Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 25: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
American Merchant Stripes
Line 54: Line 54:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Total Control}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Total Control}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/notability}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/notability}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Merchant Stripes}}

Revision as of 04:58, 25 February 2007

< February 24 February 26 >

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 Redirect to Daughtry (album). —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:57Z

Home (Daughtry song)

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

non notable song, unsourced article, nothing can be said if the speculation is removed. Natalie 00:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; as stated, if we removed the WP:CRYSTAL-balling, there's nothing in this article, and the song does not appear notable. --Haemo 00:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not even released.--Dacium 01:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Daughtry (album). There's yet to be a confirmed second single. It can be un-redirected when it is released, as it likely will be. GassyGuy 01:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Note that this article is about the song, not entirely the rumored single. The song was already on the album Daughtry (album). That being said, there's nothing to say about the song that can't be said in the album's article. If it is released as a single, then there would be reason to create an article for that single, but just having an article about the song isn't enough. Leebo86 03:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It can be covered in the album for now, until it gets more noteriety or released as a single. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 04:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unreleased, maybe it could be re-created when its nearer the time of its actual release.Tellyaddict 11:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' the band and show ameircan idol are very notable and so this article should be kept. Smith Jones 16:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Per redirect vote above. ThePurpleMonkey(talk•portal•contribs) 18:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Per above. Dfrg.msc 23:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not appear to meet any of the proposed Song notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Jamie. Can be recreated if it ever becomes notable.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 01:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep again - its not fair that this article should be deleted just befcause it isn't notable yet you all damn know that it will be notable soon enough you should just leav eit be and stop deletionism. Smith Jones 01:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote stuck through to prevent double counting. Please do not vote more than once. Natalie 01:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • sory i didnt mean for it to be couned as another vote my mistake. ~~
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A1octopus 13:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect until officially confirmed as a single. The bit about the song being this season's American Idol loser's theme should definitely be incorporated into the Daughtry article in the meantime. - eo 02:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:07Z

Jury Scrutiny model

Jury Scrutiny model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears to be unsourced original research. Single author, tagged with {unreferenced} since July. No indication by the author as to any source for this. I couldn't find any obvious references to this out in the world. - David Oberst 00:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom - David Oberst 00:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete No notibility for the model is shown. Not verifiable either.--Dacium 01:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete. No assertion or evidence of notability. No sources. --Shirahadasha 02:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is original research and it could be considered as a move to wiktionary as its a definition.Tellyaddict 12:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Arnoutf 17:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research essay.-- danntm T C 21:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a political science professional, I have never heard of this term used for what is described. It gets no google hits other than Wikipedia mirrors (I know this isn't a criteria yet, but it does indicate notability). It is Original Research.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 01:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per {{db-author}}--Wafulz 03:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inuyasha: Demon Tournament

Sorry about all this. I created this page, and I think in falls under the "unnotable" deletion clause. -Litefantastic 00:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment you can request deletion of a page you've created, provided you are the only major contributor, which you appear to be. Just tag the page with {{db-author}} and it will be deleted a lot faster than an AfD process. Natalie 00:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notible. fails WP:WEB etc.--Dacium 01:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grillionaire

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

This is a new term, not noted anywhere else. BankingBum 00:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus to delete, default keep. Merge to Fishers, Indiana was suggested. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 08:10Z

The Artists' Studio

The Artists' Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local community theater Feeeshboy 01:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now How about giving the author more than 5 minutes! the page was just created. If the place has reviews and mentions in big magazines/papers it might be notable enough. Give some time for the author to show it.Dacium 01:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If that seemed remotely likely, I wouldn't have nominated it. As it is, the only reason I didn't nominate it for speedy delete was the possibility of regional interest, but in reality, an article that's created without a claim to notability isn't likely to develop one. Feeeshboy 01:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a small-town community theater, rather new - I can't see what notability it could have. I'm sure it is a fine place, but it doesn't need an article here. --Brianyoumans 01:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete. No sources. Need sources with evidence of notability per WP:ORG to survive deletion scrutiny.--Shirahadasha 02:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, at least, so I, as the starting author, can throw some more on it. A lookup on Google of The "Artists' Studio" Fishers (a look up of The Artists' Studio is too vague as many claim that or a variation of that name) gets about 13 thousand entries, which may seem insignificant, but a related article, Indiana Repertory Theatre, gets only about 58 thousand entries. Considering Indiana Repertory Theatre has existed much longer as a theatre, The Artists' Studio is apparently getting it's name out there. The Google search being said, I was unsure as to whether it really was Wikipedia worthy or not.

Reasons for keeping are: "Notability is not popularity" (This theatre has made an impact on theatre in Indiana being one of the few of it's kind to feature a more family setting on a regular basis, especially on classes on non-covered material as of yet [also known as: give it time]).

"Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this". . ."only of interest to [some group]". . ." (To those that do know it, which in context to the world is not many at all, this article could be of quite a bit of use in informing people about the theatre and history of itself. The fact this theatre is new should not detract from it's effect on the surrounding community, no matter how small you may consider it to be in the grand scheme of things)

"In order to have a neutral article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources" (This theatre has been featured in articles ranging from very local to statewide in Indiana, though many may not be published online.)

"Obscure content isn't harmful" (Just because you don't know it doesn't mean you need to get rid of it. It also doesn't mean YOU even need to read it, though it would be nice if you did when it was anywhere near ready :))

Reasons for deleting are: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." (An argument can definitely be made that this article is nothing more than a business entry, but the fact that there is a history, and that a decent size article can be made out of it, almost shoots this down.

"The subjective nature of notability is merely an issue of defining a guideline for it." (Clearly, if you don't agree with the selections I pulled above from WP:NOTE then you don't agree with keeping this article.)

