Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LeeHunter (talk | contribs) at 15:32, 24 March 2007 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Campbell). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< March 23 March 25 >

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 delete.--Wizardman 03:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scrot rot

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

Dubious slang term. Would redirect to Jock itch but article makes no mention of fungal infection which is principal in that syndrome. Listing for community input. No Vote exolon 00:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 07:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer and video games not released in the USA

List of computer and video games not released in the USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia isn't apparently 'indescriminate information', and this list is pretty much that. It would be near impossible to complete (there must be thousands of video games not released in the USA), especially as the criteria is so broad that stuff like Animal Forest (the Japanese version of Animal Crossing, which was released in the US on the Gamecube) or alterernative versions of games like Kingdom Hearts 2 - Final Mix are included. FredOrAlive 00:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 14:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.P.Gururaja Bhat

Dr.P.Gururaja Bhat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 00:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I got only 7 unique G hits.[4] ----♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 10:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands now. If you can show more of these alleged sources, I might reconsider. Realkyhick 06:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename/move to P Gururaja Bhatt. Author of Studies in Tuluva history and culture, from the pre-historic times upto the modern and Antiquities of South Kanara. Assumming good faith in hopes of additional source from users familiar with India and its culture.--I already forgot 09:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Writing a book alone doesn't get you through WP:BIO, and the article still lacks viable references. Move to appropriate name if kept, of course. A Train take the 16:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia. Mr. Berry 23:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not an article, no sources, writing a book isn't sufficient evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:per nom. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 10:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Professors and historians are not rock stars or cricket players. Obviously, not everyone would have heard of them. Unless someone gets down to study Tulu history or maybe Karnataka history they might not come across this author. But for someone who is a student of these less glamorous subjects, Prof. Gururaja Bhat is certainly notable. A quick search on books.google.com and worldcat.org can throw light on his notability. For example, a search on books.google.com reveals that Rama Jois has used P. Gururaja Bhat's books as references in his own books. Now did somebody say, "Who the hell is Rama Jois?". Well, Rama Jois was a Judge of the Supreme Court of India and later Governer of Chattisgarh. These are only the highest offices that he has held and needless to say he's held and holds several more. And where has he referred to P. Gururaja Bhat? Well in his book, "Legal and Constitutional History of India: Ancient, Judicial and Constitutional System" which is considered a most seminal and definitive work by students and scholars of the subject. Go to books.google.com, search for this book and then search the book for "gururaja bhat". If a Supreme Court judge who is himself a respected historian can refer to another author, then by implication, the other author is certainly no quack! btw, the book that M.Rama Jois has referred to is Gururaja Bhat's "Tuluva history and culture". Now that notability has been established, do a speedy keep and mark it as a stub. Sarvagnya 22:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added some refs and content to the article. A search with alternative spellings indicates that he was a notable historian who was an authority on Tulu-related stuff("Gururaja Bhatt", "Gururaja Bhat", "Gururaj Bhatt", and "Gururaj Bhat"). utcursch | talk 05:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Mailer diablo[5]. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 13:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decide band

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

This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 00:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. John254 22:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pale (band)

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

This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 00:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 07:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amphetamine in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another indiscriminate "pop culture" spinoff article. Nothing but a list of every time this particular drug is mentioned in some obscure song or movie; plenty of OR and entries of questionable notability.

I am also nominating the following nearly identical pages for the same reason:

Benzedrine in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dextroamphetamine in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

— Krimpet (talk/review) 00:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merged. kingboyk 18:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sajdah

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

Two dictionary definitions, complete with the strangest/funkiest looking redirect I've ever seen. kingboyk 00:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected it and we can move this AfD.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 05:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD should be closed.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 14:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 08:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic place of Sajdah

Arabic place of Sajdah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a pure guess, but maybe it's used on maps in the Muslim world to indicate mosques? - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or develop I think the article should be kept. While it doesn't really qulaify for notability, I'm sure there's a lot to be said about the history of that character. I don't really think any typographical symbols have a lot to be said about, nontheless, there ought to be information available about them. There should be a mention or a description about that symbol somewhere in wikipedia, after all, if I crated this article in the first place, it's because I was intrested in knowing what that symbol was and I couldn't find it anywhere in wikipedia ! So yeah, if it HAS to be deleted, please make sure it is mentionned somewhere in an article what this symbol is. But the better would be if somebody could give more info about it. Dread Specter 02:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Punkmorten 09:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Sunday

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

This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 00:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. John254 23:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Maria Schenkel

Andrea Maria Schenkel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 00:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. John254 22:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keiji Ozaki

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

This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 01:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it is only fair to say that when nominated for deletion it was really unreferenced by any standard.DGG 02:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Harryboyles 03:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV Guide's List of the 50 Greatest TV Characters of All Time

TV Guide's List of the 50 Greatest TV Characters of All Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about an article that appeared in TV Guide. Non-notable, only references to it are in blogs or trivial sources. Incidentally, if people create articles I think they should at least name them accurately, rather than an interpretation of the original (compare the title to the actual TV Guide cover).

(Similar to yesterday's nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 25 Most Controversial Movies Ever). Croxley 01:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Wafulz 21:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Asia Imperial & Royal League

Southeast Asia Imperial & Royal League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I think this page should be kept. It is about a verifiable (if not fashionable) political body, links to other appropriate articles, and documents a real cultural group about which Americans probably know little. I'm not really sure why it was included for deletion? Markwiki 20:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This AfD nomination appears to have never been listed properly. It is listed now – Qxz 01:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless verification can be shown. Even so, may not be notable. Realkyhick 06:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep about as informative as a stub gets, about a major organisation all of whose members are notable. Not sure where Bnguyen gets the "only copies via google" from; leaving out Wikipedia & answers.com I get 292,000 Google hits[7] including prominent mentions on the official websites of all the relevant royal families. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you search for the exact term, you get only 8+5 results[8][9]. utcursch | talk 12:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep large Australian company --Scott Davis Talk 13:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Property Trust

General Property Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural listing, it was speedied without notification, which I disagree with, and hence restored it. However, I'm also not able to improve it beyond its present content, due to my lack of comprehension of the financial dailies and the like, although it *does* merit more as a large Australian corporate player - I created it as I was amazed it didn't have an article. The present version of the article is slightly better than the one that got speedied, but my main newspaper archive seems to have dropped AFR :(. I'll leave it for the community to decide what to do with it. Orderinchaos78 01:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible speedy keep as the nominator wants to keep it and no-one has favoured deleting it.Capitalistroadster 02:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it's not information I'm struggling to find - I got 7900+ hits on Factiva at least 119 of which were in major Australian newspapers since November 2005 - it's comprehending them. I'm not a business person. :) Also the important stuff regarding Lend Lease and Stockland, and the history with Growth Equities Mutual during the 80s and early 90s, is not in there - it seems to be dead wood only now since AFR pulled most of its historical stuff out of Factiva :/ Orderinchaos78 02:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus. There are arguments for deletion, merger, and retention; arguments for notability of the topic are persuasive, but should be documented better in the article by formal citation. It is unclear whether the article should be merged or kept as a stand-alone article based on arguments presented. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Box in a Box

My Box in a Box (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is too umimportant, and having a million views on youtube doesn't change that and neither does it being a parody of a popular videoRodrigue 13:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge... yet. It's premature in an AfD discussion, and probably generating a big compromise effect already. Merging and deletion need to be considered in their own time, in their own space, according to their own criteria. There are certain reasons for merging, but I haven't seen any of those reasons mentioned so far on this page. Merge shouldn't be used as a synonym for weak delete. Matt Fitzpatrick 06:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh I know? That's why my opinion on this discussion is that it be merged as a sub section. It doesn't deserve it's own article. Did you want me to say Delete instead? Berserkerz Crit 21:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care how anyone feels as long as they back it up. Specifically, does it fail WP:WEB? youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 22:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well duh I would say Keep if it didn't fail WP:WEB. It's just a parody of the original more popular skit. It's millions of views are credited to the original because no one would watch that if they didn't want to see the original parodied. It fails WP:NOTE and WP:WEB so it's still Merge. Berserkerz Crit 20:51, 1 April 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 05:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Lincoln

