn't particularly state anything about DKP aside from "people use it." Being common isn't a factor; "A notable topic, by definition, is one that is 'worthy of notice'; this is a concept distinct from 'fame' or 'importance'." Phony Saint 16:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; the latest references were simply added to support individual points made within the article, not establish a case for notability overall. That was already done with the earlier, stronger references which we've already debated ad nauseum. Tarinth 19:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which earlier, stronger references? Stratics, where any player can publish a guide, or TenTon, where paid community managers write articles? Or the lexicon which is just a dictionary definition of DKP? Phony Saint 19:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you persist in belittling the sources? First, there was the economics paper written by Castronova. Second, there was Stratics, where guides are edited and written by an editorial staff, not "any player" as you allege. Third, TTH, where it was a member of the TTH editorial staff (their WoW community lead) who wrote the article, not the completely incorrect claim you've made about it being a paid WoW Community manager. And even if it *was* a paid WoW community manager, I don't see how that is relavent since this article is not about WoW. It is a subject that affects multiple online games and predates the very existance of WoW. Tarinth 19:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stratics: I would think that a guide submitted in a contest would be written by a player, especially with the player's screenname at the bottom. I could submit a guide myself if I chose to write one, but I'm horrible at writing them.

TenTon: It's useful as a reference for information, but not an independent reference to establish notability. There's a difference. I misinterpreted the "Community Manager" title they gave the writer, but still, he's just a volunteer gamer who writes about WoW, not a high-quality independent reference there.

Yes, I know Stratics and TenTon have independent news articles; but, in addition to those, they have game guides, and their guides most certainly aren't independent reliable sources. Phony Saint 19:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I find it pretty inane that people without any apparent knowledge of this area are arguing for the deletion of an article despite the protests of people that are familiar with the topic. I am an online game (MMORPG) designer/programmer and a published author in this area (see the Wikipedia stub at Brian Green (game developer) or my entry on MobyGames). This topic is certainly notable in the field of online games. Further, I find it funny that the original poster arguing for deletion has created an unsourced article: Xibalba. But, thanks for pointing out the mote in your brother's eye. Anyway, end this silly debate, go request citations where they are needed, and focus on improving Wikipedia instead of trying to look cool with how many Wikipedia guideline abbreviations you can link. Psychochild 19:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I find it pretty inane that, despite the claims of notability, there are no independent, reliable secondary sources on the matter. If it was that notable, surely several actual video game journalists would have written about it, instead of just the typical fanbase guides and a handful of trivial mentions. Phony Saint 19:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Here's a Wikipedia abbreviation for you - WP:NPA. Dredging up an article I worked on more than 2 years ago is a clear attempt to discredit my argument by discrediting me, which is not the way debates are run here. The state of Xibalba or any other article is immaterial to this discussion, funny as it may be to you. (By the way, that article does have a source, check the references.) Then you try discrediting myself (and others) by claiming we have "no apparent knowledge" on the topic while touting yourself as a professional game developer. Just as there is no way for me to know you are who you say you are, there is no way for you to know what I do or do not know. But again, my personal knowledge is immaterial to this debate. Either this article passes inclusion criteria or it does not. The ad hominem attacks on my credibility do nothing to alleviate the unsourced OR state of this article. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - This debate could go on into infinity. Experts in online games have come forth to document this, and provided good soruces. All you've done is belittle the sources that have been introduced in any way possible, all the while ignoring the input of those who--while they may be less experienced at WP--know a lot more about this subject than you do. I completely reject your assertion that the sources provided are not "real video game journalists." Each industry has its media that is specific to it, and *this* is the media that covers MMORPGs. WP:RS specifically deals with this fact, incidentally:

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors."

I assert that the University of Indiana (where Castronova is a noted economics professor), TTH and Stratics all meet this criteria: writing is subject to editorial oversight, the sources are trustworthy and authoritative in their domains. In the context of MMORPGs, these are what count as reliable sources. If we were talking about a source documenting something about Evolution or Byzantine History or Britney Spears, then we'd be dealing with a different set of sources (in each case) along with their own standards of what is considered authoritative. Stop insulting the people who are creating the media that surrounds the MMORPG industry and accept it for what it is--new scholars and journalists struggling to document the evolving, amazing world of virtual cultures and economies within online games. Tarinth 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware that I have insulted anyone in this matter? Nor have I said anythinga bout "real video game journalists". To whom are you directing this comment? In any case I think you've hit upon the core of the problem - new scholars and journalists struggling to document the evolving, amazing world of virtual cultures and economies within online games - a fact I can appreciate. The problem is that Wikipedia is not a place to document these kinds of things. We're a tertiary source, not a place for "new information". Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a response to Phony Saint. I'm aware that WP is a tertiary source. I was merely refuting claims that the secondary sources provided did not meet the standards of WP:RS. Tarinth 20:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so but wanted to make sure, the indent made it look like it was a reply to me and I was confused. Thank you for clearing it up. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most "editorial oversight" these sites have are either other volunteer gamers on the staff or webmasters (if there is any editorial oversight at all; the writers at TenTon most likely have privileges to submit whatever they want.) The articles sourced are guides written by WoW players, not by independent journalists reporting on a phenomenon. To state that guides written and reviewed by gamers are independent journalism is a misrepresentation of what they do. Phony Saint 20:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Significant improvements were made on May 10, after some of the delete votes, so I think we can read this debate as moving toward "keep." Chick Bowen 22:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael T. Sauer edit

One low level case, even if it is a high profile case for tabloids, does not establish (encyclopedic) notability for a judge. Sloan21 17:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sauer also argued Cohen v. California before the U.S. Supreme Court. That case is studied by anyone who takes Constitutional Law II (First Amendment) in law school! --Coolcaesar 17:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything that might be notable about his involvement in Cohen v. California could be mentioned in that article. Right now, his name is not mentioned once on that page. Simply being associated with something notable does not establish notability. Sloan21 17:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough for WP:BIO. Both notable cases he has been involved in can be (and are) perfectly adequately covered on their relevant pages. No need for a separate article. A1octopus 18:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say that having an entire LA Times article written about how notable you are should be worth something. Also, he is notable for holding celebrities accountable for their actions. If the judge from the Anna Nicole Smith (Larry Seidlin) can have his own article, why not this judge? [51] Dothisthing 18:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dothisthing, inclusion is not notability. Please see arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Dhartung | Talk 20:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice essay, but it is not policy. My argument is still valid however, because it seeks consistency.Dothisthing 20:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is celebcruft, in the same way that groupie articles are. The assumption seems to be that anyone who touches a notable person in some way is notable. That notion is false. --Dhartung | Talk 20:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hardly think that a judge who argued before the Supreme Court is a groupie. Why exactly is this notion false? and what is celebcruft? Dothisthing 20:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is a random judge behind a bench in a celebrity case. Mangoe 21:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is an arbitrary large number of judges in the United States justice system. Should it be acceptable for every single judge to have an article here on Wikipedia just because they ruled on a case? I think the answer is no. High profile cases such as the O.J. Simpson trials might warrant a page for Lance Ito. A page for Michael Sauer just because he sentenced Paris to jail doesn't really provide him any notoriety. Tigerman81 05:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable person and an article that can be improved by proper sourcing. Per WP:BIO: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Deletion is not cleanup, and should not be used as "cleanup with a deadline". If you can't firmly cite policy, you probably should not be making comments in the deletion process. This judge has received a lot of press in the past week about just him and I’ll go out on a limb and say he will get even more as the appeals process runs its course. Aboutmovies 08:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable per WP:BIO Brian | (Talk) 22:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flash ios edit