But seriously, this article WAS given only SEVEN minutes before it was nominated for deletion. How about allowing a chance for anything other than a single edit (with only text and linking for that matter, not even tags, such as "stub", pictures, or even complete text/history, much less sources, etc.) before the final decision is made. After all, the classes the Artists' Studio provides and contributions to the surrounding area haven't been put in place. In fact, this article is only a fraction of what it could be, but creating a full article takes TIME. Even that section that was written took a fairly substantial amount of time. Enhanceddownloadbird 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are we strangling articles in the crib now? How was this article even found for AfD? Are editors combing through recent changes and killing new articles? This is distasteful. --Richard Daly 03:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is not being considered for deletion because it is incomplete. It is being considered for deletion because it does not assert notability beyond a local level, and without some basic assertion of notability, there is no article. That's not something that takes time to develop. Basic notability should be evident from the start. That's my opinion, and you're welcome to yours, but uncivil comments are not necessary. Feeeshboy 03:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apology I apologize for my uncivil tone. --Richard Daly 04:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now to give time for the article to be properly put together, with no discrimination against re-nominating if it doesn't meet the notability guidelines, etc. 23skidoo 03:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - regardless of how fast this article was nominated, it is now on AfD and will be for 5 days. Enhanceddownloadbird, I strongly recommend that you take that time to provide sources for the article. If you don't provide sources, it is almost certain that this article will be deleted. You say above that the theater has been featured in statewide articles; it would be best if you could be as specific as possible (links to something online are clearly the most helpful, but even if the mentions aren't hosted online, someone might be able to check out any references you provide if you tell us where to look). References that are independent of the theater, high circulation, and specifically about the theater (rather than just mentioning it) are important. -- Jonel | Speak 03:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is currently well referenced and easily passes Wikipedia:There is no deadline , Oops I mean it easily passes WP:N Good job to User:Enhanceddownloadbird for cleaning it up nicely. ( I found and added a couple references also) Jeepday 04:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the additional references, I was more than happy to add them in! And thanks for the pat on the back too! Nevertheless, back to work. Enhanceddownloadbird 04:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the (continuing) improvements by Enhanceddownloadbird. Also, it somehow strikes me as inappropriate to nominate for deletion an article that has existed only for a few minutes and which is not speedy-able. Adding it to one's watchlist, bookmarking it, contacting the author, or at most proposing it for deletion seem far better choices. -- Black Falcon 06:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Google (UK) search results returned about half a million results, although some of these were for different locations, it notability is still high.Tellyaddict 12:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a nicely referenced article and does indeed seem to pass the notability requirements. *Zelse81 20:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep In current form, should be kept. Dfrg.msc 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep If community high schools can sometimes be notable, then certainly community theaters can be--there are many fewer, they typically are important to a much larger area, and there ought to be sources. (The actual ghits for "Artist's Studio" + Indiana are 9,000, not 500,000, but a number of them are RS. )DGG 01:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the current version, but I don't agree with the criticisms of the original listing. Someone writing an article should store intermediate versions on his or her hard drive, not on Wikipedia, and post it only when it's ready. That saves everyone's time. JamesMLane t c 05:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has likely legs, no reason to kill it. - Denny 06:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks like it will most likely be expanded with more citations added in the future. Smee 21:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. My personal view is that this is a loathsome article, and it breaks my heart that an encyclopedia on which I work should cover such a trivial institution. I say that with explicit regard to its position in its local community: certainly it's important there, but in the broader scheme of artistic endeavour it is of no significance whatsoever, as a cursory reading of the numerous reviews referenced in the article makes very clear. Sadly, when I check the references it is easy to see that this article meets our criteria for notability: adequate references are there, and the subject of the article clearly meets WP:ORG. Thus, with a sigh, I have to say that under our current community guidelines this article should be retained. This article is one of the best examples of why we need to tighten up our notability criteria, but until we do, it should stay. WMMartin 13:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am quite happy to rest upon WP:IGNORE here; this may technically meet notability requirements, but when one uses common sense, one sees that no real claim of notability is made or even really attempted in this article - it is just a small community theater of little or no interest to anyone outside the local area. The founders may have some slight notability themselves, but if so, they should have articles of their own. If this deserves a mention in Wikipedia, it is in the Fishers, Indiana article, like any other local institution per WP:LOCAL. --Brianyoumans 19:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by Pilotguy, CSD A7. BryanG(talk) 03:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe Marie

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

Seems to be a vanity article. If this is a singer, I don't find anything about this person anywhere online Entheta 01:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Very few ghits, mostly either on myspace or unrelated to subject. Feeeshboy 01:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; conflict of interest and no reliable sources: only 25 ghits on "Phoebe Marie Arriaga", and MySpace and CD Baby (where anyone can publish) are neither reliable sources nor evidence of notability. Antandrus (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as stated by Feeeshboy. Stormbay 01:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - copyvio from [1]. So tagged. MER-C 01:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Need reliable sources showing evidence of notability per WP:BIO to avoid deletion. Currently there are no independent sources at all, all sources are from the subjects own web sites. --Shirahadasha 02:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Majorly (o rly?) 00:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curry chicken

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

There seems to be nothing encyclopedic to say about this dish other than that it exists, i.e. the mundane fact that chicken meat may be cooked with curry powder in a variety of ways, none of which are individually notable as far as I can see. (Come to think of it, might even be speediable under the letter of WP:CSD#A3, but seems too wordy for its spirit). The main interest of the article's creator seems to be to exhort the world to mind the subtle differences between "chicken curry" and "curry chicken"... –Henning Makholm 01:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Although some of your reasons for deletion may be thought about, The article has further been enhanced with a history section. In addition, your arguments for deletion also apply for various articles such as Roti, Aloo gobi, Fried_rice etc. This article has now some historical content. It seems the creator is a newbee, and thus It would be appropriate if we help the author by further adding to the article. I and you all like big penis lol guess the best way is to, add the various cultural histories of the curry chicken dish. In addition, this article can not be added to the curry article because it is not a curry dish. This is a chicken dish, NOT merely a curry dish. In addition, the contents of this article is quite large, and it will become even larger when other lovers of the curry chicken dish from different culture backgrounds, add their own historical history of this dish.
  • Sorry, I sometimes talk in the third person, when I am adamant in seeking justice. Thatopshotta 09:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • You are the creator, Thatopshotta (talk · contribs). There is no need to talk about yourself in the third person, and it is not a good idea to do so, because it can be construed as misleading.