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

Non-notable. It seems to be an article about one joke made on one episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I can't find any reference to Jesus Lincoln anywhere else. Mysdaao 01:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. I verified the existence of several news articles establishing notability by adding links to them in the reference set. Notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (music) established. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Herstand

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

No mention of why he is notable. No references, and has only released independent albums. Google search results came back with a relatively small amount. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep since this, this and this media mentions establish that for one: the band is real & we would have enough reliable & independent sources to create an article with. Mr. Berry 01:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply does not meet the minimum criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (music). A few local paper reviews (as noted above), a live set at a local club, and an indy release do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Come back when at least one of the criteria is met. Akradecki 03:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Akradecki. --TM 04:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable enough (yet). Realkyhick 06:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His music has been played on MTV, he has been positively reviewed by the Grammy winning producer Kevin Bowe and a national paper (arts section of The Onion), as well as numerous local papers spanning numerous states. He has played at two national music festivals (Austin, TX's SXSW and Milwaukee, WI's Summerfest) of which musicians like Guster, John Mayer, Jamie Cullum, and Hanson have played at. He has played with major label artists such as Matt Nathanson (March 30th, '07), Joshua Radin (who is on the Grey's Anatomy soundtrack), Sandi Thom, Schuyler Fisk, and This World Fair at more intimate settings and he has also played trumpet at Carnegie Hall. He has fused a new genre of music (Folk/Hop) which has started to spread among other indy artists. The person who wants to delete this article has simply not done their research (there are over 10,000 articles for the search "Ari Herstand" in quotes on Google, this may seem small, however, Herstand is the only "Ari Herstand" in the world). Though he is an independent artist, his vast number of performances at the aforementioned major venues as well the widespread acknowledgment of his success as a musician (every single newspaper article being positive) makes him a notable addition to Wikipedia. I can provide more evidence if needed for all of my above statements. In response to Akradecki: according to Wikipedia:Notability (music) he meets the central criterion of notability, namely, "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." Your case is therefore completely null and void.HighOnYou 07:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/response The problem here is that you don't seem to understand how things work at Wikipedia. You said "The person who wants to delete this article has simply not done their research", but our policies make it very clear that it is your responsibility to do the research, not the person nominating it for deletion. The burden of demonstrating notability is up to you when you write the article, and you didn't bother to put any of the above detailed information into the article. Notability is based on what's actually in the article, not on all the stuff you leave out. Re-write the article, detail what you've said here, back it with citations and I'll be happy to change my "delete" to a "keep". Again, and this is really important for you to understand, it's your job to do the research and properly document how the article's subject meets our notability criteria within the article, not here! Akradecki 13:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Then why isn't any of it sourced? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I apologize that when I made the page I solely put links to newspaper articles on the bottom without incorporating their contents in citations. I will work on that, however, these facts are not made up and this page does not need to be put up for deletion because of a sloppy article. An unreferenced tag would suffice. Do you mind if I change the tag to {{unreferenced | date=March 2007}} until better citations are added?HighOnYou 07:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with Edits: If citations can be made for the Summerfest concert and use of the artists music on the Real World, I would say that this musician has proven national credibility. A resume with those features would get him somewhere; however, I will agree that the citations for this work need to be included. I would not agree with a delete for this page. If citations cannot be brought forward in a reasonable amount of time, say two weeks I would then suggest deletion Themaskeddrummer 13:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No assertion of notability.--Bryson 02:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - References have been added and notability has been established. HighOnYou 12:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the 7 references added since the AFD was started (see diff). Sources do not have to be from international newspapers to count. -- Black Falcon 22:46, 1 April 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 07:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of worship centers in Lake Charles, Louisiana

List of worship centers in Lake Charles, Louisiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory. Croxley 01:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borwein's algorithm (others)

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

The result was broken beyond repair. The page had been moved to an non-existent userpage; to clean all of this mess up, the page has been moved to a user subpage of the creator, and the four or so redirects along the way have been tagged for speedy deletion. As it is now a user subpage, it is pointless to continue this discussion here. If you want to nominate the user subpage for deletion, you may do so at MfD. Instead, I advise that we educate our creator how she can improve that would-be article to a status worthy of Wikipedia. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haruko Lisa Haruhara

Haruko Lisa Haruhara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm not really sure what this is; it's pretty confusing, but it seems to be some kind of vanity article presented as fiction, created by a user with the same name as the article. Masamage 03:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, article updated! Please go to Haruko Lisa Haruhara to read updated version. This should clear up most of the confusion. Please notify if any confusion spots that need to be explain in the article in more detail. Thanks. Updated as of March 23rd, 2007 at 10:22 PM PDT Haruko 05:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~). --Masamage 05:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And never remove or edit other people's comments, even when you have taken care of their concerns. --Masamage 06:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it's good that someone did a great job on making a fictional article. Whoever did this, also stated the names of the voice actors/actresses and developers. He/she also said to give them credit. I think it's very creative! I can understand what the objective of this article is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.231.22 (talk • contribs)
Comment - Do anon contributions count towards AfD's? UnfriendlyFire 05:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see were you are coming from. He/she may have did some editing to an exsiting article, however, I do not know what addtional info was added to that existing article, so I cannot not personally call it non-sense, whoever did that. As of this debate in this created article, I can see some work put into it and he/she is not calling it his/her own. If you go to "references" section in the article, you can see the names of the real people that drew the fictional people and the voice actors/actress as well. Due to the information I see in the article stating to the public that this is all fictional and is trying to explain the detail about it to the best of his/hers ability, I would say, keep the article. Lets give this one a chance and see what happens once this debate is closed. Lets see if this person abuses his/hers privilege of making an fictional article, offical on this site to it's own category. But, hey, this is my personal comment regarding this. Many of you may see it differently than I. ChrisRB 06:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that this is this user's only edit. --Masamage 06:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - So are you saying the user that made up the article is doing edits to everyone else's comments based off this? ChrisRB 06:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm only pointing out that you're new. The administrators who make the judgment on these discussions may or may not decide to take it into account; sometimes only established users' votes are counted. That's policy. --Masamage 06:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. And by what means is established mean? Does it go by how long have you been with the site? ChrisRB 06:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an admin, but I think it is left up to their individual discretion according to the person's edit history and past contributions. --Masamage 06:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, I can see this user has to be a big fan of FLCL. I give whoever credit on the possible time that was spent, but I can see why this should be deleted, or should it? I'm more of a computer guy, so I'm not good and making calls on this. I only go by My own personal actions. When was this article made anyways? I've been on this site before and I know what show Haruko is from, but the info provided on ths new article is not true? or is it? I guess I'll just have to search for sources to answer my question. Anyway, I know this is maybe out of topic, but can I use HTML and Java code to build my page? ChrisRB 06:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This particular article, as it says at the top, is not true. Visit the Welcome page for detailed info on using Wikipedia. --Masamage 06:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The opening sentence says, This is a fictional article. Huh? Why is it on Wikipedia, then? Realkyhick 06:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't get it. I see cartoon people on wiki, and their fictional. Is this article the same? I mean, please explain the two differences. ChrisRB 06:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. Now, I have another question. Lets say I'm doing a project that has been copyright by me, and I want to make an article about it. Can I do so without it be in the same shoes as this article I'm seeing now? I will not bug any of you anymore for such info, lol. As for the fictional deal, I see now. So this fictionl character maybe getting deleted due to the fact of it not being his own character profile and 2. Because this character is an FLCL character, yet different profile, it will be deleted casue of it. ChrisRB 07:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's generally frowned-upon to make an article about something you created because of the inherent conflict of interest. If what you made is famous enough to merit an article, someone else will eventually write one for you. And no, this article is up for deletion for reasons that have nothing to do with copyright or ownership. It's more because it is about a fictional creation that is not famous or influential in the grand scheme of things. FLCL gets an article because it is important and well-known. This actress-character is not. It seems shallow, I know, but that's how the policy works. Wikipedia is a big thing and there have to be some qualifications about what gets in, otherwise everybody and their imaginary friend would have an article, and it would be impossible to find any solid information. --Masamage 07:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What in God's name is this junk? Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. JuJube 08:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said earlier, it's just a major fan more likely. ChrisRB 08:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, 99.999% of fanfiction is not notable and this is no exception. --Kunzite 16:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: Non-notable and admittedly a vanity piece ("tribute to Haruko" - see above) by creator (who, coincidentally, shares same name).Jill Teed 17:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's now been moved into a nonstandard userspace, leaving behind double redirects. --Masamage 21:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The author moved the article to various locations. It's at User:Haruko Lisa Haruhara1 now. JuJube 22:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete what is left-- a redirect to a redirect to a page in userspace. Leave the userspace page alone. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and protect, closed early per unanimous consensus (and 5 previous speedy deletions). For future reference, the article in its entirety read: "Xbox 720 is a possible name for Microsoft's upcoming console, which will be the successor to the Xbox 360, and is expected to be released in the 2010 - 2011 time frame." Sandstein 20:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox 720