Originally tagged as a hoax I discovered that it is in fact not a hoax. However, no assertion of notability per WP:RS and WP:N. In fact the article specifically states that it is widely unknown.... Parts of it is unverifiable though that is only a secondary reason for deletion. MartinDK 17:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - interesting concept, but article lacks references of notability or any references in general. Sadly, unless the project gets tons of users and publicity, these references probably won't ever exist. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, many such interesting experiments exist, but few of them achieve notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting, but no reliable sources seem to be available to demonstrate notability, and there aren't likely to be while it remains under development (as indicated by the website). EALacey 21:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I'm the one who tagged it back in April as a possible hoax. I couldn't find any Google listing of Flash IOS related to Adobe Flash Player. The only even possible distantly :::::zrelated similar entries were to "Cisco Flash IOS file management procedures." Nothing related to Adobe Flash Player. Now this website that MartinDK spotted is coming up on my Google search, too. Someone's playing a search-engine game here, I think. --SueHay 22:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was posted on my talk page by the author of this software:

seen this wikipedia thread on my jummping around my site

To clear up some stuff here:

I started writning IOS back in 1997 and was the a dhtml version only javascript framwork.

http://michaelbystrom.com/dynapi-ios-0.2/ios/ (firefox only nowdays)

I ported it to Flash Actionscript 1 back in 2001 then "Webwindows" due to browser restirictions.

The again to AS 2 2004 (I think)

And now I have a version for AS 3 (not public)

This was a pet project of mine I just wanted to see If i could re-create a OS inside a browser window.

No I'm not 14 I'm in my 30+

No I have not been playing the google search game here.

Got Q I can be contacted through my site.

http://michaelbystrom.com/

Well thats it.

Michael —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelbystrom (talk • contribs) 05:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

MartinDK 06:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Special:Contributions/Jakeaston seems to have made an error in adding this article to Wikipedia. Let's delete Flash ios and leave Michaelbystrom to his development work. --SueHay 13:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed. I guess I should have requested speedy deletion instead. I do wonder why he appears out of no where though as soon as the article was nominated for deletion. He wasn't even the creator of the article, he could easily have corrected the factual errors in case he has been keeping an eye on the article. MartinDK 17:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've looked into this some more. For the record, michaelbystrom.com is registered to Michael Bystrom Design in Stockholm, Sweden. The administrative address for this domain is michaelbystrom@gmail.com. Check out this blog entry with this "question" by "Jake". "Jake's" email address is Jake.aston@gmail.com. I'd say Wikipedia is being used to support some creative internet marketing here. --SueHay 21:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hehe, The url referrals for this page don't stop. No no no you have to stop SueHay this is not a conspiracy :-) The Flash IOS article has nothing to do with my Flash IOS. If I wanted to market this app I would not do this belive me. I didn't know about the Flash IOS article until I got a referral from this site asking to delete it. I did not write it and if did I would explain it better and correct. There maybe a movie in here somewhere :-) If you want I can make a real Flash IOS article. Stay warm from sunny Stockholm Sweden :-) Michaelbystrom 06:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wonderful to hear that you don't have anything to do with this. Since you're new to Wikipedia, you might not know that the thing for you to do to protect your credibility is to add a Delete opinion to this discussion. Please take a moment to do that now. --SueHay 12:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Michaelbystrom 13:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD G11 and G12. Article was advertising a business that made no particular claims to notability, and the page's author posted a copyright notice to its talk page, suggesting that she was attempting to assert proprietary control over the contents. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PandaShrimp Media edit

Spam, author removed speedy deletion tag 99DBSIMLR 17:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - No assertions of notability made about the company. They do non-linear editing, but for whom: "various organizations"? In addition, it seems like the article is about the author. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per {{db-advert}} and {{db-corp}} Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 17:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given the copyright notice on the article talk page, and some apparent attempts to protect the page, I suspect there was a misunderstanding about the nature of Wikipedia going on here. --TeaDrinker 18:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee Davey edit

I'm really not finding any evidence of notability, or, for that matter, claims of notability. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Doesn't even seem to be signed to a label! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yeah, the album is self-published [52]. Doesn't pass WP:BAND at the moment. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "We put the band together initially just to write and record..." - as opposed to what exactly? But since they haven't recorded (or at least not for a label that matters) they fail WP:Band at present. Delete without prejudice against recreation if they become notable in the future. A1octopus 14:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monsterbowl edit

No assertion of notability, no independent references. A contested prod. I have asked the original editor on the article's talk page if there were any reviews etc (as he appears to be involved in the game itself) but it doesn't look like there is anything to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. Marasmusine 17:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 17:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's reasoning, and WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. Axem Titanium 13:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (A7) by Sr13 -- The Placebo Effect 13:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"net entertainment" edit

Article was speedy deleted using CSD A7 (corp/web). Article was then recreated by original author and then went through a failed PROD (somebody added a prod tag that was then removed by original author). Since this article went through a failed PROD I decided that tagging with a CSD template would be wrong, but I believe it definitely still fits under CSD A7. Speedy delete. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per above Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 17:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete & SALT Clearly a non notable company that can be speedied under CSD A7. It should also be salted to prevent recreation. Clearly, the author cannot take a hint. --Cyrus Andiron 18:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and definitely don't forget the salt this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and add salt, perhaps pepper to taste. Fits the criteria. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 20:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. DarkAudit 21:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article doesn't provide any independent citations to demonstrate notability, but it does assert notability of a sort (software "used by over 40 well known online operators"), so I don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion. EALacey 21:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment an assertion of notability would preclude an A7 speedy, but other speedy criteria may still be applicable. Like spam. DarkAudit 21:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, non notable and meet WP:CSD#A7. Carlosguitar 22:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark One edit

This is a story, not an encyclopedia article. A lot of thought and effort went into the writing of this, but it has no place in Wikipedia. Clerks. 17:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this story should be published in a book not an encyclopedia Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 17:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Leave the fanfiction to fanfiction.net. After deletion, this should be redirected to Dark One, which was the original intent of this page. Phony Saint 18:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a middle-school creative-writing notebook. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For is it not written: and they all snickered saying no? - Smerdis of Tlön 18:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And lo, The Dark One was forever banished to obscurity. Though seriously, this is probably a case for WP:SNOW deletion. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 20:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -per WP:NOT Thunderwing 21:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fallout (series). WjBscribe 07:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PIPBoy 2000 edit