Uncle G 19:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree, this is not an encyclopedia article, it is a quibble. --Brianyoumans 01:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. As a second reason for deletion, no reliably sourced, and hence no verification of the various distinctions the creator exhorts us to make. No idea if any of these distinctions represent a mainstream POV or not. --Shirahadasha 02:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out, to verification of the distinction between chicken curry and curry chicken is simple. If you look for recipes of the two dishes, they are summed up by what the article says. Nonetheless, the article has historical facts that are sourced, and is not merely distinguishing between curry chicken and chicken curry. The distinction is just there, to clarify the two dishes.Thatopshotta 02:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A3 does, however, allow for external links and "a rephrasing of the title". –Henning Makholm 03:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do think there's a bit more information than is required to delete under A3. It's not a lot, but it's moot since we're discussing here at AfD - it can run its course. Leebo86 03:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to curry. John Reaves (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR or Redirect to curry. If deleting, do so without prejudice to proper (i.e., sourced and more encyclopedic) recreation. -- Black Falcon 06:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as valid search term to curry, which mentions chicken quite a few times with images. Pomte 08:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect per John Reaves, it does make me want some chicken though. TJ Spyke 08:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is a little encyclopedic but not its overall notability is low, it also fails WP:NOT#IINFO.Tellyaddict 12:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to curry. I don't see any encyclopedic and sourced information in the article. Curry chicken is a popular dish in Asia, but it just needs a section in Curry. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 15:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Curry. There is something interesting there, but I think that should be merged into the curry article. Arnoutf 17:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect to curry, as per Arnoutf. Zelse81 20:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect This article gets us nothing that the curry article couldn't. --Gwern (contribs) 21:27 25 February 2007 (GMT) 21:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like this article As a native of India, I loved my chicken curry. As I travelled the world, I met many wonderful people. I got to taste this curry chicken dish, and I was extatic. The article has hit the point, about the subtle difference between curry chicken and chicken curry. But more than that, the historical section seems interesting. I will be doing research when I get the time, to find out some other culutural histories of curry chicken!! Great Article! --Mary from Canada —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.11.98.150 (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep or Merge There is legitimacy in there, which deserves to be preserved. Dfrg.msc 23:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't a recipe book. Curry sufficiently covers prepared curry dishes. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a distinct, legitimate point in that article. I have been to many countries, US, Canada, France, England, India, Pakistan, Jamaica..., working temp-work, mostly as a part-time chef. I have noticed for example that when I cook for a Hindu or Pakistan community, we create the dishes with very few chicken and mostly curry. This is spread over rice, and used like Dahl. However, when I have cooked for Jamaican, and West Indian communities, we/I have prepared chicken by soaking it in a special curry sauce, and so on. I am pleased to see that this article points this subtle difference in these two dishes, and I hope it can remain. I must say, I shall try that Ultimate Curry Chicken recipe on the link provided, looks fantastic!! GobtaNIndia 07:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)GobtaNIndia[reply]
    After reading the discussion, I must say Aloo gobi and Fried_rice and Garam_masala and Chicken_tikka_masala (Also, chicken tikka massala picture on the link looks alot like chicken curry? But not curry chicken!) and many more articles I have noticed, all are similar to this Curry chicken article. All the points being made above apply to these articles also. Just a thought. | YaYa its Gobta 23:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it's possible that they should be nominated for deletion or merged into something else. Leebo86 02:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, that's ludicrous. What one earth has Fried Rice got to go with Curry Chicken, apart from having a similar photo? As for the others, it would be like calling for an AfD on Cherry Pie because it's almost the same as Apple Pie. EliminatorJR Talk 19:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry that your sorry, I think my explanation above gives reason what fried rice has to do with curry chicken. The point is, after reading these arguments above, saying "should be merged with curry article", then why is not "chicken tika masala" not merged with curry or masala. Why is "Garam Masala" not merged with masala. Why is "Aloo gobi" not merged with aloo, or gobi. That is the point. I say they should not be merged, and therefore this curry chicken should not be merged with curry. It deserves its own article, as those the articles stated in my statement. GobtaNIndia 07:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)GobtaNIndia[reply]
  • Update Interesting Trivia, the curry chicken article continues to grow, with facsinating facts. There is no way in my opinion, this can fit under the curry category, but above all I continue to insist that it doesn't even belong in the curry section since it is a chicken dish. Also, it has become encyclopediac content with the new updates.
Sorry, but I am a newbee, and did you not tell me only post once under one comment? Leeba?

Thatopshotta 02:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can post as many comments as you want, if you're responding to other comments, but don't put a Bold word at the beginning of more than one and not sign them as if you are two people voting. Leebo86 02:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ...or redirect to curry as suggested. Curry goat is better anyway. - Denny 06:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • :: on further consideration, Keep. There seems to be precedence for this sort of article, and it looks sourceable (google for "curry chicken" plus news). I stand by my curry goat comment, however. - Denny 16:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - there are lots of articles on single food types/items. It's a notable food, especially in the Caribbean where it is considered a major local dish not just in Trinidad, where almost half the population is Indian, but also in Jamaica, where the Indian population is small, and other islands where there has never been much of an Indian population at all. Merging it with curry would require a complete re-write of that article. Guettarda 13:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This might be a stupid question but what notability guideline should apply to food? - Denny 14:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep There is certainly a major distinction between this dish and chicken curry, as the article rather haltingly states. It could do with a rewrite though, and probably a name change - after all it's not just chicken that's prepared this way. A merge into Curry would be misleading, but it could certainly find its way into an article on West Indian cuisine. Cuisine_of_Trinidad_and_Tobago, possibly? EliminatorJR Talk 16:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unique and interesting piece that could become more encyclopedic on Wikipedia than any other location if given the chance... Smee 21:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Food items are encyclopedically notable, and this is not an uncommon or obscure food item. -Toptomcat 15:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Curry Chicken is an important part of many cultures around the world, and it will be discriminating if this article is not given chance to portray itself. Also, it deserves its own article and not be merged with curry. Alanacomet 02:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)alanacomet — alanacomet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete one of my favorite foods. Should be covered in Curry. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - i agree w. Smee, and the chef above. I think it's a decent article that has some singular facts. It could use more sources, but my vote is keep.--Debsuls 01:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Popular and varied dish. Also passes the Brittanica Test: If I see an article in Brittanica about this, I won't think, "why did they include this?". (Google tests aren't policy, but just a note: [2] "curry chicken"] gets 436,000 results.) - ElbridgeGerry t c block 00:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - These articles that are being brought up maybe a part of a country's cuisine section. Also not everyone makes Curry chicken the same. Sure Curry maybe the most pronounced ingredient but there's various ways it can be prepaired. I also find it funny based on the bias on Wikipedia that someone would call this a "Mundane" article yet there's one on Spaghetti Sauce. I bet that same crowd would say *that* was a very importaint article. CaribDigita 17:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't really have any basis to claim that just because someone says "delete" for curry chicken that they want the spaghetti sauce article to stay. In fact, one should remember that inclusion is not an indication of validity. In other words, just because something "mundane" like, say butter, has an article (a featured one at that) it doesn't mean that every food item deserves an article. Leebo86 17:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I also see you believe that there is an "American Deletionist Cabal". So, I figured I'd point that out before I'm accused of saying delete just because I'm American. Leebo86 17:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Brain Candy. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:08Z

Stummies

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

Non-notable. Fictional drug that was featured in one movie. Croxley 01:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence the subject is notable independent of the movie it appears in. No reliable sources showing notability. --Shirahadasha 02:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable fictional element in a single movie. The article doesn't even give clear information on it either. Leebo86 04:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Brain Candy. John Reaves (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Brain Candy without a merge (any potentially useful information on the drug is already contained in one sentence in the main article). -- Black Falcon 06:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A fictional drug featured in one movie, this is fictional and has no notability, it could be merged.Tellyaddict 12:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect No-brainer - no significant notability outside its role in the movie. --Gwern (contribs) 21:28 25 February 2007 (GMT) 21:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:08Z

Rahajan

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

Non notable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus, and I can hear Dr Claw's catchphrase in my mind right now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Frost Middle School (Fairfax County, Virginia)