Xbox 720 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The Xbox 360 has been out only a little over a year. It will probably be 4-5 before any actual info about its successor comes out. Let's wait until then, instead of making random claims. Theshoestore 03:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short bus

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 02:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salisbury Manor

Appears to be a non-notable building. Less than 100 ghits, and many of those that exist seem to be for an apartment building in New York City. Lankiveil 04:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vortekz

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

Tagged for speedy deletion by 198.138.41.54, with this message: non-notable indy wrestler; if for some reason this page does not qualify for speedy deletion, could somebody please put it up for afd? I can't because I don't have an account and don't wish to make one. Thank you. I'm not sure it is speedyable, so I'm bringing it here as asked. No opinion from me. – Qxz 04:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scalent Server Repurposing Software

Scalent Server Repurposing Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be promotional material for a non-notable product. Only ghits for "Scalent Server Repurposing Software" or "Server Repurposing Software" seem to refer back to Wikipedia. Lankiveil 04:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Deleted by Sandestein Speedy deleted per (CSD g12), was a blatant copyright infringement

Scott Newton (Philanthropist)

Scott Newton (Philanthropist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reads like promotional material for a non-notable realtor Lankiveil 04:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Central High School (Erie, Pennsylvania)

Central High School (Erie, Pennsylvania) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn school,no attributed sources, no assertion of notability. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 05:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we use the ancient and honorable WP:IAR provision of our Wikipediology to !vote in deletion discussions. Somehow, somehow most high school articles stay in the picture at the end of the discussion. Must be divine intervention. My humble essay actually says something about that. When I get a little less busy, I hope to make a proposal about schools which I hope will bring around Wikipedia written policy to something closer to what Wikipedians actually want, or at least what we actually do (or maybe some fine Wikipedian will do it first). Then we can all bend down and worship that idol. Seriously, you make a good point, but WP:IAR is policy and maybe that's what allows practice to outpace policy writing. By the way, where did we put that rule that allows small towns to have articles without passing WP:N? Noroton
  • Weak keep as per Noroton above, high schools are notable within their local area. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Sufficiently notable. — RJH (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 20:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep for the academic championship. There is no consensus at Wikipedia that high schools are or are not inherently notable, as evidenced by the fact that high school AfDs are closed as "no consensus", "keep" or "delete" on a case by case basis. This one has it. I think a school with an academic championship is more notable than one with a great basketball program, but this particular contest is only fought in 39 states, hence the weak in my keep. --Butseriouslyfolks 00:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete Actually Noroton said it exactly: "most high school articles stay ." Most, but not all. I do not see how one can use the true statement that most stay in, to deduce that all stay in, or that all should. . What we should be trying to do is to find the guidelines on their merits so we don't have to start from the beginning each time, and all understand what clearly is and what clearly isn't, and only need to discuss the borderline ones. Saying that all should stay in (or out) makes it impossible to even discuss guidelines.
This one is borderline. The 2 championships might show some notability, except that they are not documented. they could be, I think. . The other Erie high school articles show that more content can often be found. I'll change to weak keep if there's any non-trivial 3rd party RS. GreatSchools is not a RS for notability: beyond recording the state Dept of Ed data, it "allows principals to add a great deal of additional information about curriculum, programs, activities, school vision and leadership." That is, it consists of directory data plus self-advertising. It is a convenient RS for the directory data, so as not to need finding the official state basic information. To list Central High School Official Website, Erie School District Profile of Central High, and Central High's main Web page at Great Schools Web site is one source, not three--and all of them good only for the directory information. DGG 03:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Car Experts

In Car Experts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Some industry-specific notability alleged, but seems to be mostly V/advertisement. Sneftel 05:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. Many of the 'Keep' arguments are not terribly strong, but the point that it appears to meet WP:MUSIC is well made. While sourcing could be improved, it does seem likely that more reliable sources will be available in the reasonably near future. Shimeru 16:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blaqk Audio

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

Not notable per WP:MUSIC, no third-party, reliable sources. RJASE1 Talk 06:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. blaqk audio is awesome!
  • Delete, maybe even speedy. When all your sources are your own Myspace, your own blogs and your own web site, you're likely not notable. Realkyhick 06:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Blaqk Audio certainly is notable - it's a project run by two members of AFI, a band that has reached the number one spot within the United States, and garned considerable attention elsewhere. Frontman Davey Havok is a notable figure. That, I believe, satisfies the criterion that a notable band "Contain at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable."
The Blaqk Audio project has been bubbling underground for around six years. Entering Blaqk Audio into google heralds [over 26,000 Results]. They have, as of this post, [10,041 myspace friends]. Their first song, released only eleven days ago, has achieved almost ninety thousand hits on their [Myspace]. The release of that song has been documented on many other sites not run and maintained by the band members: [17], [18], [19], [20] are all examples. I appreciate that it does not satisfy the criteria in that the band has not released a studio album yet, but Havok himself has stated that the album should be released in the summer of 2007. At the very least, this should form part of the AFI page, but then it will only need to be re-expanded when the album is released.
It's worth noting (per the suggestions under AfD Wikietiquette) that I am currently the primary author of the article (although I did not create it.) I appreciate that I'm new to Wikipedia and I don't understand how everything is run, but I do believe that this is a useful article, and one that will continue to grow and prove useful. Mnesimache 07:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that article should be kept. Blaqk Audio is signed to Interscope Records, as stated by the Administrator of the Official AFI Message Board and the Official AFI fanclub, the Despair Faction, meaning that an album will be released in due time. In addition to what Mnesimache has mentioned, this project has been predetermined and expected for quite some time, portraying its longevity. It has been hosted on VH1.comin 2003, and again in 2004, provided by MTV News. Punknews.org has also posted various updates on Blaqk Audio project, including mentions in September 2003 (referring to an article in Rolling Stone), February 2007, and again in March 2007. Furthermore, the project has been mentioned in various other printed magazines, including Alternative Press (June 2006 issue) and Guitar World (August 2006 issue). Regardless, even if it is decided that this article should be deleted, it will definitely be reposted once the CD is released and once the project is further noted by the media. Stellaaa 17:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)— Stellaaa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I'd like to further point out Blaqk Audio's credibility by linking to Blaqk Audio merchandise offered by Cinderblock, a major music artist merchandise company that sells products for a wide variety of other creditable bands (see list here). Ergo Blaqk Audio is a legitimate project. Stellaaa 17:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Article!In my oppinion the article now gives a lot of information about Blaqk Audio, the begining of the project, the new song, the upcoming album.It also hasa paragraphs, external links and references.It's a good article.Also Blaqk Audio will be very successful project and should have its own article in wikipedia.Xr 1 19:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.This article should definitely be kept. It has improved greatly since it was first created. As the above users stated, this page will just be recreated once the album comes out. The group does have notable members. This article is useful because it provides information. It is not just some fan created article with just spam; the info is presented a knowledgable way. I agree with Mnesimache in that the article should at least be moved to the AFI page. Lizzysama 23:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See other comments for my reason why. DavidJJJ 12:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Discounting myspace and blogs as reliable sources, we are left only with a non-independent press release and an article in Rolling Stone that only mentions Blaqk Audio trivially. I was unable (in a cursory search) to find other sources to prove the subject's notability. -- Black Falcon 22:50, 1 April 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. WjBscribe 08:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PPStream (2nd nomination)