Non-notable device from a video game, fails WP:N. In addition, WP:NOT a video game guide. Also fails WP:V for lack of sources. Chardish 17:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above nom Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 18:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cruftilicious content... Though I'm sure there's gotta be a Fallout Wiki somewhere which would love to have this. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 20:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to article covering Fallout series. FrozenPurpleCube 00:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm undecided on this one, because it's core to the 'look and feel' of a very notable series, and plays a major part in the plot. Perhaps a redirect is in order, and as far as I know it does exist on the fallout wiki, but it seems at least as notable as other fictional devices. I understand that WP:othercrapexists isn't a valid argument, but on the other hand, the existance of articles like this in other universes (and their retention) speaks to me of an emergent consensus. If an article on Judge Dredd's pistol exists, well, again I understand that it's not a strictly valid argument, but perhaps in the fashion of other series we should create an article on "Fictional Technology in the Fallout Series" and include the PipBoy 2000, the G.E.C.K., FEV, ect. Wintermut3 01:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mister Manticore. I knew exactly what this was the moment I read the words - despite not having played a Fallout game in years. But at the end of the day, it's just a PDA that the player character uses and it's only 'important' in the sense that it's as memorable as the next aspect of the Fallout world. Fansite or fan-wiki material. QuagmireDog 04:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Skull Defekts edit

Contested speedy. Possibly notable due to association with other bands. I'm neutral on this one. Petros471 18:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per {{db-band}} as it does not pass WP:N and looks like a advert, so you could also slap {{db-advert}} on there aswell Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 18:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just so you get the other side of the story, here's what Qmwpeto reasoned on my talk page after I originally speedy-tagged it:

I do not understand the reasons for your "speedy deletion" tagging and the and subsequent deletion of the The Skull Defekts article. It/the band fulfils quite a few of the criteria listed in the notability article for bands. For instance 5, Members were previlusly active in Union Carbide Productions, Kid commando and Anti-Cimex and 6, the band is the most prominent act of both the Gothenburg and Swedish electronic scenes.

I'm sure he won't mind me reposting it here. Marasmusine 18:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even navigating through the complexity that is the Scandinavian music scene, Kid commando don't appear too notable per WP:BAND, and the other two look to be borderline. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Claim of notablity in argument above does not translate to actual notability as there are no obvious references to be found. If there are references out there but they are only in Sweedish (which I can't read) then it would be fair to assume the band is not notable outside Sweeden, in which case an an article on the Sweedish Wikipedia would be more appropriate. A1octopus 14:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete under CSD G1. Likely hoax. Adambro 19:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Tjörnhammar edit

I can find no verification that this person exists, and the details of his life seem implausible. I humbly suggest that the article may be a hoax. FisherQueen (Talk) 18:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per {{db-bio}} Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 18:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as nonsense. Tagged as such. AfD box removed by User:Rashadhmalik. Restored. DarkAudit 18:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was trying to play by the rules- technically, there is a claim to notability, that he was a professional athlete. Of course it's an obvious hoax, and I wholeheartedly support speedy deletion. Maybe I should have insisted on keeping the db-nonsense tag, but it doesn't quite fit the definition. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE as recreation (this is at least the fifth title this has been deleted under), as A7, and per consensus here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Rolfe (Video games) edit

Article was previously deleted under a different title, which was, I believe, salted at one point. Page is really nothing more than a vantiy and advertising page, not appropriate for an encyclopedia Rackabello 18:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per above and {{db-advert}} Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 18:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. Also unsourced and unverifiable. MySpace and Youtube are neither. DarkAudit 19:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listing as an A7 Speedy Delete Rackabello 19:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I see a lot of discussion below about possible sourcing, but I also see that the article is still unsourced, which means the delete arguments very much apply. Chick Bowen 22:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Sheet Music edit

'Delete.This article is a plug for an on-line commercial website. It is padded out, without explanation, with material which is a version of the article Digital Sheet Music which covers its topic adequately. Should it be agreed that the content of the present article 'Virtual Sheet Music' be deleted, it could be replaced by a redirect to Digital Sheet Music. Smerus 18:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above Rackabello 18:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In actuality should have been tagged as a “Speedy Delete” for Spam. Shoessss 23:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember it being PRODed at one point, actually, then it was fixed up. Then it got tagged as an ad and THAT got fixed (yes it was worse!). This article has always felt /wrong/ to me, but I don't have a good argument as to why, so I can't really give a delete !vote. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫

I am the author of both the Virtual Sheet Music and Digital Sheet Music articles. They share a similar content, but the Virtual Sheet Music article should tell about the Virtual Sheet Music company which has been the creator of the Virtual Sheet Music concept. I think that can't be ignored. To remove that entry and redirect it to the Digital Sheet Music article would be like removing the Amazon article about the company and redirect it to the Amazon article about the river. Please, let me know your thoughts.--Fablau 21:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what makes the website notable? There's no references in the ariticle, probably the reason this got put under AFD in the first place. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to compare the Virtual Sheet Music website to Amazon counts as a notable piece of chutzpah; but seems to confirm that the main motive of this WP article was advertising. - Smerus 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. no secondary or tertiary sources provided, and Google News Archive only shows one match. It is listed on [53] with a brief description ("The Virtual Sheet Music Web site doesn't have a huge selection, but it's constantly growing. You can even download a free template for manuscript paper. Files are in Acrobat PDF format."); if they are growing quickly then maybe the website will be notable in another year. No prejudice against recreation when two significant mentions are made by reliable sources. John Vandenberg 13:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I first wrote that article, I was first flagged then I submitted proof of notability to Seraphimblade proving how Virtual Sheet Music has been reviewed on major music magazines and websites since 1999 as a notable company. To learn more about this issue, here is the talking discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Virtual_Sheet_Music

and then my article was accepted. Now what? Do I have to prove it again? --Fablau 21:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fablau, please do provide it again here. We need to know the precise details of the magazines it has appeared on, including the date of the issue it appeared in. This is required for verification purposes. John Vandenberg 02:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration. I have a PDF file containing all the documentation. How can I upload it here? Thank you again. --Fablau 15:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cant. You will need to provide it as normal text here. John Vandenberg 09:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can download the PDF file from the Virtual Sheet Music server:

http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/storage/Main_Evidence.pdf

it includes detailed information and images of reviews, ads, charts, etc.

Here is a summary of the evidence:

1. Virtual Sheet Music and Classical Sheet Music Downloads are two concepts created in 1999 and now two registered trademarks. Virtual Sheet Music website started in 1999 with a few users. Now its user base is of over 20,000 unique users a day, over 70,000 mailing list subscribers and 15,000 resident Members (musicians, music teachers, students, libraries, music schools, musical institutions, etc.)

2. After only 8 months from its creation, Virtual Sheet Music was reviewed by Apple foreseeing the success that such a new and unique musical resource would have been able to have in the near future.

3. Virtual Sheet Music is today considered the first and foremost unique resource of Classical Sheet Music Download in the world by:

- Yahoo! (VSM is listed among the top popular websites)

- Safe Shopping Network

and it is at the first place in the results on the major search engines if you search for "Virtual Sheet Music":

- Yahoo!