Robert Frost Middle School (Fairfax County, Virginia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

a non notable middle school in Virginia; recently survived a multiple AFD which was closed as "no consensus"; the deletion review endorsed the closure, but "mildly encouraged" relisting... thus, here we are. I can see no claim of notability at all for this school. Brianyoumans 01:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable middle school. TJ Spyke 01:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, as most middle schools are. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of Notability. No sources. Article needs to include multiple independent sources demonstrating notability per WP:ORG in order to avoid deletion. --Shirahadasha 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Middle schools generally aren't notable. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 04:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why should this school be singled out if the others were kept? Jordan 05:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because people complained that AFDing all the Fairfax County middle schools at once wasn't good procedure, I am relisting them one at a time. I'm not saying this was the only non-notable one in the previous AFD - I'll get around to the others. --Brianyoumans 05:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree, with respect why should this article be singled out than other schools across America, there will need to be references added though.Tellyaddict 12:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable middle school. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 15:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, non-notable ThePurpleMonkey(talk•portal•contribs) 18:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (1) There is no specific criterion which says that middle schools are not notable. (2) lack of references is not a reason for deletion, it is cause to tag for better referencing (see guidlines for delation). (3) Given that it is an established public school it is likely that verifiable sources are available. --Kevin Murray 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of the delete "votes" above seem to be expressions of subjective opinions which are specifically discouraged by WP:NOTE. --Kevin Murray 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this school is very significant in its community, is very large for a middle school and the test scores are hugely notable; there is no point in people saying 'not notable' without explaining why. TerriersFan 22:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kevin Murray. There's a thousand other articles on different middle schools, and I don't see anything in here that's so different from all those others that this page needs to go, and for that reason I suspect this AFD is in bad faith. Maybe we should slap a notability tag on it instead? Korranus 23:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete there is no intention to single out this school, but rather to treat it like other nn schools. DGG 01:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Kevin Murray. It is a large middle school. --Carioca 03:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 18:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - let them have their page. What's the problem? I see none. Wikipedia has millions of useless articles, somebody in Fairfax County, VA might want to read about their local school. That's what Wikipedia is all about IMO - you won't see this middle school written about in Encyclopedia Britannica, but you can on Wikipedia. 167.206.107.110 18:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources to show notability. The precedent has been to delete articles about run of the mill middle schools. This one has nothing to satisfy the proposed WP:SCHOOL]. Contrary to what was claimed above, we do not need a "specific criterion which says that middle schools are not notable" to delete a middle school article. If there are references, it would be far better to simply add them than to claim they must be out there somewhere waiting to be discovered. It is my very "objective opinion" that this article lacks multiple independent reliable sources having it as a primary subject and that it is therefore non-notable. Inkpaduta 23:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability, no reliable sources backing up said assertion. Alternatively, merge anything verifiable to Fairfax County Public Schools and redirect. Shimeru 18:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, intriguing bibliography section, needs citations though. Smee 21:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • intriguing bibliography??? It consists of a listing in a business directory website, and the page for the school on the website of a local neighborhood group. How are those intriguing? --Brianyoumans 20:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability neither asserted nor evidenced. WMMartin 13:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We really need that schoolwiki! Vegaswikian 23:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Public schools have an inherent claim to notability the same way that small villages and highways do. Sourcing is not a problem here, and the article is decent enough that I don't see a benefit in merging, which is what I normally suggest doing for primary and middle educational institutions. RFerreira 07:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Schoolcruft with no mainstream media mentions. No assertion of notability, etc. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 00:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and merge. No argument made as to why merging would not satisfy "notability" concerns while not destroying content. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:09Z

WWE Beat the time Sprint

WWE Beat the time Sprint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about non-notable series of matches that took place from January 5 through January 12, 2007. Listcruft. -- bulletproof 3:16 01:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmackDown! Sprint --Aaru Bui DII 02:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (speedy delete if possible since it was just deleted a month ago). My reasons haven't changed since the last AFD. TJ Spyke 02:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete should be made speedy deletion. Davnel03 11:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If this matchtype was a regular event then it might deserve a mention in a specialty match subsection but currently it's just listcruft. Suriel1981 11:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would have voted keep but it appears per the comments above that it has been recreated.Tellyaddict 12:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A minor event --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 20:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete maybe if it's used on a regular basis but so far it's been a one off thing that isn't notable in itself MPJ-DK 21:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ye, as above. Govvy 10:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to University of Kent; if someone creates an article on Student life at Kent University, it would make sense to merge this there. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 07:08Z

Kent University Conservative Association

Kent University Conservative Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (2nd nomination) – (View AfD)

Local student political group - doesn't seem encyclopedic or notable. See also previous AfD from 2005. Eastmain 01:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- Eastmain 02:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- Eastmain 02:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to the University article, or possibly to a new "student life at Kent University" article, since the university article is getting rather long. Unless unusually notable, student groups should be covered in university or college articles. --Brianyoumans 02:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of independent reliable sources demonstrating notability and permitting verifiability. This a minimum requirement of every article regardless of other considerations. --Shirahadasha 02:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge per arguments of Brianyoumans and Shirahadasha. LordHarris 03:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- non notable Astrotrain 12:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable student group, no independent sources. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 21:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable student group.-- danntm T C 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears only to have significance within the campus of the University, thus fails WP:ORG. Ohconfucius 08:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable soc. (Why isn't this speediable? It's failed an AfD before.) AndyJones 14:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After viewing the edit history log and seeing the edits largely come from one source whose only contributions have been this article, I believe this to be a vanity/promotion article.--Ozgod 03:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. cs 19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:10Z

Yang Fu

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

Unreferenced and article fails to meet WP:BIO requirements. Ozgod 01:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per CSD A1 - no context. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThis article is probably the most out of contexted biography ive ever seen. It took me a lot of looking at the other wikilinks to other ppl to even find the date/context of this persons life (2nd/3rd century). If another user is willing to expand the article, look online or elsewhere for some references and try and make the biography more notable than im willing to change my view, but for now its a delete.LordHarris 03:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. Unclear whether real, but even if real not notable enough. --Nlu (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 07:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Found reference in Records of the Three Kingdoms, his Chinese name is 楊阜 and has a whole biography to himself in Wei Book, vol 25. A complete rewrite is recommended. _dk 02:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now that Deadkid dk pointed out that it's 楊阜, it's clearly notable. --Nlu (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant figure in Chinese history. May need expansion but not deletion. User:Dimadick
  • Keep Reasonably important figure in the Three Kingdoms. Shimeru 19:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, interesting historical stub. Give it time, if no more citations show up for the next time around, discuss again. Smee 21:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete A7. --Fang Aili talk 16:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loganville High School Soccer

Loganville High School Soccer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about a non-notable high school soccer program. Prod/prod2 tags removed by author. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the prod2, Delete. I don't see anything coming close to WP:N/WP:ORG, etc. Leuko 02:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Previously deleted twice should be protected after deletion to prevent reposting. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I don't see any sign of notability here, and it's a recreated article. --Brianyoumans 04:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Note that CSD G4 doesn't apply, as the article must have been "deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted."--TBCΦtalk? 16:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete- agree with Brian- completely non notable Astrotrain 13:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD A7.--TBCΦtalk? 16:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Majorly (o rly?) 12:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Chou