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

Fails WP:WEB, I don't see a reason for notablility here. Has already been deleted once in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PPStream —— Eagle101 Need help? 06:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. We cannot cobble an article together on the basis that a number of artists have called themselves "DJ Mystik"- it must be shown that one or more such artist is notable. If necessary this page could one day be a disambiguation page. However the notability of the artist presently described under that title (in terms of WP:BAND) has not been established. WjBscribe 08:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Mystik

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

This article is about a DJ whom no verifiable or attributable information is available, failing WP:ATT/WP:V. Searching google for the phrases "tony tran" and "dj mystik" yields only Wikipedia and mirrors. Googling without phrases just brings up thousands of unrelated results. As is, there are no sources cited in the article. It doesn't seem he was ever signed to any labels or had any media coverage, so delete as failing WP:BAND and verifiability in general. Wickethewok 07:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Just a long list and a one line bio of a minor DJ who article admits hasn't worked for 6 years. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Weak Keep Records are available for purchase online, and artist has a current MySpace page and listing on Last.FM. Bio information on both sites is nearly identical to the WP entry (the MySpace page is a word for word copy). Brief review of genre albums (Happy Hardcore) reveals some use of tracks by this artist. If further information can be found, this article should be kept.Revpfil 22:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promo, unsubstantiated. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid topic - but ... probably not a valid nomination for deletion. The unverifiable bio info should be moved to the talk page until it is sourced correctly. Deletion means that no article for DJ Mystik should ever be written, which in this case is not right since this artist clearly does exist and appears on CDs for sale in North America, Korea and Europe, which meets WP notability standards - it IS verifiable that the artist exists (a quick check shows that even I have had about a dozen or so DJ Mystik tune remixes on my iPod for a few years) - Davodd 11:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the complete lack of sources (failing WP:ATT)? And how does having CDs for sale mean he's notable. Also, please note that there are many DJs who use the name "DJ Mystik" - a quick Google search brings up one in Belgium, one in California, and one in New Mexico and thats just on the first two pages of Google hits. There are no reliable sources on any of them. Wickethewok 13:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Articles for deletion is for articles that NEVER should be on Wikipedia. A vote to delete effectivle bans any future DJ Mystik articles. Your complaint is easily fixed by removing the unverifiable content and making the article a stub. A visit to various .torrent sites, [25] [26] [27] [28] shows that DJ Mystik tunes are being downloaded. It looks to me that all of our research has verified a few things:
  1. That more than one person claims the name "DJ Mystik"
  2. That Music has exists ('sic')for a decade or so from "DJ Mystik"
  3. That "DJ Mystik" tunes are available right now on many bittorrent sites (isn't this a crime?)
  4. That we do not now have the ability to verify any biographical facts about who "DJ Mystik" is, although we can verify that the music exists
I am under the opinion that as a TOPIC, DJ Mystik is a valid Wikipedia article. As for the current entry - it has many fatal flaws. But that doesn't warrant an all-out ban on an article (which voting to delete effectively does). All of our issues can be remedied with a non-deletion route (always preferable in WIkipedia) by a CLEANUP in making the article a stub until some future editor has the ability and resources to flesh it out properly. Davodd 18:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think cleanup is possible as I don't think any information is available anywhere. I assure you that if no one can find any information on something, that IS a reason for deletion. Also, AFD does not "ban" articles. If sources are found in the future, the article can be simply be put up again, you don't even have to go through DRV or anything. Wickethewok 18:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 04:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Craig

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

Concerns over notability Sfacets 07:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Rather than WP:ILIKEIT and IDONTTHINKYOULIKEIT, we need independent sources demonstrating his notability in accordance with WP:BIO. MastCell Talk 20:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Comics Journal interview subjects

List of Comics Journal interview subjects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory or an index of tables of contents of publications. Otto4711 07:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm a long-time reader of the Journal, and have found this list useful. Perhaps it could be expanded with interesting quotes, or merged with the Comics Journal article Rhinoracer 14:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Useful to some editors it may be but it does not belong here. Perhaps it could be rewritten and expanded into a list of issues and their main themes/interviews but even in that context I feel it may not belong here. Robbielatchford 14:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The Journal's interviews are themselves notable-- even TCJ enemy Harlan Ellison conceded that they were the equivalent of the Playboy interviews. They are remarkable documents.
This article can usefully be expanded, but as it stands I see it as a good, encyclopedian resource.

The person who nominated this article for deletion, against all policy, hasn't bothered to justify his nomination.

I will give him 24 hours to do so, after which I shall take down the AFD template.
It is interesting to note the timing of this AFD, in light of the current lawsuit by Harlan Ellison in large part over a TCJ interview. What a coincidence. Rhinoracer 21:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith regarding the reason Otto nominated this for deletion. I see no indication that he is doing so in relation to Ellison's suit. Also, please do not remove AfD templates from articles. This will not change the fact that there is a nomination, it will just prevent visitors to the page from being aware that this discussion is taking place. ~CS 00:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That said: Weak Keep. The Comics Journal is as close as comics have to a scholarly journal, and its interviews are a significant (arguably, renowned) part of that. Although I agree with many of the delete votes that the article in its current state is inappropriate, I can't help but feel that improving the article -- perhaps so that it is no longer a list -- is the direction to go with this one. ~CS 00:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If the consensus is that this shouldn't be an article, I would suggest that it become a Wikiproject Comics project page instead. It could be very useful to people looking for sources for comics-related articles. —Celithemis 00:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure what the process would be, but this suggestion seems like a good idea to me. This seems like something that would fit in neatly as a directory to complement the project's sections on reliable resources for comics articles. ~CS 01:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Comment (see later comment) I really can see the value of this, but I can't see it fitting the format, guidelines, and policies that are in place. Even as a "Project protected reference/resource page" I can't see this fitting. If someone could point out a ref to the process/precedent for that type of page, I'll support moving this, but otherwise, it'll, reluctantly, need to go. — J Greb 01:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there is an established process, as such, but there are existing pages in Wikipedia space devoted to helping people find sources for articles; Wikipedia:Newspapers and magazines request service and Wikipedia:Research resources come to mind.
Why would lack of precedent be a problem, anyway? Helping members do research for articles is an obviously useful thing for a Wikiproject to do. It helps the encyclopedia, so why not do it? —Celithemis 03:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there's a much closer analogy: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Magazines. —Celithemis 03:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My main reason for wanting examples/precedent pointed out in this case is that I wouldn't want this being moved attacked as an attempt by editors to save a page they "like" that doesn't belong on Wiki.
That being said, Video games/Magazines is a good example for moving this to a Comics sub-page. But in moving this a few other things would need to be addressed:
  • Page title. The title would need to be tweaked.
  • Layout. It needs to be converted from a bullet list to a table.
  • Information. While the subject and issue number are a good start, it should be like an expanded footnote/reference with the interviewer, month/year, and page(s). The title, if it's something other than "Interview wit..." should be there also.
That would also set it up for expansion to a list covering TCJ contents in general, if there is such a desire.
- J Greb 03:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bloody STRONG Keep. This is useful to researchers. This is useful information. This is entirely in keeping with the point of Wikipedia. There is no better reason to delete given here than "I don't like it". You know what? Tough. This is an extension of the article on the Journal, and were it a category people would say listify. It's solid, sourced information that is utilised by scholars. It does not violate WP:NOT in any shape, manner or form. I would note the people who are trying to force their opinion through with the claim that it violates Wikipedia_is not an indiscriminate collection of information miss the vital point that policy makes, that "there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries". The section even goes on to detail the only areas that have consensus, none of which this list meets. WP:NOT asks us to consider what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia. I would suggest this article fits the bill. You don't personally happen to like it? Ignore it. Edit your style sheet to pretend it doesn't exist. But don't delete it. It's information which is of use. Hiding Talk 14:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what would be really useful? If someone would index my cookbooks so I can find recipes by ingredient without having to search through them all. Now that would be useful. It would also be, like this info dump of an index, completely unencyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 06:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable magazine and an academic source. The Journal is a respected, quality publication with a solid history in comics journalism and criticism, an its interview subjects (such as the likes of Robert Crumb, Harvey Kurtzman etc.) are definitely more notable than the list of people in Playboy. Counterrestrial 06:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, it is useful but I think something needs doing with it as it stands. Possibly best discussed on the Comics Project talk page after this deletion is decided. (Emperor 19:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • A few notes - First, to the person who's accusing me of colluding with Harlan Ellison, rest assured that I have no knowledge of said suit. The lawsuit or lack of same has nothing to do with this nomination and the notion that a lawsuit could somehow be influenced by the existence or non-existence of a list of interview subjects is ludicrous. Second, I have explained the reason for the nomination, which is that Wikipedia is not a directory. That a number of people were interviewed by the same publication does not create the sort of association that would warrant an article. Compliance with WP:LIST, which is a guideline and not policy, is irrelevant if the list itself fails WP:NOT, which is policy. Third, It's useful is an incredibly poor reason for keeping an article. All sorts of things that all sorts of people find useful get deleted off Wikipedia every day. Finally, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is also a horrible reason for keeping an article. If other articles which don't meet Wikipedia policy and guidelines exist, then the proper response to them is to deleted them, not to point to them in an attempt to save other non-compliant articles. Otto4711 12:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, you could list off a million different list articles and none of them have any relevance to whether or not this article should be kept. However, I have in fact put a couple of the lists you posted up earlier for deletion. Do I have a specific precedent of a specific list of interviews in a specific magazine being deleted? No. But there are any number of precedents of poor list articles being deleted. I have no idea if other such lists of people interviewed in a particular magazine have been nominated for deletion. It strikes me as rather irrelevant whether or not such a similar deletion exists if this list is one that should be deleted. If you read WP:NOT#DIR you'll see that it bars lists of loosely associated topics. The happenstance of being interviewed by a particular journal or magazine is just that sort of loose association. Otto4711 17:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Piece terms