- Google

- AltaVista

- Lycos

- MSN

- AOL

- Netscape

4. Virtual Sheet Music advertise regularly on the major classical music magazines and publications since 1999 such as:

- The Strad (over 100,000 readers internationally)

- Classical Music (over 30,000 readers internationally)

- Music Teacher (over 20,000 readers internationally)

- Zone magazine (over 20,000 readers internationally)

- Muso magazine (over 20,000 readers internationally)

- Sheet Music magazine (over 10,000 readers internationally)

- International Musician (over 100,000 readers internationally)

- Strings (over 100,000 readers internationally)

- Making Music (over 60,000 readers internationally)

- SBO (over 50,000 readers internationally)

- BBC Magazine (over 50,000 readers internationally)

and many others. It is yearly included in The British & International Music Yearbook as the TOP resource of Classical Sheet Music Download on the web.

5. Virtual Sheet Music regularly sponsors and supports various musical organizations as:

- BBC Orchestra (UK)

- Lyric Opera of Los Angeles (USA)

- The Seattle Symphony Orchestra (USA)

6. Virtual Sheet Music has been also reviewed on several music magazines such as:

- MUSO magazine Spring 2004

- Making Music July-August 2006

7. Virtual Sheet Music® began in December 2004 its own affiliate program and as today it has over 400 affiliates on the web and growing. They help to develop and distribute the concept of Virtual Sheet Music® that is having such a great success among the international musical community.--Fablau 22:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the PDF you supplied, and am not convinced VSM is notable enough to warrant an article dedicated to it. The PDF provides evidence of only two reviews: "MUSO magazine Spring 2004, page 20" and "Making Music July-August 2006, p38" -- neither of these are in depth reviews, but they are a good start. If you can provide a few more reviews like that, I will change my opinion to keep. John Vandenberg 05:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will provide more reviews, but please do consider the Apple's review as well. Also, please, consider the maturity of our company (over 8 years old which is pretty much for a web company) as well the user base and reach we have, notability should be also based on the "popularity" of a company, right? One further question: are you the only person to decide the destiny of my article? Shouldn't be a "commission" or group of people? Just wondering... thank you for you consideration and time though.--Fablau 16:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really think you're missing the whole point of Wikipedia. I suggest you read up on the following: WP:5P, WP:NOT and especially WP:V. WP:COI might apply here too. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reminder, I already read those pages and know very well the Wikipedia philosophy. I think we shouldn't be distracted, the point here is to discuss about the notability of Virtual Sheet Music to understand if it deserve an article. That's it.--Fablau 20:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I don't understand what the problem is. Is the opinion that the company isn't notable enough? Temperal^xy 22:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is just one; others are free to add their opinion too, but ultimately the opinions of the majority are in the Wikipedia notability guideline. In short, most things on Wikipedia must have been significantly reviewed by two authoritative sources. So far we have evidence of two minor reviews by authoritative sources, so it is approaching our threshold. The Apple review could count as a third, but reviews from software Vendors are not generally considered to be impartial. I have no problem with VSM having an article if evidence is provided of more critical analysis of the website; I look forward to Fablau providing details about more reviews. John Vandenberg 22:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 16:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hypermiler edit

Original research, unverified claims, Neologism. Madcoverboy 18:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator.Madcoverboy 18:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. One of the sources indicates it is a recent neologism.[54] Appears to be a lack of sufficient sources to build an article. Vassyana 04:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Weak Keep. Per JayHenry's finds. Only the Washington Post article is of any real use. The Post article along with Mother Jones provides enough material to craft a reasonable B-Class article. That is, the sources demonstrate notability and are verifiable. I have strong doubts about the availability of sources to take the article beyond that point. However, the sources are sufficient for topic inclusion. Vassyana 21:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. There's also a Washington Post article about it, it's discussed in this HBO Documentary, in this Pittsburgh Post-Gazette story. Those plus mother jones is more than sufficient to write a good article. --JayHenry 05:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As there are reliable sources about the term, WP:NEO permits it. And the article covers the practice of hypermiling rather than the history of the term itself. The first section isn't OR but needs cites. The last section (about cars and hybrids) doesn't really belong. But that's neither here nor there. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 21:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Popular Science article discussed hypermiling. Also an interview with Public Radio's MarketPlace While not known as hypermiling until about five years ago, The Mobil Economy Run had drivers use many of the same techinques dating to 1936
Keep The info here has been written about by many reliable sources. --Oakshade 05:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odette Bancilhon edit

I can't find any sources that would verify this information or help me expand the article. FisherQueen (Talk) 18:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable and failure of WP:BIO. Google hits on google.fr and google.com are all wiki mirrors. Eddie.willers 19:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Now - Having an asteroid named after her, and discovering one as well would mean a significant contribution to her field, thus passing BIO. I'll find a copy of Dictionary of Minor Planet Names, 5th ed.: Prepared on Behalf of Commission 20 Under the Auspices of the International Astronomical Union, Lutz D. Schmadel, ISBN 3-540-00238-3, which should verify the information. This means I have to get a library card. the_undertow ^talk 21:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now likewise. Google Books and Google Scholar confirm the existence of publications as O Bancilhon ([55] [56]) and under her married name in the journal Astronomischer Jahresbericht [57] and a joint publication [58]. Tearlach 03:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of what Tearlach found, and that I just confirmed on the Astronomical Data System DGG
delete per nomOo7565 18:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 21:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rj vilayvong edit

Fails notablility test. Would be perfect for Facebook or Myspace. I recommend a Speedy Delete Clerks. 19:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 (bio). So tagged. Slight chance that it might be userfiable, but this assumes that the article's creator is the same person. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete obvious A7 candidate Hut 8.5 20:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The requested merge is a bit complicated and should be done by someone familiar with the two articles. Chick Bowen 22:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oakhill Brewery edit

The brewery is closed. It achieved nothing distinctive when it was open. While we do have closed breweries on the site, and open local breweries of little distinction, the combination of closed and local needs to be tested. Even though I am putting this forward for discussion, I am not putting forward an argument at this stage for the brewery to be either kept or deleted. I am looking for the views and opinions of others. SilkTork 19:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, regretfully. I hate to do this one out of a bias toward microbreweries, but the problems not only fall within WP:LOCAL, it seems that there's no attempt to tout notability on the brewery or provide much for reliable sources. I would hope, though, to get my hands on some of the recipies from their files. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Makes no clear claim of notability beyond its own existence. Is there a reason this isn't being speedy deleted already? --Ssbohio 19:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7 and SSbohio. --Dhartung | Talk 20:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge in material from Oakhill, which contains the longer history of the brewery prior to its 1984 to 2004 reincarnation. Tearlach 00:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge in the information about the history from Oakhill per Tearlach, adding a "see also" in the main article (which could do with a bit of a rewrite anyway). If kept, I'll do it and expand both articles a bit; quite a few extra sources by the looks of it.EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books produces some intriguing snippets, such as this about it specialising in stout, and the output being 2000-2500 barrels a week in its heyday. Important brewery. Tearlach 00:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since there seem to be sources.DGG 04:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do any sources prove it's notability, or simply that it existed and produced beer? That the brewery once existed is not in doubt, the discussion is about whether a defunct local brewery can be considered notable enough for it to have an article to itself in an encyclopedia, rather than as a mention in an article on the local area. SilkTork 07:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Noting that those notability criteria for brweries are in an essay, not any official guideline) it appears in a number of books [59], a couple describing it as "famous" (the output makes it more than local). Having its own narrow-gauge railway looks quite unusual. BTW, are you the SilkTork who wrote the description at ratebeer.com? If you have sources for what was said there - "The original Oakhill Brewery was formed in 1767 and became a huge success, building its own railway line to deliver beers throughout Wales and the West Country - that looks pretty good claim to notability. CAMRA Bristol described its Invalid Stout as "nationally famous". Tearlach 12:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did write that about Oakhill in 2003. I'll take a look for the sources of my information.