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

Articles contains no references and fails to meet WP:BIO standards. Ozgod 02:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per CSD A1-no context. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article appears to be on a figure in Chinese history who, despite the article's lack of sources and style issues, may possibly be a notable historical figure. However, every Wikipedia articles requires multiple reliable sources demonstrating notability and permitting verifiability to avoid deletion. I believe the article, despite its difficulties, provides enough contextual information that speedy delete is not warranted and would give the creator time to come up with sources during the regular delete procedure period. However, if sources are not forthcoming, the result should be Delete. --Shirahadasha 02:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not sufficiently notable even if real. --Nlu (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 07:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or disambiguate While I'm not sure of this Yang Chou person, the spelling itself is a variant of Yangzhou (there is already a redirect at Yang-chou), so this should at least be a redirect if not a disambiguation. FrozenPurpleCube 10:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate (or redirect) As I understand it, Cao Cao and his associates are pretty important figures in the history of the Chinese, it would therefore be prudent to clarify this article if it is indeed relevant to that history. Zelse81 20:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not all of Cao's associates are notable, I'd think, and again, I don't know if this person is real, and there is no indication that he is. --Nlu (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and ask for sources. This is not a valid speedy. I would be very cautious about historical figures from a period about which i knew very little, particularly given the problem of establishing the correct name. Would have been a suitable prod. 02:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a person from the Three Kingdoms period and is in Sima, Guang (1952-1965) The chronicle of the Three Kingdoms (220-265) Chapters 69-78 from the Tzu chih t'ung chien Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. OCLC 419919 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by --Bejnar 17:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I wrote, not all historical personalities are notable. Most who even warrant a couple lines in historical texts would, but this is really not. --Nlu (talk) 17:44, 2 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 g1, a7, nonsense biography, already speedied once before. NawlinWiki 02:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Europimp

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

Non-notable 'web personality', article contains a lot of nonsense (eg "he lives in some sort of time paradox"); and is fairly obvious vanity. Steve Farrell 02:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy delete Keep; it gave me a chuckle. He's notable for being on webcam on an internet game? Hah! Well I'M notable for editing wikipedia, here's my article - Empire Earth.--Empire Earth 02:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as hoax, so tagged. He time travels between Chicago and Manchester for soccer practice? Um, no. Otto4711 02:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:12Z

Heron (programming language)

Heron (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Heron Programming Language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Christopher Diggins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Heron programming language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)


Original research, promotion, vanity. Page describes a now-dormant personal project. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Lacks third party sources to establish how the language is notable. Leebo86 03:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked for references and this one http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/255 summed it up, the author seems to have a primary occupation of plugging his product. Also note that Special:Contributions/Christopher_Diggins there may be some WP:COI issues in the article. Jeepday 04:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did some searching to, and was unable to find anything that suggests that anyone uses this language, or that it's been the subject of any academic interest. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As C. Diggins indicates in his blog he may not work on Heron as a project anymore [3] and he also wrote that Heron is more-less dormant [4]. He now focuses (accdording to the blog) on another language, "Cat". The previous VfD had failed because of heroic effort of Diggings to keep it here, in spite of clearly being non-notable at this time. It is even less notable now due to no maintenance. Pavel Vozenilek 20:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No real claims of notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by Irishguy. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:14Z

Jason Blades

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

nn person. The article claims television credits, IMDB begs to differ. No reliable sources to verify these claims. IrishGuy talk 02:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:14Z

Yang Huai

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

Articles contains no references and fails to meet the WP:BIO standards. Ozgod 02:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. Appears to be fictional, and even if not fictional not notable enough (although notability of ancient historical figures is trickier). --Nlu (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please reference article to avoid another nomination for AfD if you have references Alf photoman 17:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reference to Zizhi Tongjian added. --Nlu (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 12:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Hong

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

Article contains no references and fails to meet WP:BIO standards. Ozgod 02:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unclear whether real, but even if real isn't notable enough. --Nlu (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 07:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure if this person is real or not, but there is a class of ships called the Xiang Yang Hong. I do not know Chinese, but if that means the class of ships was named after someone named Yang Hong, I'd say some article is warranted. FrozenPurpleCube 10:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without seeing the Chinese characters, my guess is that the class is named after the city of Xiangyang (襄陽, in modern Xiangfan, Hubei), not after this person. --Nlu (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is possible, but as I said, I don't know either way myself. FrozenPurpleCube 18:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and ask for sources. same as the others. DGG 02:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't appear to be a major figure. Will investigate further tonight. Shimeru 19:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, just as Shimeru my memory is not so good anymore, I'll check for sources AlfPhotoman 21:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unclear notability, plus very poor quality. Meaningful username 11:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|(talk) 13:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not emphasise notability Jammy Simpson | Talk | 14:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The article appears to be describing someone livivig around the 150CE period, so they have survived the test of time. However, without sources this article provides no context or details to base notability on. Nuttah68 14:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the above that unless this person is truely notable then it should be deleted. To say the person has stood the test of time, not much has been said in this article, and if he is truely notworthy then there should be plenty of info by which to make an article on --PrincessBrat 16:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge as I hope was done for the others. The nom should know by now that the characters in this group are in a major work of historical fiction, but based on real history & are thus to be judged on both aspects. (its only necessary to follow the links to find this out) Quite a lot of them a=have come up at AfD, and the obvious solution is for someone knowledgeable in the period to merge the minor ones appropriates, as is done with other works of fiction and some minor personages in history. I myself cannot say how important she is in the history or the novel, or just how it should be merged. DGG 02:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Romance of Three Kingdoms has so many minor characters that it is, I feel, not worth it to merge really minor characters, and there is really nothing else to merge to. --Nlu (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article was created by an editor who has been blocked indefinitely (the list of deleted articles is approaching 800). I don't know if this one is a copyright violation or not, but if it is, it doesn't need an AfD debate. Fg2 08:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:15Z

James C. McDonald

James C. McDonald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does not seem to be notable. The article was deleted by Prod but resurrected. Prod is contested Alex Bakharev 02:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, accomplishment is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 04:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A fine human being, but not notable such as to need an article. His accomplishments in his profession and elsewhere were not sufficiently great, imho. --Brianyoumans 04:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the subject was clearly notable to his friends and family, the article does not appear to pass WP:BIO Jeepday 04:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nice obituary, but not encyclopedic. ScottMainwaring 07:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Artaxiad 08:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a not very good obituary. Good man maybe, but I won't be sending donations! Emeraude 15:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sounds like a gentleman and a scholar, but not a wikipedia bio article subject. TonyTheTiger 23:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete No evidence for notability in the material provided. DGG 02:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete'per nom. I'm sure he was a great guy who lived a full life. However I cannot see that he passes the biography guidelines. Suriel1981 09:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability tests fail on this article. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as copyright violation. Jersey Devil 03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Niagara to GTA Corridor Planning and Environmental Assessment (EA) Study

A copy of a primary source, might be a copyright violation Alex Bakharev 03:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as copyright violation. Tagging it now. TJ Spyke 03:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per TJ Spyke and per nom. Bigtop 03:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:15Z

Natasha_Fatah

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

Biography is not notable and has no sources. Celticeric 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep actually I think the external links are meant to be the sources, and they're good. They should be converted to footnotes. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CanadianCaesar - External Links are article sources. On notability, the subject is a producer of nationally-broadcast radio show, a reporter on a significant regional scale (Ontario), and was a nationally-seen television programme host (Vision TV/News from the Muslim World). Dl2000 03:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CanadianCaesar has done a good job giving clear citations to the article. She is notable per notability--Slp1 03:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. External links are often sources in stub-class articles. Also, the links have been incorporated into the text as citations. -- Black Falcon 04:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; sufficiently notable and external links are valid as sources. Bearcat 10:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Bearcat 10:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if sources and references would have been in earlier we could have saved the work for this AfD AlfPhotoman 01:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep for now based on other AFDs; find sources, please!. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:52Z