One Piece terms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As per the sentence that describes the article: This is a list of locations, characters, items, and other terms from the anime/manga series One Piece. As I read through alot of the article, it appears to be just a dumping ground for anything One Piece related. A form of listcruft/fancruft in my opinion. Also: it should be noted, there is character and location (as well as plenty of other One Piece lists) on Wikipedia already. This list seems to be just repeating alot of information, that's listed elsewhere. RobJ1981 08:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Hmm... There are no characters here. No locations as such (maybe one or two noted). There are a lot of articles linked to this page. As for repeating info... Well I can ensure you a LOT of this is here as back up for those articles linked to here and in MOST cases the info is only here. It is here to save the other articles being clogged up with a TON of info that is little relevent to the article. Maybe it is list/fancruft but it is not a dumping ground. Angel Emfrbl 09:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, some of these would end up as stub articles... I'd rather see them all collected onto one page rather then a dozen in-universe stub articles which people hate even more. Angel Emfrbl 07:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As a llst, it doesn't very well defien the contents, and essentially turning it into a dumping ground for anything somebody wants to write about the anime / managa -- Whpq 13:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a part of a larger topic. It wont fit on other pages. Extremely notable series. It doesn't seem to duplicatE much, which wouldn't be a reason for deletion anyways. See WP:SS, WP:NOT#PAPER. It's probably the result of some the items receiving a result of merge on their own AfDs. It it isn't, it soon will be if this is deleted. - Peregrine Fisher 21:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:FICT point 2, according to which: Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters" ... -- Black Falcon 22:55, 1 April 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 13:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of rappers

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

What does this do that a category can't? —Ocatecir Talk 08:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teenwag

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

Several reasons. Firstly, I'm not sure it meets WP:WEB. Secondly, it reads like an advert. Even the external links are advert-like. And a similar page was deleted in December 2006. I'm posting this here because I admit I'm not up on this kind of stuff. And maybe this is just something big that I've never heard of. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Clean-up A Google search of Teenwag brought back 57,000 results, while a Google search of Teenwag.com brought back 24,200 results. I say that makes it Notable, although it does read like a huge advert. So Keep and add {{advert}} tag --Twipie 09:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Islamic dietary laws, which I went and did already. Will be a redirect now.--Wizardman 21:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and alcohol

Islam and alcohol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Deletion was suggested by User:Matt57 on my talk page, who started Islam and pork. This article is similar in that it has little to no real content and also has a POV statement about Muslim youth drinking to seem more "western" (it goes without saying that there have always been Muslims who drink alcohol since the beginning of the religion, since every society of earth has had alcohol since the dawn of time). Whatever. Simply an unnecessary article considering Islamic dietary laws. Khorshid 09:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELET. i WIL aD A LiNK aT SIMPLIFiD SPeLiNG xO, aND MAK IT A REDiReKT. Herostratus 02:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nooalf

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

Novel concept, but IPA it isn't. Only people who've written about this are its creators, making this unsourceable through reliable sources. Was deleted via prod earlier but recreated, so it's here. - Bobet 10:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm the author of the article. I'm fairly new to Wiki, so forgive me if I don't understand everything. My Intention in posting it is to explain Nooalf in a succinct manner to people who don't want to spend the time reading the Nooalf website. It's also a matter of matching the style to the audience. You will immediately note that the website is not the usual scholarly desertation you would expect for such subjects.

Please correct me if I'm wrong here: Wikipedia is supposed to be the ultimate Encyclopedia. More info and especially newer info than a paper encyclopedia could ever hope to contain. So is it not a good thing that people can get the basic facts about Nooalf here?

I will try to be brief in addressing the above comments:

No, it isn't the IPA. The IPA was made in an era when sound recording was not a practical matter for linguists. Today, transcribing the odd vocalizations of remote tribes is not neccassary, and the entire activity is probably near extinction. Although it is not intended to encompass all possible sounds of the human speach organs, Nooalf does provide ordinary people with a keyboard friendly means to write what they hear. It's based on English, which has more phonemes than most other languages, so it covers most languages fairly well. Plus, sticking to it's basic philosophy, more letters must be added to if needed.

The use of the term 'Unsourcable' seems to imply that something must become widespread before inclusion in Wiki. If somebody searches 'nooalf' I think they would probably want to get the info from the world's foremost authority. Judging from my samplings of the fantastic width, breadth and depth of the information contained in Wiki, you don't require the imprimature of degreed scholars for everything.

I'm not sure why you reference the Dvorak keyboard. However, Nooalf is typable on all ordinary keyboards in either the QWERTY layout or Dvorak.

About Wikifying the article. I would appreciate it if you could add it to the appropriate catagories and lists.

I've read the guidelines for articles to be included in Wiki and can see how Nooalf could fail on the source requirements. Although Noo alf is discussed in many places on the web and the chart is available from at least 1 other source, there is no real paper coverage that I know of. I don't know how much leeway you have in your decisions, but maybe you could take a few days to consider this. Maybe listen to Closer To The Heart by Rush. But, Merge and redirect is OK by me.````JO 753

  • Comment: The reason I brought up IPA is because it is widely used, and has been for a long time. It doesn't matter if you think nooalf is a great invention, what matters is that no one's written about it, making it not only non-notable, but also unverifiable. Merging novel original concepts into another article is not a good option. - Bobet 11:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't seem to be in wide use, nor does it look like it will be anytime soon. Just 44 unique Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opinion Upon further reading of Wiki guidlines, I can see that there is a problem with how to consider notability and sourcability. The definitions become unusable when the subject is obscure. This is pretty much the case with any current English spelling reform effort. Since the entire field of endevour has never been very well known, newer attempts, no matter how well known in the spelling reform community, have virtually no media coverage. The only 3 organizations in this field are the Simplified Spelling Society, the American Literacy Council and the Saundspel discussion group.