The article has changed slightly. It is now about the older Oakhill brewery rather than the new Oakhill Brewery. The article I put up for discussion was the one about the company which operated from 1984 to 2004. It has been adjusted to be about the one which operated from 1767 to 1938 - a different brewery, a different article, a different debate. The article had originally been called New Oakhill Brewery [60], and I was interested to hear people's views on the notability of a local brewery which had only been open for 20 years, and had closed 3 years ago (and which is about to become a housing estate [61]. The ground has changed so that the discussion may no longer bring forward views that could be used in future debates about small breweries (as we are now talking about a substantial brewery with a number of references - noted for its 'Invalid Stout' - a top selling brand during the 19th century), so I don't think this discussion is worth continuing. Keep and push for an early close. SilkTork 19:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge in the information about the history from Oakhill per Tearlach above. Kev ^(talk) 11:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Union Local School District. MastCell ^Talk 23:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Union Local High School (Belmont, Ohio) edit

It's a high school in Ohio, with no articles about it, no notable alumni. They should probably form a group in Facebook and give up on encyclopedia articles Clerks. 19:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Union Local School District. Little useful material on website, and not much found in Google or Google News/Archive to demonstrate notability. Unless someone can convince us that no information about this school should appear on Wikipedia under any circumstances, it would seem that a redirect is the way to go. Alansohn 19:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the school district's article per Alansohn. I checked LexisNexis to see if there was enough coverage there to sustain an independent article, but it's only trivial coverage of the "Fred X, a student at Union Local High School" variety. EALacey 21:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Union Local School District per WP:LOCAL and various proposed school guidelines. Maybe someone will find time to expand it later using reliable sources. Until then it can serve as a useful redirect. RFerreira 08:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. -- Seed 2.0 22:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N.F. Houck edit

Absolutely not notable... only published book is through LuLu.com, which means it's self-published. Links to the "author" and book have also been relentlessly spammed to a large number of articles (which I removed, but earlier the author was putting them back), so existence is also self-promotional vanity cruft. See also Herald (novel), which should be included for consideration in this vote. DreamGuy 19:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both N.F. Houck and Herald (novel). No independent sources cited by either article. WorldCat finds only six libraries in the United States with the book, which don't include the Library of Congress. Per WP:BK, a book not in the national library of its country of origin "most likely is not" notable. Google News Archive produces no relevant hits for houck herald hermes. The only hit for the equivalent search on LexisNexis is an 84-word piece from M2 that seems to be reporting a press release from Lulu. EALacey 19:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Herald (novel) because it's spam and N.F. Houck for non-notability. Earlier today I removed a reference from the book's article to the novel being a "finalist" in a "book of the year contest" in a "literary" magazine which was PAID to review this novel and if, as the article N.F. Houck claims, this author is "best known" for a self-published novel which has to pay for reviews then N.F. Houk is non-notable. Random Passer-by (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per EALacey, non-notable and promotional. Inbound links need scrubbing, too. --Dhartung | Talk 20:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thanks to EALacey and Random Passer-by for their research which I have confirmed, as far as I can. The book does not meet WP:BK and sadly as a result Mr/Ms Houck does not meet notability requirements either. Slp1 13:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Din edit

I have been watching Nazir117 struggle to create this article for over a week. Now that Nazir has actually put something together, I fear that we have to say: sorry, chairman of a bus company is not quite notable enough for Wikipedia. But does the same hold in Pakistan? -- RHaworth 20:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR. No RS. As far as I can gather, was a successful, yet non-notable businessperson. the_undertow ^talk 21:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get accused of biting the newbies but "OR. No RS" is about as unwelcoming as one can get. Nazir, to translate it: "Please add some references (preferably as external links) to indicate that the person meets one of the notability criteria". -- RHaworth 13:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly no citations establishing notability, and the article taken at face value doesn't do it anyway. All I can find on anyone named Ahmed Din from the Lahore area is in a NY Times article Hard Days in Battered Pakistan Town, February 20, 1972. It says "On a war battered area of the Punjab plain east of Lohre" there was a man Ahmed Din who did "not qualify for rations" because his "home and stored grain are in Sawla" and "as a result he is piling up a huge debt and his credit is running out". Probably not the same guy --Work permit 19:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, without prejudice against making alterations as argued for below. Consensus should be worked out at the article talk page. Chick Bowen 22:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Utopia edit

If this nomination results in at outcome of "delete", it should also cover New Utopia and (!!!) "Principality of New Utopia", which is now a redirect, and that should be salted if recreation becomes a problem.

This is a peculiar nomination, as I'm nominating an article I have just spent a considerable amount of time working on, to bring it in line with what the sources provided actually say (my version). This was previously an article entitled Principality of New Utopia, about a so-called "micronation". However, the article before I moved and edited it presented this entity as a country, with information about the "head of state" and the "number of citizens". That in itself was woefully non neutral given that the sources provide no justification whatsoever for referring to this as anything other than a scam (please see Talk:Lazarus_Long_(micronationalist)#NPOV for my comments on this, and Wikipedia:Micronations#Principles for some guidelines I have proposed). New Utopia was twice before nominated for deletion: once in 2004, and once earlier this year.

I've refactored the article into a biography/article about the scam. However, I believe this person and his project is barely notable (WP:WPBIO) from the sources (WP:RS) provided. Most of the cited mentions are trivial. He was in trouble with the SEC to the tune of a mere $24,000. By all accounts his "micronation" is pure fantasy.