Yang Song

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

Articles contains no references and fails to meet WP:BIO standards. Ozgod 03:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Person appears to be fictional, as far as I can see, but even if not fictional should be deleted, as article contains no confirmed information. (I would, however, believe that this person, if not fictional, is sufficiently notable, such that a properly written article should be recreated at some point if real. if fictional, keep deleted.) --Nlu (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 07:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If he can be verified as existing historically, then the article should be improved with a few citations, but as it is at present it is not verifiable. Zelse81 20:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending sources. As with the other similar people from this period, there is no reason to assume they are fictional, The proper action wouldhave been an unsourced tag. DGG 02:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reasonably important figure in the Three Kingdoms. Shimeru 19:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, sources are definitely insufficient AlfPhotoman 21:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:51Z

Nick Stubblefield

Nick Stubblefield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Nick stubblefield.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 03:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Subject does not meet any of the standards of WP:MUSIC. The Uruguay concert is interesting but it appears to be more of a cultural exchange of young musicians [5] than a tour situation. Solid reviews of a released album by sources that meet WP:V would make this a keeper, but he's not there yet. Nice-sounding CD, I'm sure he'll be back. Darkspots 15:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Darkspots. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:17Z

Yang Qiu

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

Subject would appear to be a character in a historical fiction novel and the article lacks references and fails to meet the WP:BIO standards. Ozgod 03:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Real life persona of the Three Kingdoms period of China, one of the commanders during the Battle of Tong Pass...an underdeveloped stub does not imply a non-notable character. _dk 04:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a real person, and the article appears to have sources.--Danaman5 05:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Close call, but I think sufficiently notable. --Nlu (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 07:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be notable. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 07:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if this weren't a real person, the "novel" in which he appears (Romance of the Three Kingdoms) is considered one of the greatest works of Chinese literature. The primary criterion of WP:BIO is, in any case, that the subject have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works; this article definitely passes. Please, read policies before citing them! Zetawoof(ζ) 10:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think WP:BIO is intended to apply to fictional individuals. As stated, this person is not fictional, but if it were a fictional individual, a fictional character will obviously be in "published works." Doesn't mean that every single one is notable. --Nlu (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant historical figure. User:Dimadick
  • Keep Reasonably important figure in the Three Kingdoms. Shimeru 18:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. no real chance of being deleted... no need to leave the turkey on the article for 2 more days. W.marsh 13:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Seidlin

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

Non-notable. Aside from presiding over a few minor hearings in the Anna Nicole Smith case, he has not done anything to merit notability more so than any other Florida Circuit Court Judge. Hallibrah 03:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Why would anyone even consider removing a newsmaker. ~User:mikedowUser_talk:mikedow 03:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. He has had massive exposure, there are countless reliable sources discussing him, he is certainly notable as far as Wikipedia's standards are concerned. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to the media coverage about him, rather than about the case in which he was presiding. Not a valid Speedy case, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is enough material covering the subject to pass the notability guidelines. Leebo86 03:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Certainly fails the 100 years test, but should probably stay around for now as it is relevant to current events. --Selket Talk 03:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is under the disclaimer "The following are proposed criteria for notability, which have not necessarily received consensus support". --W.marsh 03:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Comment. If that's the case (and I tend to agree with your theme) when DO we eventually delete it? When the furore dies down, or do we have a set time? I say skip all the politicking and just delete this thing now! Thanks for your time and advice, Hallibrah 03:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Notability is generally permanent, as if a topic has once met the notability criterion, the sources which demonstrate notability continue to satisfy the criterion over time. Kyra~(talk) 03:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as satisfying the primary notability criterion; the subject of the article has been the subject of multiple, independent, reliable, published works, namely Fox News, ABC, and the BBC just to name three of the references. Kyra~(talk) 03:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly meets WP:BIO, quite possibly without the Anna Nicole thing even (I know they love to write newspaper stories about the state judges here). Suggest a speedy close of this if no one but the nom wants to delete. --W.marsh 03:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now In paper encyclopedias, the practice is to go through and get rid of topical articles that are no longer of interest after a while. Wikipedia may eventually want to do the same. In 20 years, no one will care about this guy one whit, except as a footnote to the convoluted story of a minor celebrity of the 2000s. Brianyoumans 04:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Question Where can I find the 100 years test and debate its lack of merit? An encyclopedia is a reference: the whole point is that it preserves knowledge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Daly (talk • contribs) 06:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Response: WP:BIO#Proposed alternative criteria: "100 year test (future speculation) -- In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?"
  • Keep he is an important figure in current events (ie anna nicole battle) it should be kept, their is enough info on his page to keep. Mcoop06 06:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now He may get what he obviously wants, a show on tv, at whuch point his cultural significance, however distasteful or peculiar would, I think warrant his retention - if nothing comes of his endeavour - I'd say flush him as quick as we can! Stevingtonian 12:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His exposure is far from "massive," and is generally limited to a few internet articles and as a chuckle-worthy piece on the Jay Leno show, in my opinion not notable. If he does get a TV show, he might merit a place in wikipedia, but a Lower Court Judge in Florida who has presided over one notable case, and made no landmark decisions is not worthy of inclusion. I seem to be in a two-person minority in this opinion but, whatever. Thethinredline 13:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not at all limited to that... he has been given massive coverage on TV, and you would probably be hard pressed to find an article on the trial that didnt mention him, whether it be CNN or the BBC. It is anything but limited to a few articles... ~Rangeley (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the BBC article you mention proves my point, it doesn't cover Judge Seidlin at all, it mentions him. Does that make him somehow more 'notable' than just being a jurist presising over a case? I suppose some people might consider that to be so, but i am not one of them.
Also to say the coverage is massive is first of all subjective: I believe the coverage of the death of Saddam Huissein was "massive," not this story. Also to make any kind of statement about comprehensive coverage being given to this is also I would say, very US-centric. Thethinredline 17:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as much as I'd like this whole fucking mess to go back to the supermarket tabloids where it belongs, you can't deny that Judge Seidlin has become a lightening rod for debate and discussion. To me this is the entire point to having wikipedia: whats the harm in including just about anything as long as the article itself follows wiki policy and there is even a slight case of notability? RoyBatty42 19:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Like it or not, this guy is now a widely-known celebrity. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of Wikipedia's strengths is its responsiveness to current events. Otherwise I'd go back to using stodgy old bartleby.com. Gusuku 23:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of BLP and N problems. One case does not make a judge notable.DGG 02:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and I agree with Kyra that notability (for our purposes) doesn't fade. JamesMLane t c 06:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Easily meets WP:BIO. - Denny 06:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, definitely notable. Everyking 08:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, for the same reasons that Stevingtonian mentioned; that aside, if he doesn't get that television show he's clamoring for, it certainly won't pass the 100 years test. --PeanutCheeseBar 13:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BIO, not everything in wikipedia is related to rocket science, nuclear physics or world peace --rogerd 17:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why be so persnickety about what stays or doesn't? Sheesh! ~User:dwaconUser_talk:dwacon 03:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep either bad faith nom or someone who doesn't understand the criteria. Clearly the product of multiple non-trivial works. Quadzilla99 19:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - judges probably merit a brief page anyway, and this is news. Classic test - was reading an article on law.com about the case and turned to wikipedia to find out about the judge. Wikipedia serves its function. BYF
  • Weak Delete Otherwise nonnotable judge who cried in front of the cameras in his 15 minutes in the spotlight, thereby getting trivial mention in articles about the case. Wikipdeia is not a tabloid newspaper. See WP:NOTNEWS, a proposed guide for news stories not always justifying articles. Inkpaduta 23:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Keep Keep Keep"" This man was a major palyer in an event that captivated the attention of celebrity gossip if Kevin Federline and Lance Ito get an article than so should Larry Seidlin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.185.36 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep There is enough material covering the subject to pass the notability guidelines. Bnguyen 05:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes notability guidlines. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability established. Google news search come back with over 6000 hits like [(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21265702.shtml this] and this, which are about Larry Seidlen, not just ANS. - Peregrine Fisher 07:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think somebody confused what and who should be news worthy, and what's worth having on wikipedia. I don't think this guy should be in the news so much, but since he is, he's notable enough to pass the requirements for wiki. Prgrmr@wrk 02:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep JimmyTrump79 21:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was not merely a trial about a dead body, this was a trial about a woman who has been shrouded in controversy for over a decade. This stub deserves to remain on Wikipedia simply because the news covered the trial due to it falling within the public interest - the trial, and especially Judge Seidlin, captivated the nation for a week straight. With this in mind, I believe it should remain on the site. Punchyourself187 20:13, 28 February 2007 (EST)
  • Keep This article meets the primary criteria for being a notable person. You don't spread knowledge by deleting information. --JHP 07:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per pretty much, well, everyone. RFerreira 07:50, 1 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 York City F.C.. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 08:07Z