I first researched spelling reform on the internet in 1999 to see what was already in existence. Joining the Saundspel group and getting critiques from the other reformers is currently the highest level of peer review you can find on this subject. You may be able to find archived discussions from 1999 thru 2001 about Nooalf. (I don't seem to be able to do anything with Yahoo. If you forget your password and secret answer, you're screwed!) Also, you could check with Joe Little at ALC. ````JO 753 3-30-2007

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

The result was delete.--Wizardman 21:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Stylianou

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

The player is not notable at all. He does not satisfies the criteria of WP:BIO which says for players who have played in a fully proffessional league. Cyprus league is not fully proffessional. user:KRBN 12:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a reexpression by the nominator of his motion to delete. Also, this article is about a basketball player (who now plays for the APOEL basketball team) and has nothing to do with the former football player. Spacepotato 01:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madhyageha Bhatta

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

Someone's father. Doesn't qualify for an article. Sfacets 11:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 10:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UWA Mahjong Club

UWA Mahjong Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable university mahjong club. Contested speedy. Guinnog 12:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom--Mattinbgn/ talk 20:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I added the original db tag also finding it was non-notable. One reference is a primary source is from the university website and the others refer to MJ topics rather than the club itself. I left my concerns on the talk page. I might change my mind pending an adequate response from the article creator. UnfriendlyFire 06:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Almost certainly written by a member of the club, in which case it would trangress the guidelines in WP:COI. --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry am not familiar with the protocol for leaving messages here. I do not believe there is a conflict of interest here - although it HAS been written by a member of the club, there is no advertising or information that would make it biased. Although there are few, if any at all, secondary sources available for this club, it is certainly one of the very few mahjong clubs in university campuses worldwide. As stated in the article, mahjong is commonly seen to be an underground activity, and the aim of the club is to bring it into the open where it is less associated with gambling and more as an intelligent, interesting activity. --Twenty_something (talk) 10:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the things I didn't understand was why this club was considered a non notable organisation, when other clubs that exist in The University of Western Australia were considered notable clubs - not to say that they shouldn't exist, but just out of curiousity - perhaps I could then structure the article like that. --Twenty_something (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: I'll try to address all three of your main points. First of all, in WP:COI it states "you should avoid or exercise great caution when editing articles related to you, your organization,...". The entire article can be viewed as an advertisement to increase membership in your club. In addition, listing yourself in the "Committee" names can be viewed as self-aggrandizement. Secondly, you state "there are few, if any at all, secondary sources available for this club", which almost automatically implies that it is not notable enough for inclusion. In Wikipedia:Notability, it states "A topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable." If your club were notable, there'd be numerous newspaper and magazine stories about it, but there are none and so your club is not notable either. The article thus fails to meet the official policy (WP:A or WP:V), which state '"Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." Third of all, you wonder why your club was targeted for deletion versus all the other UWA clubs. Please see WP:INN, which although not a policy or guideline, states "The presence of similar articles does not necessarily validate the existence of other articles, and may instead point to the possibility that those articles also ought to be deleted." It is likely that all non-notable clubs at UWA will show up here at AfD in time, and you can help improve Wikipedia by nominating for deletion any other club articles which you are aware of and which fail to meet the notability criteria. I hope this clarifies why the UWA Mahjong Club article is likely to fail this AfD and be deleted. It is simply not notable enough for inclusion in WP, unless you are able to find reliable secondary sources which discuss it. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 08:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bikini Carwash Company

Speedied in good faith - "no unsourced article on a low-budget soft porn comedy film that made absolutely no assertion of notability (CSD A7), and just about every name in the list of cast was redlinked (itself an indication of how important the topic is)" by JzG. Probably should have been debated (shrug) so sending here.--Docg 12:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. A little struggle with this one - it's an old enough film where sources likely exist, but aren't readily available. We have the allmovie link, which is reliable and independent, and the IMDb cast listing, which is reliable and independent, so we have what we need for the stub covered. The film was notable enough in the director's resume to warrant mention in his obituary, which means something, so I see no reason to delete. The speedy, while in good faith, was completely improper, so please do not allow your comments to possibly reflect that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No independent references (IMDB is user editable); no evidence of significance; virtually everybody in it is a nonentity (i.e. redlinked). Generic low budget soft-porn comedy of absolutely no objectively provable significance. Guy (Help!) 12:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The cast and crew areas are actually vetted by someone else before they're updated, and they are independent. The amount of redlinks has nothing to do with something's significance, it simply means we have poor coverage in this area. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quite an awful movie, but that's not a valid reason. I am not convinced by the redlink thing. If you take movies by Robert Bresson, for instance, who was using amateurs as actors at the end of his career (see Mouchette or Lancelot du Lac for instance), you will have redlinks everywhere too. And you won't say that Bresson's movies are not notable. IMDB is not user editable, afaik, you can suggest edits but they are screened. And there is a second source, with the allmovie link. Hektor 12:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable film. The nominator defining it as "soft porn" is a POV judgement call. It wasn't at all. I agree not every film can be listed, but this one has a cult following and includes cast members such as Landon Hall and Sara Suzanne Brown who are quite prolific in the 1980s-1980s B-movie industry. I'm also pretty certain this film was issued or distributed by a major company, however the new version of IMDb doesn't appear to list this information anymore. 23skidoo 14:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No thanks. No amount of window dressing will help the fact that if there are no reliable secondary sources, we cannot (per policy) and should not (per consensus, not a directory) have an article. Verifiable existence is not enough. Please cite some non-trivial independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Jeff explained in his original comment and response to you above, we have independent sources in AllMovieGuide and IMDb. I'm quite certain that this movie could be found in Leonard Maltin's movie guide or some other such reference book. It's a crap movie, but reliable secondary sources exist. A Train take the 19:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though this is a tough one. What makes a film notable? It's a minor commerical release to be sure, but if you get a film released onto DVD, it's probably notable (and the director is notable as well). The article needs to be better, though (those who care about adding more sources can start here. Oh, and anyone wanna buy this for $190? --UsaSatsui 21:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pr0ncruft. Another fine product of the pr0n industry assembly line. Indistinguishable from 1000's of other fine, interchangeable products. WP != All-Pr0n Guide. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Except, well, it's not Pr0n. (ok, maybe softcore). A regular on latenight Cinemax/Showtime. SirFozzie 18:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm satisfied that the references are reliable enough, particularly All-Movie Guide and the Blockbuster movie guide, even if you disregard IMDB. Was released on DVD in the UK as well as the US, that's pretty notable. Sure there are redlinks, but there are enough bluelinks as well including the director and some well known adult stars. --Canley 08:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability/Verifiability is met. 18:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a directory listing, period/full-stop: if all that can be turned up is regurgitation of IMDB-type directory information and recounting info obtained by watching the damned -- in other words, if no reliable sources have bothered expending any prose on this subject -- then it's a warmed-over IMDB listing. --Calton | Talk 06:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought a deletion debate was about the interest of the subject, not the size and quality of the content. Otherwise you can delete any one line stub in wikipedia and scores of film articles. Hektor 12:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep—for once I find myself in full agreement with badlydrawnjeff. I struggled a bit with this, and my first inclination was to say delete, but I think there's sufficient evidence that it has achieved at least a minor cult status. The fact that it was mentioned in the obituary, the fact that a band is named after it, regular appearances on television (including, apparently, USA Up All Night, international distribution, Neriah Davis's first film; all of this adds up to sufficient notability, IMO. On-line references do seem a bit weak (although the existence of the same-named band makes searching difficult), but that argument leads to a "recentism" bias. I see enough to make me confident that there are reliable sources to be found, even if Google has trouble finding them. Xtifr tälk 00:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hydro Cannon

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

This is a description of an attack from the Pokemon games, it is game guide and violates WP:NOT Bhamv 12:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not redirect? If it's discussed somewhere, a redirect will help a user find that information and discourage recreation of this article. — brighterorange (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because a description of the features of a single, specific attack from the Pokemon games, including its tactical uses and strengths/weaknesses clearly crosses the line into game guide information, violating WP:NOT. I don't think any Pokemon article on Wikipedia could include such information. Bhamv 04:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus to delete. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-American War