Now, if folks think I've done such a wonderful job here the article should be kept, fine, I'll take it as a compliment. I do however recommend that we delete this article. --kingboyk 20:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: If the result of the debate is to Keep, please ensure you note that it's to be Kept as an article on the scam. At the time of writing consensus isn't clear between deletion and keeping as an article on the scam, there seems to be no consensus at all to keep as an article on a micronation. --kingboyk 12:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Edison 04:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There have been 2 previous atempts to delete this article under the name New Utopia. The most recent of these resulted in a clear consensus to keep. The present nominator is attempted to deliberately subvert community consensus by renaming the article and renominating it a third time. Obvious bad faith nomination. --Gene_poole 08:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you please provide a link to said nomination? I don't recall ever nominating the article for deletion before, and the 2 AFDs I have found had nothing to do with me. That's not to say I didn't; I don't remember. It's also rather irrelevant: there's full disclosure above that I renamed the article, and full disclosure as to why it was in breach of our policies and guidelines. --kingboyk 11:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fifteen minutes of fame isn't. As the article indicates, there's no tangible evidence of his so-called nation. >Radiant< 12:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to New Utopia. I think kingboyk was right to delete most of the article's (unsourced) content, but the move to "Lazarus Long" was unwarranted as he doesn't seem to be notable. I also believe that any article on the subject should focus on it as a scam. That said, the scam itself seems to be notable, having received coverage in the Wall Street Journal, CNN Money, The Motley Fool, and others. I'll see if I can factor the sources into the article. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 13:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That wouldn't help, because a micronation that has no tangible evidence of its existence isn't notable either. >Radiant< 14:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I only used the sources which were already provided; if there are other more substantial sources available please do integrate them into the article and we'll see how it looks. I believe my name change was fair, for the reasons provided, and would contend that if Long isn't notable nor is "New Utopia" as they're one and the same. (And I am very far from convinced that either are notable, per Radiant). I will, however, defer judgement until I've seen what you come up with. Thank you for the constructive input.
- I believe the article should focus on the fraud because that's what the sources I've seen so far focus on. So, no micronation infobox with nonsense about princes and population, please. I'm also thinking of creating a subcategory to contain these fraudulent schemes, to seperate them from the hobbyist/experimental micronations like Empire of Atlantium. --kingboyk 14:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC) (e/c)[reply]
  - I don't really think Long/Turney is notable per WP:BIO. Also, the "micronation" is not notable. The only thing that I think is notable is the scam; that's why I suggested reversing the pagemove. I agree with you that the article should focus on the details of the fraud (its beginnings, its organisation, the SEC case, the aftermath) rather than any fictional country statistics and I have tried to keep it that way (e.g., referring to "Turney" instead of "Prince Long"). I have finished making some changes with the 3 sources I noted above. There are some other news sources available (mostly about the SEC's involvement) and the existing sources could be used to add some more content, but I will stop for now for comments. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You've done a wonderful job. Between us we've now got an article which as far as I can see is neutral per the sources. I still believe this isn't sufficiently notable, and that most of the mentions in the sources are trivial; I also look at the [links] and see precisely zero coming in from non-micronation articles. In conclusion, then, I continue to recommend deletion, but thank you for your work and wouldn't be unhappy if this version is kept. Job done as far as I'm concerned, now we let the community decide on notability and sources. --kingboyk 15:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks. I think we let this AfD play out ... who knows, maybe others'll edit the article too. I continue to recommend keeping based on the the Quatloos source, the three sources below, and the fact that the scam merited a non-trivial (in my view) mention in the Wall Street Journal 2 years after the SEC case. In any case, I'm quite happy that we were able to take the article from this to this. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        ^ McMillan, Alex Frew. "Beware of Net stock scams", CNN Money, April 25, 2000. Retrieved on May 9, 2007.
        
        ^ Perlman, Jay. "Securities Fraud: Bogus Offerings", The Motley Fool, February 23, 2000. Retrieved on May 9, 2007.
        
        ^ Reagan, Brad. "Strange -- but Not True", The Wall Street Journal, January 14, 2002. Retrieved on May 9, 2007.
        
        I agree with you on all but the notability, and am happy to agree to disagree on that :) The diffs you presented are very pleasing; and also reaffirm to me my suspicion that in many of these articles it's the infobox which is responsible for a lot of the problems. It presents these entities as nations; in cases like this that's clearly incorrect. Thanks again for your hard work, and for proving to the more disruptive voices out there that it's possible for people with opposing views to work together and find compromise. --kingboyk 15:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - PS I like your version better than mine, and think both are infinitely better than what went before. However, I am absolutely not convinced of notability or the availability of reliable sources, so please do follow through on your offer. Cheers. --kingboyk 14:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Black Falcon. It has no tangible evidence of its existence as a nation, but the article shouldn't portray it as a real nation, the article should portray it as a scam. Wikipedia can cover fantasy as long as we maintain a NPOV. PubliusFL 14:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Portraying it as a scam has been my point all along; however, you haven't addressed my main rationale for deletion, that even when refactored as a scam, the sources aren't multiple and non-trivial and there's no notability. The sources cited a minor fraud ($24,000) and "New Utopia" got bit part mentions in long articles on more general topics. Unless Black Falcon comes up with substantially more than is already there I don't see the sources nor the notability, I see a small time crook who got a brief mention in a few news articles. --kingboyk 14:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable dude, non-existent place. Carlossuarez46 21:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with both of your points, but the article is no longer about the dude or the place. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the articel about the scam, as now moved to New Utopia. The scam is notable enough, as the cited sources show; the scamster seems to have no notability except as the creator of the scam, and that is better covered in an article about the sacam DES ^(talk) 22:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under New Utopia (or move back to Principality of New Utopia) - notable as micronation. The huckster isn't, but the micronation is. Georgewilliamherbert 23:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The discussion above and the various page moves are very confusing. As of the time I am making this comment the article is about a hoax or scam that seems notable. The whole micronation thing is irrelevent except as it relates to the scam. If there are sources for the microantion, which as I understand it was never built and thus was basically Something Made Up At A Bar One Day, a seperate article should be written and stand or fall on its own merits. Or there was an article...or it was renamed...or whatever the hell is giong on here. Keep the scam, lose the rest.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 03:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in current state. Even if it is a scam, the references provided (thereby meeting WP:NN) clearly makes it a notable scam and worthy to be in a diverse reference such as Wikipedia.
Comment OK,now I'm more confused. Did someone redirect two other articles to this one and then nominate in essence three articles for deletion in one fell swoop? Where are the other two articles? WTF???--killing sparrows^(chirp!) 06:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to clarify as best I can. This article was initially titled New Utopia. On May 8, it was moved to Lazarus Long (micronationalist) and subsequently nominated for deletion. On May 9, it was moved to Principality of New Utopia, but the move was reverted 2 hours later. Three hours after that, it was once again moved to New Utopia following a rewriting of the article and per discussion on this AfD. I hope this clarifies things somewhat. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right. It's only one article, but it's been on a bit of a ride as far as naming is concerned. The "permanent" links in my nomination (links to old revisions) are the best way of seeing how the article has changed. --kingboyk 10:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or keep as an article about an investment scam, which is the verifiable and notable aspect of this incident. I've tried to do this after last failed Afd. But that version didn't survive. --Pjacobi 11:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll leave a note to the closing admin. Agree with you, and I don't see any suggestion at all here that we should roll back to the old version. --kingboyk 12:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Pale Horse edit

Although this closely resembles the Phoenix Program and claims to have been its precursor, I can find no credible sources for what the article claims is a program that remains entirely classified. The primary personality has been separately nominated for similar reasons. I suspect both of these are hoaxes; in any case they fail verifiability. Dhartung | Talk 20:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only references I can find are on blogs, plus one unsourced Metroactive article. Even if it's true, the "dog at my homework" argument about the secrecy makes it unverifiable. Tearlach 22:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As per above, spent an hour looking for any type of verifiable source. Shoessss 23:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a quick search turned up nothing. John Vandenberg 12:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Grueter edit

doesn't seem to meet notability criteria for journalists Babajobu 20:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This is simply a vanity piece.Shoessss 23:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google News Archive has only a few hits. John Vandenberg 12:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vanity. --Mrfixter 18:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University of Wales, Bangor. The university article already mentions the radio station. The page history remains available, and any additional notable information from this article can be merged into the university article. MastCell ^Talk 20:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storm FM edit