Nick Bassett

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

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:BIO. Nv8200p talk 03:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete I marked it as Speedy A7. - Denny 06:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I messed up my Googling at first. Appears to be somewhat notable locally. Probably fine as a stub. - Denny 06:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability of the subject of the article. References provided are about the York City, with Nick Bassett mentioned or interviewed as an employee of the club. If someone can provide a reliable source about Nick Bassett I will reconsider, Nuttah68 15:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not very notable. Meaningful username 11:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was {{wi}} soft-redirect to Wiktionary. If a new article High-maintenance relationships were created, this could redirect there. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:49Z

High-maintenance

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

This article is simply a dictionary/slang definition of a term, and provides no context or attribution that would make it an encyclopedic entry. Per WP:WINAD, it does not meet standards, and should be deleted. -- Haemo 03:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article is certainly in bad shape, but it could be turned into something decent. This is a pretty common phrase. --Selket Talk 03:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the term is frequently used in the circles that I move in. The article needs to be improved, but this provides a basis for that improvement. - Richardcavell 03:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - agree with above comments, article needs expanding and improving, not deleting (added expand and wikify templates). LordHarris 03:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is just across the line from pop psychology; high.maintenance+relationship on Google Books garners 615 results. Of course it also applies to e.g. clients, cars, yards ... so it can be expanded beyond the boy-girl dynamic.--Dhartung | Talk 04:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is currently just a dicdef (although I disagree that it gives not context), but it can be expanded into an encyclopedic article. The 1,2 million ghits seem a good indicator of notability. -- Black Falcon 04:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How, exactly, can this be turned into an encyclopedia article? --N Shar 04:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I'm confused about this too. Other than giving examples of traits deemed to be "high maintenance" - really, what more is there to say that "this is what this slang term means". --Haemo 08:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was going to ask the same question. wikt:high-maintenance lists this as an adjective. Adjectives by themselves rarely denote encyclopaedia article subjects. They have to have nouns accompanying them. Uncle G 18:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Despite my best efforts, I could not envisage an article that is about anything other than the term itself. It could be an article that discusses the multiple uses of the term, the origins of the term, people who have been described as high-maintenance (a bad idea for a section, I think), and so on, but these are all about the term itself. Thus, delete per nom. Unless ... is there a noun equivalent: high-maintenance..ity? maintenanceness? maintenancousity? Ah, forget it. -- Black Falcon 19:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete like any other slangdef. The prevalance of a slang term does not make it appropriate for an encyclopedia. Gazpacho 09:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While this is obviously a real phrase, it's just that - a phrase, without any noteworthy cultural context - and hence belongs on Wiktionary. Hey, look, there it is! Some text might be worth merging, but none of it belongs here. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since it's already on wiktionary, and is apparently just a slang definition... Zelse81 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as undefined slang--and the term is used in many other ways also, as of a girl-friend who requires expensive gifts. OR, and poor job of it:DGG 02:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.-- danntm T C 04:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:46Z

Nick Willsher

Nick Willsher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Nickwillsher.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

The subject of the article does not meet the guidlines for notability per WP:BIO. Self-promotion. Nv8200p talk 03:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Lacking reliable sources to assert WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable. Creator of article also the creator of the image (of the article subject) in the article; possible conflict of interest exists. Carolfrog 05:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Real96 04:59, 2 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.--Húsönd 05:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Lindin

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

Vanity. Non-notable Entheta 03:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:MUSIC states that an artist needs multiple albumns on a major label which Holly Lindin does not have. meshach 17:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC; not AllMusic guide entry, either. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. Fails WP:Vanity. A1octopus 10:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:21Z

Full Blown Entertainment

Full Blown Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Greenspoint's Finest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
File:Full blown ent.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Gpfinestfrnt.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

I'm also nominating the article Greenspoint's Finest, a mixtape under this record label. I cannot find any evidence that this is a notable record label. Google search for "Full Blown Entertainment"+"Yung Blue" results in 0 hits (Yung Blue is the founder of the label). The official web page is on MySpace. Prod removed by author with the reason "It is a real label, notable releases, CD's are sold in major stores in Houston such as music depot." Unfortunately I can't find any mention in reliable sources of the albums online, either. Delete due to lack of notability. ... discospinster talk 03:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - just because you can't find him (Yung Blue) on google doesnt mean anything, he has even been on tour with Magno, if you live ibn Houston you can find him no problem —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Homicidal King (talk • contribs) 06:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP. Gothnic 06:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - give it a chance to be expanded before knee-jerking to the AfD. Lugnuts 10:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is it's chance. You have 5 days to cite sources to demonstrate that this company satisfies the WP:CORP criteria. AFD is not about expanding the article. It is about citing sources to demonstrate verifiability and that the notability criteria are satisfied. Making an unverifiable article bigger doesn't make it any the less unverifiable, and making an article on a subject that has no independent sources bigger does not change the fact that the subject is non-notable. Uncle G 20:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Uncle G is right that this is its chance to cite some sources. However, it was AfDd pretty soon after original creation, with no apparent attempt to engage in dialogue with its creator or request sources. On the other hand, I have the feeling that the creator will not be able to come up with the necessary sources. If they can cite some, I might be willing to change my vote. Carolfrog 06:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Just some kids and GarageBand. 66.177.173.119 06:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a Google for the company turns up two Full Blown Entertainments as the top two hits. One's a booking agency for comedians, the other represents two musicians from Atlanta who don't appear to be notable either. I can't see this one meeting WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC. If sources turn up, however, always happy to reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ... unless sources are cited Tt 225 18:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:22Z