Sino-American War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This war has never happened and is only hypothetical. Even the Israeli-Lebanon War was not classified as a war until nearly weeks into the 2006 conflcit. No attempt has been made to create a Iran War page even though that as recevied much mroe attention and is more likely. In addition the only edits to this page have been made by radical conservatives, and the enitre page seems to promoting a view point. --Stalin1942 00:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hypothetical or not, the article cites several good sources that discuss the possibility of such a war, including ISBN 0679454632, which is a 245-page book on the subject. Uncle G 13:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Crystal-balling, unencyclopedic. --Guinnog 13:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read our policy properly. Speculation is only unencyclopaedic when it is unverifiable. There are several entire books on this subject. Uncle G 13:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." --Guinnog 13:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now read the rest of the policy surrounding that sentence, which shows that that sentence doesn't apply here. As I said, please read our policy properly. Uncle G 14:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I already read it. I find it slightly offensive that the only reason you can imagine that I might support the deletion of this trashy piece of OR would be that I was ignorant of the policy. Delete, with extreme prejudice. --Guinnog 14:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nonetheless, you have not read it properly, because you are clearly mis-applying it. You are also mis-applying our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Please learn what the crystal ball policy applies to and does not apply to, and what does and does not constitute original research. The crystal ball policy does not apply to speculation on future events that is verifiable from good sources, as this is; and content that summarizes such already published speculation and analysis, as this one does, is not original research. Please read and apply our policies properly. Uncle G 14:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. About four fifths of article consists of books and sources relating to the subject, while the article itself says not much more than that there have been speculations over a US-China war after the Cold War. That is too thin a basis for an article, an article needs some description of the subject matter. Something could probably be written here given the sources, but this article is not it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you have described is a stub that has copious sources cited upon which further expansion of the article can be based. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy we don't delete stubs that have scope for expansion (especially ones where the scope for expansion is handed to editors on a platter with lots of citations). We expand them. Uncle G 15:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am changing my vote to keep because of the expansions to the article. I do stand by my opinion that the revisions initially nominated were deletable. I agree with you that we don't delete stubs for being stubs, but I felt that the revision I described above was not even a stub, but a mere collection of literature with no "body" of encyclopedic content. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete There are too many things which may happen and we don't want to make articles on the basis of guess or forecast . --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 14:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup per Uncle G. This AfD debate is a spectacular demonstration of how our eyes too often allow us to see only what we want to see and nothing else: "If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." And this one is well-documented. Resurgent insurgent 15:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World War III for another brilliant application of WP:NOT#CBALL. Resurgent insurgent 15:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I think World War III is a considerably more encyclopedic topic than this one.--Guinnog 15:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, it does seem to be sourceable. I am concerned that this is going to open the floodgates for hypothetical wars between X and Y, as long as a handful of people have commented on them. This would not just include wars of the future, but past hypothetical wars which never happened, including alternate versions of real wars, if they started earlier or later. Reliably sourced speculation probably extends to all manner of subjects, not just wars. I note that commercial products which have not been confirmed by their manufacturer, particularly video games, are almost never allowed to have articles, even if there is 'reliable' speculation about them; Gears of War 2, for example. The extent to which we want Wikipedia to have articles about hypothetical things is a question which goes beyond this AfD. I sympathise with Guinnog's view; it's easy to see this as being against the spirit of the policy, if not the letter. Finally, this article will probably end up as a grab-bag of pop culture refs, like the WW3 article. We should revisit this in a year; perhaps the policies will have been made more specific.--Nydas(Talk) 17:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep If such a possible war has been noted in reliable sources, then it is notable enough for an article. Just as the U.S had plans 100 year ago for war with Canada Mexico Japan, and Britain, I am confident that official and think-tank planners are making analyses of another possible China-America War (seeChina Relief Expedition for the U.S. invasion of China in 1900). But this article is more of a memo about how an article could be written from the sources cited. It does not discuss more causes for such a war than Taiwan, ignoring conflict over oil, and ignoring competition for markets for goods. It does not discuss the relative military strengths and vulnerabilities of the two parties, or their alliances, Janes publications should be cited. The relative manpower and the relative military spending should be discussed. The U.S has what? 5% of the world's population and about 50% of the military spending? With China loaning us all the money? And manufacturing an increasing portion of the high tech components? And soon to demand more food and oil? Edison 19:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Because of a rise in hostility between the United States and Venezuela, should editors assume that the rationale articulated by Uncle G for keeping this article would equally be applied to a Venezuelan-American War article? What about an Iranian-Israeli war article? It is very possible, and commonly speculated by authors and pundits that those two nations may come to nuclear action against each other in the future (should Iran acquire nuclear weapons). Perhaps an article over the possibility of a future military conflict between Ecuador and Peru, styled the Ecuadorian-Peruvian War? Ecuador and Peru have had loud squabbles over their shared border for years. I can understand both sides of the discussion here, but I'm not sure that keeping this article is the right way to approach it. Don't articles such as these create a precedent that implies that any event that could possibly occur in the future should warrant a Wikipedia article, provided that a few authors provided their opinions on paper? No disrespect whatsoever intended here, and I would enjoy any responses. Many thanks, Scienter 21:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the Vfd onChina as an emerging superpower a very similar article that ironically this article links to. Just to remind everyone if this is allowed to stand it will be the FIRST wikipedia article of this kind and set a dangerous precedent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_7 For thoose of you who said "weak keep" couldn't any "relevant" infomration just be merged into Sino-American relations?--Stalin1942 23:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment It might really help to change the name, to something like "Possible future Sino-American War." . There are zero books about the war. "Thinking about China and War", "The Coming Conflict with China" , "Hegemon: China's Plan to Domnate Asia and the World.", "China Threat" These are all books about speculations concerning a possible future war. To use the present title is an unjustified confusion of fact and fiction. I don't see the point of deciding on the basis of our own opinions about what will or will not happen, but on the usual basis of RS. None use the term in the title. Even the ones that seem to expect it don't use the term in the title. Even the posts on google don't use the term in the title except for a single discussion forum. With the present title,
Delete DGG 04:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research and crystal balling. Besides, we could make up hypothetical wars all day long: the Helvetic-American War, the Greco-Tibetan War, the Samoa-Latvian War, the Ruso-Uruguayan War, etc. Lovelac7 07:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is original research, yes - but by published authors and not our editors. People at the Far Eastern Economic Review, Asahi Shimbun, and The Florida Times-Union, among other sources, are doing the speculation for us. We are allowed to document other peoples' published reasoning. Tossing scare words like "original research" and "crystal balling" without justification will get you nowhere. Lastly, show us the published reliable sources for all these other hypothesised wars you mentioned. There will be none. Unlike them, this war - or rather the spectre of it occurring - is causing people to act and publish things. In reliable sources. Resurgent insurgent 11:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If "[p]eople at the Far Eastern Economic Review, Asahi Shimbun, and The Florida Times-Union, among other sources, are doing the speculation for us", then this information should go in those articles, not this one. By combining their theses into one article, Wikipedia is drawing its own conclusions, hence original research. Lovelac7 18:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Original research by Wikipedia editors is where the information has not been published anywhere else before. Since even you are not denying that someone elsewhere has published their own notes about this hypothesized conflict, these notes are not original research. The article as it stands now is nothing more that a summary of what writers of certain published articles have articulated about this possible conflict. Anyone with access to the listed publications, or a database like JSTOR and Factiva, can verify that none of the editors of the article have inserted non-published thought into it. Combining "thesis" that have already been published elsewhere into one article is not original research; to say otherwise is a distortion of NOR. Resurgent insurgent 18:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even the "this information should go in those articles, not this one" part is totally contra to what WP:NOR really says... Resurgent insurgent 19:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Verbatim quote from WP:SYN, part of WP:NOR:
            • Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
          • Synthesizing existing research is still original research. Lovelac7 20:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please read your own provided links again! What SYN forbids is: "A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research." Position C is only permitted if: "a reliable source... that specifically comments on [positions A and B] makes the same point about [position C]. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia." And I have presented in the article only conclusions and opinions (based on other facts) which are already published in the referenced works. I hereby challenge you to quote exactly from the article any unpublished "position C"s, or else your !vote is invalid. I am doubly sure you will find none. Resurgent insurgent 23:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You told me to "shut up" in your edit summary. I do not appreciate your lack of manners. This debate is over. Lovelac7 02:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge whatever we can into a Sino-American relations article of some sort. Also everybody, please calm down. Heads need cooling around here. We should remember that all opinions should be respected, even if we disagree with them(it's best to just say sometimes "I disagree" or "I strongly disagree" rather than other more potentially hurtful or provoking things.)Just Heditor review 23:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly merge into the "China as an emerging superpower" article. There is definitely sourcable speculation on this topic (unlike a Belgian-Pakistani war), so it seems to meet guidelines. SnowFire 02:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sourceable speculation is still speculation. Mangoe 02:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, this could be part of an article about Sino-American military conflicts that have actually happened (the stuff during Viet Nam), or factual info about US and/or Chinese war planning. I have to say the speculative, weaselwordy tone doesn't help things although I know that poor writing is not a reason to delete. =killing sparrows 05:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)=[reply]
  • Delete, this is very much crystal balling. If it comes to that, someone can archive the current information and if an actual war breaks out, can turn it into an "academic predictors" section. Polymathematics 03:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOT#CBALL only forbids unverifiable facts about future events; whether they are likely or not is beside the question: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." If the article is indeed festering with unverifiable information, it should be easy to quote some of these unsourced parts here. Resurgent insurgent 04:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 00:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems a case where not only is there doubt about whether the event will occur , there is doubt about what kind of event it will be, it it ever does occur, with most of the proposed sources talking about it under only general terms. DGG 02:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The historical parts of this topic should be covered in articles on Sino-American relations and the speculative parts are crystal ball gazing. --Nick Dowling 23:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Various authors of books have conducted original research and written about a possible Sino-American War. This article is about the concept of such a war, not about the (nonexisting) war itself! The article is well-sourced and WP:CRYSTAL is utterly inapplicable here as there are more than enough secondary sources about this subject. -- Black Falcon 23:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One more thing: yes, we could make up articles for millions of hypothetical bilateral or multilateral wars. That would be original research. Summarising what other people have written about this one war is not. -- Black Falcon 23:07, 1 April 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 G7: author blanked the article. A Train take the 16:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaws

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

Notability has been asserted. However, it seems to fail the notability criterion (google search) May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 13:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 10:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H-Dub Beeper

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}
H-Dub Beeper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an extremely non-notable software considering that a Google search returns no other results (other than Wikipedia and mirrors) that mention it together with its creator. [30] Its proposed deletion was contested with the reason "This piece of software is not open source, so there are no internet sites where a person can download it. Sales of this product are currently only available in Australia, not from internet sites." which really does not address the key point - that there are no independent write-ups of this software from reliable sources. Whether the software can be downloaded online was, and is, irrelevant. Resurgent insurgent 14:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE the content but recast as a redirect to yearbook and merge a bit (the opening sentences) into that article. Herostratus 03:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digital yearbook

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

I am nominating this for deletion because the page is un-sourced, culturally biased, poorly written and not relevant to wikipedia as it is a very minor subsection to yearbooks as a whole and does not meet notability criteria. The use of a question as a categorisation on the page to then comprise a list, this is not productive pros that wikipedia aspires too. I think far too much work is required for this page to be salvaged and the notability of the subject as a stand alone is unjustified.--Jjamesj 13:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cambia CM

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

Vanity page, makes no assertion of notability. Hairy Dude 14:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purple turd

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

Prod with statement "Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Unsourced. Not notable.", was removed with out addressing concerns. Jeepday 14:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of the song (song)

What is the name of the song (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources, I couldn't find any other information about it. AMK152(Talk • Contributions • Send message) 15:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attri

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

Unsourced stub, doesn't appear to be a notable surname. Addhoc 15:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE, and recast as a redirect to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Cannot redirect to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis#Children because redirects currently ignore section titles (I'll write it that way, though, as the software may be able to do this someday). Redirecting to Jackie rather than Jack because Arabella Kennedy is mentioned in Jackie's article.

While perhaps not G4 Speedy as repost, it is basically the same article, generally, albeit with more material. So in closing I allowed myself to take into account the comments on the earlier article. But I would have closed the same regardless anyway. Herostratus 01:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arabella Kennedy

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

This article was originally deleted via AfD, but since then a different (as opposed to identical) article has appeared, making it ineligible for CSD G4 (deletion of recreated content). A dispute has broken out over the merit of the article, so as a neutral party I am bringing it to AFD so it can be reviewed by a wider user base. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 15:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change back to a redirect. The original article about this stillborn child was changed in October 2005 to a redirect to John F. Kennedy#Image, social life, and family because the subject was considered to be non-notable. Although the revised (2007) article is longer (though still a stub), there is (as I read it) still no assertion of notability. Plus the (small amount of) important information is also at Kennedy Curse#Chronology. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding notability, at the time of Arabella Kennedy's death, John F. Kennedy was a U.S. Senator, not the President. There was probably a small article or two in the local (D.C. and Boston) papers, or possibly not at all (privacy). The death certainly was not national news, and there almost certainly was never any subsequent article that was primarily about Arabella. In short, this is an incident in the lives of JFK and Jackie, and it is already included in those articles. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Substantially different from the older version, and it does assert notability as the stillborn child of John F. Kennedy. 1ne 16:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge. A stillborn child, even of a future President, strikes me as the epitome of a non-notable person; that is, if you imagine them to be a person at all. Don't see this rating a separate article. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only worth a mention in the JFK article if sourced, which this is not. =killing sparrows 06:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)=[reply]
Now it is. 1ne 20:11, 1 April 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 04:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Peacock

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

Blogger but the article lacks any substantial secondary sources. Bridgeplayer 15:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Even if the website's notable (which I doubt) the author doesn't warrant his own entry. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Joe Peacock has been subject of a reliable, intellectually independent secondary source. See here. I see Peacock as being equally notable as Tucker Max, but just less controversial. The Wal-Mart Story which made Peacock notable has received well over 2,000,000 visitors, and Peacock is now published with a major publisher. This article was nominated for deletion in 2006 when he wasn't published, so I waited until now to write this article. I believe he is now notable. Please note that I am not affiliated with Peacock in any way. -GilbertoSilvaFan 20:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "creativeloafing.com" is a reliable source? For what it's worth, www.mentallyincontinent.com is number 458,794 in the alexa rankings and has only 92 links in[34] whilst Tucker Max is in the top 4000 - just because the guy's own website claims he gets 2 million hits doesn't necessarily mean it's true. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh okay dude, don't worry. I wasn't trying to persuade you (or anyone) to vote one way or the other, I was just writing that info so people can quickly/easily see his biggest achievements, and decide whether he's notable or not. I don't have anything to gain from the article being there one way or the other, nor does the author; so if people decide that Wikipedia is better off without the article, then cool. The last thing I want to do is argue about whether Peacock is lying or not, I have better things to do. -GilbertoSilvaFan 01:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I don't really see myself as much of anything besides a dude who likes to write and has had the great fortune of being read. There's the FarkTV thing, but that's not really worth pointing me out specifically. If I stay on Wiki, cool - it's an honor that GilbertoSilvaFan thought enough of me to actually write this thing. Admittedly, the bulk of the work I actually do isn't directly related to Mentally Incontinent, so I hope you won't take just that one site into condiseration to determine my "worth" or whatever. I will say that things are starting to pick up career-wise for me, and that I'm working hard to get a bit more out there and make a bigger name. But since I had to even say "Working hard to get a bit more out there," that very fact means I'm not out there yet. So, either way. I'm not going to have any hurt feelings, because really, last week I wasn't on Wikipedia... Just because I am this week, it won't make next week much different for me if I'm not on Wikipedia again :) --Joethepeacock 23:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Herostratus 01:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Campbell

A stub about a physician. The article provides no reason to think he's notable in any way (other than having once expressed an opinion). Lee Hunter 15:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator admits no such thing! Yes please do a Google search. There's nothing more than a few thousand hits on Campbell. He has a few obscure pop medicine publications, some of them electronic, some of them not much more substantial than pamphlets. As far as I can tell, he's virtually unknown within his field and completely unknown outside of it. He doesn't seem to be cited by anyone as far as I can determine. The very definition of a minor figure in alternative healthcare. If anyone is curious about how WP is being gamed by a small group that is trying to remove balanced articles that show homeopathy in a neutral light and replace them with articles about homeopathy's critics (eg. Anthony Campbell) they should absolutely read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Vithoulkas (Second nomination). Compare the information provided to support Vithoulkas' inclusion in WP and compare it with the Campbell. Notice that it's the same people voting to get rid of one and add the other. Nominating Campbell for deletion has nothing to do with making a point, anyone can see in two minutes on Google that he is, at best, a minor figure. --Lee Hunter 19:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Lee, you need to chill out and assume good faith. It looks like the George Vithoulkas article will survive its AFD, largely through the efforts of some of the editors you are accusing of cabalism. Cheers, Skinwalker 21:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_24&oldid=117534844"