Unsourced article on non-notable student radio station set up in 2001 with no notability asserted. Apparently nominated for some student media awards, which don't add up to much in my book, even if they had won. In any case, they have won nothing. Reads like a vanity page Ohconfucius 03:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability asserted. Hornplease 08:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the University of Wales. Lemonflash|_{(say hi)} 21:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect into the University of Wales. --Random ^{Say it here!} 23:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - none of the other UK student radio station pages appear to be nominated for deletion, I can't see why this particularly one should be targetted as all the criticisms would apply to them also. --jmb 12:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Just because we haven't nominated other student radio stations for deletion doesn't mean we think they're notable. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Student radio stations provide a vital service to many students. The areas that are able to broadcast on LPFM are those with clear frequencies. These occur in areas where there is little local radio and as such the student demographic will not be covered by the existing commercial and BBC stations. This is a useful page for those wanting to find out more about the station, why should it be deleted?tdg1986 16:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because something is useful doesn't automatically mean it's encyclopedic. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. No reliable sources means it fails the main notability criterion, WP:N. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Morris edit

non-notable person C5mjohn 21:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable despite the claims. "...was locally famous..." gives it away. I tagged this for speedy but removed it again per the claims of powerlifting world records.EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-No notability established, as said above, "locally famous" is a bit of a dead giveaway. American Patriot 1776 00:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I doubt that someone with a legitimate "successful career as a powerlifter" has a max bench of only 135lbs. That's pretty mediocre for a real athlete, even a teenaged girl. Fails WP:BIO & WP:RS. Caknuck 01:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Page (wrestler) edit

Contested prod. Non notable wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- What is the WAA that is referred to in the article? Thunderwing 21:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure, but I'm now thinking definite hoax. His own site is quite revealing as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you read it is WWA, not WAA. WWA being Westworld Wrestling Association which was based out of Memphis. Perhaps one should not jump to delete when they have not even read the article correctly.

Comment 3 Ghits for "Westworld Wrestling Association", and all directory entries. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- if WAA is a hoax then there is no way this article can meet WP:BIO Thunderwing 21:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of notability. Lack of verifiable information. Vassyana 04:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Possible hoax, and no reliable third party sources anyhow. RFerreira 08:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you look at DDP's website or DDP's myspace you find him. www.myspace.com/yrgworkout is DDP's official myspace and has this guy listed on there as dose his official website www.diamonddallaspage.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.223.172.62 (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment That would be Diamond Dallas Page, please stop linking to an unrelated site. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The guy is a legit wrestler, the debate should be if he is relevant. OldSchool67_{User talk:OldSchool67} 15:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above comments, lacks any verifiable redeeming information. Burntsauce 16:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 10:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equity Milling edit

Advertorial article on real estate scam. It reads like a how to get rich quick scheme, does not reference any sources, and claims that the speculation method is the proprietary intellectual property of one C. Rick Koerber. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism, advertising, no worth. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spamcruft. Neologism. Exactly not what should be a Wikipedia article. Vassyana 04:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:SPAM. The article also does not have secondary sources about the subject to state that it is notable enough to have an article here. — Indon (reply) — 07:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 10:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siberian artificial language edit

A thorough original research on a new artificial language . The provided references, with the exception of author's are nothing but newspaper references. Not a single linguistic, i.e., peer reference. the whole content fails verifiabilty criteria. Mukadderat 22:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable. Although linguistic journals would be best, citations from high-profile newspapers would do to demonstrate notability. But the non-Volgota references are largely blogs, and press agencies aren't sufficiently discriminate about what they put out to be viewed as reliable third-party sources. Tearlach 22:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tearlach. Edison 04:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Can bits and pieces of subnotability in different areas add up to notability? Yes they can, but in this case the argument that they don't is not really refuted. Let me state this in a way that y'all will understand: if your Paladin of +1 NOTABILITY for MUSIC and +1 NOTABILITY for REALITY TV comes up against (say) another guy's Warrior of +2 NOTABILITY for WRITING, your guy's gonna get whacked. Herostratus 22:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Bradford edit

Delete - article nominated once previously, closed keep. Unfortunately, in the intervening months there has been no improvement to the article. The subject does not as an actor pass WP:BIO, as he has not had significant roles in notable productions. He does not as a musician pass WP:MUSIC. The article is "sourced" by IMDB and various self-promotional music sites. The arguments advanced in the last AFD boiled down to "people edited his article so they're interested in him," not a valid argument, and "he's just notable enough," but his claims to notability are not supported by reliable sources. Otto4711 22:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The consensus on Wikipedia is that reality television show subjects who have other accomplishments which are notable are notable enough for their own Wikipedia entry. James Bradford has no less than five songs on the soundtrack to a major television series and stars in a reality television show which has aired continuously on the LOGO network for almost a solid year. A link at http://artofbleeding.com/gorydetails.html shows that he particpated in a well known performance art project. I feel you are mis-stating the conclusion of the last VFD: it was not decided that he was "just notable enough" but instead that although he may not have been part of one LARGELY NOTABLE thing, he has been involved in numerous MODERATELY NOTABLE things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.1.27.242 (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC). — 216.1.27.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - whatever the consensus of Wikipedia may be (and I agree that such consensus about reality contestants exists), the policy of Wikipedia is that such accomplishments must be reliably sourced. I don't see how I can be mis-stating the previous consensus when all but one of the ""keep" opinion were qualified with the word "weak" and when one of then was based on "cobbling together just enough little bits of notability" and another said in all capital letters that his opinion was that the guy was "JUST NOTABLE ENOUGH." He is not the "star" of a reality television program. He appeared in a single episode of a 12-episode series. His participation in the Art of Bleeding project does not appear to be the subject of any independent sources and from what I can tell from your link it appears that the extent of his involvement was that he was interviewed for it, one of dozens of people who were so interviewed. The point still stands that he does not pass WP:BIO, he does not pass WP:MUSIC and since he is not the subject of multiple independent reliable sources he does not pass WP:N. Otto4711 23:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Firstly, I do think it's reasonable for stars of a reality TV series to have an article about them, like say contestants of a Big Brother show. However, having read WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC the only guideline I can see this guy passes is in WP:MUSIC. As it says in the relevant guideline thoug, "(But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)" Mentality 18:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we are to accept the consenus that reality telly on its own doesn't dictate notability then this guy's primary claim to fame is as a music artist. However as a music artist his contributions are not sufficient to meet WP:Music. Would we consider keeping a page about someone with his musical achievements without the reality TV history? Of course not. A1octopus 12:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. Sr 13 10:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Str8 off tha Streetz of Compton City edit

Neither album seems to exist; even if they're not hoaxes, they're insignificant. Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of independent sources Guy (Help!) 22:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to suggest they exist, likely to be hoaxes. Acalamari 18:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - those albums do not exist. --- 72.142.212.28 19:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources. Tim.bounceback^{(talk | contribs | ubxen)} 22:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete MastCell ^Talk 20:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EVSS and PPaSP edit

Unsourced. Looks like original research. Seemingly nonsense title. There is no clear reason for having this article. There are already pages for Which Prue Is It, Anyway?, It's a Bad, Bad, Bad, Bad World (Part 1), and It's a Bad, Bad, Bad, Bad World (Part 2). I don't know that I agree the specific personalities need to be mentioned, but if they should, it should happen on the character articles. Prod removed by original author. Onorem Dil 22:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary content fork/fancruft. Vassyana 04:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources for real world context. The article appears to also be used as an excuse for excess non-free images. Jay32183 19:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vanquish - per nom. Otto4711 23:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this isn't the best page but it's not the worst one, and we should give this guy a chance twinfreak87 14:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 10:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sioux Falls Christian High School edit

I don't like tagging high schools for deletion, but when I saw this up as questionable notability since July 2006, I had to send it here. There's really nothing here other than "I exist". Fails WP:N and would fail WP:SCHOOL if it were still policy. Wizardman 23:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no assertion of notability. Caknuck 01:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Caknuck. Punkmorten 08:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jeffrey Nyquist, which already contains all the information in this article. WjBscribe 07:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of the Fourth World War edit

Book by a conspiracy theorist. 217.134.228.61 (talk · contribs · count) started an AfD for this but (since anonymous users can't create articles) couldn't create the AfD page. No !vote from me yet. -- Eastmain 23:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Nyquist's one and only book, written in 1998, is highly derivative of Anatoliy Golitsyn's writings and has been out of print for a while now. 217.134.116.71 00:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – By deleting the book I believe we would be setting up a conundrum. The author is noteworthy enough to be included in Wikipedia but the book he wrote is not. I believe they go hand in hand. The author is defiantly noteworthy enough to be included. Hence, the book by default becomes noteworthy. Shoessss 00:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This book is Nyquist's one and only, perhaps it should be merged with Jeffrey Nyquist. 217.134.116.71 00:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Conspiracy spam not meeting notability criteria. Doesn't deserve an article, but could be mentioned in Nyquist article. Vlad fedorov 03:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge is the choice between two articles and zero articles? It seems more reasonable that for a slight notable author of a slightly notable book, the two together might justify one article. I think it would be better practice in such cases to keep the article on the author, because the author is likely to have done some other things than write the book (as he has), and in any case will potentially write more. The article on the book has no such growth potential. DGG 04:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Book not notable in and of itself. Vassyana 04:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Might be merged with article World War IV.Biophys 14:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not appropriate as per WP:Fringe theories and WP:Undue weight. Merge into Nyquist article. 217.134.225.56 15:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless any reliable sources can be dug up. --Interiot 04:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. We do not, as a general rule, maintain many articles on cardboard cutouts of persons. Herostratus 22:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FlatHicks edit

Original nominator's comments: Not notable. A cardboard cutout used at a conference. Probably qualifies for speedy delete. --SueHay 23:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable. A cardboard cutout used at a conference. Probably qualifies for speedy delete. --SueHay 23:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable, well-documented cardboard cutout. Many independent references. --Eastmain 00:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Looks notable to me with over 19,000 Google hits. What is even more interesting is that his inclusion in Wikipedia seems to have added to this notoriety. Shoessss 00:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question I've been noticing that with other articles on obscure subjects. Why does it happen? Google seems to get skewed when an article is created in Wikipedia, but I don't know why. Can you help me understand this? --SueHay 01:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is the numerous sites that mirror Wikipedia's contents. Since there's so many of them, it skews a subject's number of Google hits. Speaking of which...

Delete. The subject of the article doesn't appear to be covered in reliable sources, the primary notability criterion. Filtering out Wikipedia mirrors from the Google search gets only 1050 hits, most of them being blogs and Flickr photos. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not the best article in the world, but a documented meme of some significance. Less notable memes are in Wikipedia right now. --D Wilbanks 03:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please look at this article's history. The non-notable blogs and Flickr photos that NeoChaosX found in Google were the basis for creating multiple wiki users to provide the "independent" references for this cardboard cutout. --SueHay 14:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The arrticle does not assert the notability of its subject. It barely slides by CSD A1 for context. The links do not establish notability and the article doesn't explain the importance of this cardboard cutout. --Strangerer (Talk) 03:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NeoChaosX and Strangerer. Cannot find reliable source Pea ceNT 15:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 10:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Quandt edit

non-notable person - no sources, not likely to provide any. Selket ^Talk 00:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only claim to notability is founding a non-notable organization. Fort Wayne Starving Artist Coalition should also be added to this AfD. Both articles lack sources. Caknuck 01:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above comments. Alan Liefting 01:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Vassyana 04:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 07:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punk 'n' Roll edit

The article is all uncited opinion, otherwise known as original research. Spylab 23:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Though un-cited at the moment, it is a bona fide music genre. Let’s give the author a little time to improve. If he/she does not revisit the article, I was looking for a project to get involved with and will be more than happy to push it along.. Shoessss 00:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are already articles on glam punk and protopunk. These seems to be original research. I have not encountered this genre name before and have been unable to locate reliable sources indicating it is a valid or notable genre. Vassyana 04:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason listed by Vassyana. It doesn't seem to be a distinct genre with a clear definition. Google hits of the term show that it is not a widespread term, and it appears to be just another word to describe certain punk and protopunk acts. The article has had an Original Research tag since December 2006 and an Unreferenced tag since September 2006, so there has already been more than enough time to bring the article up to encyclopedic standards.Spylab 13:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen/Ladies, just Google the genre, you’ll see more than enough references.Shoessss 16:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not the reader's job to search google to verify information that appears in a Wikipedia article. If the (reliable) references exist, they should appear in the Wikipedia article already. There has been an Unreferenced tag on this article since September 2006, so there has already been more than enough time to add reliable references if they existed. Spylab 14:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a descriptive term, not a genre. Closenplay 16:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion. --Ed (Edgar181) 16:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matsui 1409T edit

I can't seem to find any google hits for this and the article and it seems to be written as a joke Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 19:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - we can't be having articles for every model of anything or we'd be here forever especially as this one seems to be a joke of some form. --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 20:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the Matsui 1409T is a real television and I have the pictures to prove it. Gordo of the Press Club 21:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article creator would appear to have mistaken Wikipedia for Uncyclopedia. DarkSaber2k 21:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the above user doesn't like me for some reason. Gordo of the Press Club 22:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I'm commenting on the article and not you. Comment on content, not editors. DarkSaber2k 22:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is a joke not an encylopedia entry, however if a TV model did sell over 100,000,000 items then it does deserve an article, however in this case the figure is probably inflated. GB 03:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong comment - Surely the fact that this doesn't appear on the AfD index renders it invalid... Gordo of the Press Club 08:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even stronger comment - I note it's appeared on there now. But it's yesterday's page. Those who may have wished to comment won't be checking yesterday's AfD page. May I suggest it be relisted afresh in the proper manner? Gordo of the Press Club 10:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you bothered to read about what you're trying to criticise you'd know that AfDs are always listed on the day they are STARTED. It has been listed in the proper manner. DarkSaber2k 10:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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