The Ding Dongs

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

Very short lived comedy team. Not very notable, and simply just cruft better suited for a wrestling wiki. RobJ1981 03:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only notable thing appears to be that they were disliked. I don't think they're notable for simply participating in the matches, so third party sources would be needed to establish notability, but it doesn't sound like anyone in the industry took enough notice to do that. Leebo86 03:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable and short lived tag team. TJ Spyke 06:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Davnel03 11:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as with Leebo. Suriel1981 11:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable ThePurpleMonkey(talk•portal•contribs) 18:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete they had ONE match with this gimmick, if there was a page of horrible gimmicks it'd make a nice section at best MPJ-DK 17:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aye there already is. Wrestlecrap.com! Suriel1981 10:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Dismissed; possible rename. Article was just created as a merge target. No prejudice against renomination at a later date. (The point of the article was to merge all the other minor fetish articles into one.). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 07:01Z

List of uncommon fetishes

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

Unverifiable listcruft. What kind of criteria makes a fetish "uncommon"? SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's nothing listed at all! CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (but see comment below). I can provide a complete list of fetishes: you can find it at Special:Allpages. Seriously, one can have a fetish for almost anything (okay, maybe List of asteroids/123001–124000-fetishism would be a little too weird). The author has stated that "this is a work in progress" but it's a project that never will be finished. --N Shar 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Keep. Please note the discussion on the article's talk page about changing the title to List of fetishes. This would include, of course, only fetishes which are identified in reliable, published sources (which Special:Allpages is not). The article has been in existence one day and its purpose is to get rid of a lot of stubs. Let's give it a chance at least. You are right about the asteroids, though. Who really cares about "123001–124000" when there's List of asteroids/34501–34600. Now that's something I'm sure everyone fantasises about! -- Black Falcon 04:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I like "List of fetishes" a lot better than "List of uncommon fetishes." Although the latter would seem to be a subset of the former, this is not the case -- "List of fetishes" implies that only notable fetishes will be included, while "List of uncommon fetishes" suggests that fetishes that are notable enough for their own articles will not be included, while other, less notable ones will. I support a move. --N Shar 04:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sure the main article on fetishes has a list, with links to articles about major fetishes. As said above, one can fetishize just about anything - which to my mind means listing them all is pointless. Is there anything notable or different to be said about, say, mirror fetishes as opposed to chair fetishes as opposed to floor wax fetishes? I doubt it. --Brianyoumans 04:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although one can fetishize everything, WP:Attribution will require that only fetishes that are documented to exist in published sources (and that therefore have official names--like phobias) are listed. -- Black Falcon 05:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because something exists doesn't mean we need to rush out and list it. I agree that phobias are a very similar situation, and that pretty much only notable phobias should be listed, with perhaps a few examples of more obscure types. --Brianyoumans 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree and think/hope the same principle (that you note for phobias) will be applied in this case. -- Black Falcon 06:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/question I don't think this article is meant to be an actual list. It's been poorly named in that case. My understanding is that it is intended to be a place where several stub articles will be merged (after discussion on those articles' talk pages). Might it be a better idea to userfy the article until all the details of possible merges have been worked out? Robotman1974 05:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm trying to get articles that are currently stubs and fetishes to be merged into the article, I think It's a bit unfair that this is article is up for deletion the same day it was created, with out allowing me to add the content to the list. Most people find it rude if you just start merging pages without asking first.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 07:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Al-Bargit 17:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Delete What is a common fetish?[reply]
  • Delete What exactly is difference between a common and uncommon fetish? It's subjective. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 19:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Changed to no opinion except about the name. I hoped to learn something about myself but the page is empty! And the word "uncommon" has simply no chance to be unanimously interpreted on WP. Pavel Vozenilek 20:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page is empty because the article was created just 1-2 days ago and is currently subject of discussion on this AfD and its talk page. Please see the discussion on Talk:List of uncommon fetishes to rename the title, as well as the comments by Robotman and Honeymane above regarding the actual purpose of the article. -- Black Falcon 20:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding your edit summary, I wholly agree that the article is inappropriately titled. -- Black Falcon 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content into Sexual fetishism and Delete. TonyTheTiger 23:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is material to be found on every one or almost every one, and there should be a chance to develop it. It is highly inappropriate to delete a major in the middle of active construction., DGG 02:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete "uncommon" = POV. This is unsalvageable. JuJube 06:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and let the talk page determine its new location and function. Pomte 06:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:23Z

Willow Ridge

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

Appears to be a hoax, no relevant Google hits. See WP:MADEUP John Reaves (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't find any relevant info either. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably a hoax per above, but even if it's not it's a WP:AUTO violation (see creator's name) and a WP:A violation. --N Shar 04:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:HOAX. A gang with 32,000 members and no sources (all ghits for '+"Willow Ridge" +gang -Wikipedia' seem to be about places called Willow Ridge)? Also, they killed 79 people with only 72 bullets (was there a shortage of ammunition)? Can snipers even achieve this? -- Black Falcon 07:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be a hoax. No sources. Carolfrog 06:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly a hoax, and not a very funny one at that. If there was a real gang with 32,000 members who carried out massacres then I think that we may have heard of it. Suriel1981 10:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition I draw your attention to the creator's previous reprimand for creating nonsense articles. Suriel1981 10:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and permaban the person responsible for creating this and other such nonsense. RFerreira 07:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:23Z

DR.K.K. SHARMA

DR.K.K. SHARMA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

prod removed, likely hoax Travelbird 03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless sourced and notablity established by end of AfD. janejellyroll 03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if it's not a hoax, the article's quality is unsalvageably poor and the article is of no value. - Richardcavell 03:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing the policy on attribution, and since there are no reliable sources to draw off of, the subject of the article also fails the primary notability criterion. Additionally, a search for sources fails to yield any. Kyra~(talk) 03:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a page containing only unverifiable, hagiographic material. A likely hoax, since the good Doctor only gets 2 non-Wikipedia Google hits, and they are primary sources. --N Shar 04:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources, no references = no notability Alf photoman 14:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep under the hope that sources will be inserted. The work when sourced will probably be N. This is another example of pages written carelessly by those who do not understand WP standards. The proper course is not to delete them, but to work at helping the authors improving them. This lack of knowledge tends to be substantial with subjects and authors from India, among other countries, and calls for extra effort, not removal.DGG 02:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article contends that the author (born 1977 - but supposedly 26 years of age) wrote 120 (!) books on historical subjects. If the date of birth is correct, and assuming he didn't start until he was 17, that works out at an average of 12 books a year ! I'm afraid that without proper sources I'm not inclined to believe that this is genuine Travelbird 03:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reading more carefully than I did. My failure to read might be a result of the same automatically negative attitude that I was deploring--so particular thanks for making me aware of it.
Delete as probable hoax. DGG 04:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 06:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete this edit by the initial contributor is sufficient for me to consider this article vandalism or unabashed self-promotion. John Vandenberg 07:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:45Z

Brown Stand-Up Comics

Brown Stand-Up Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Brown Standup Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Brown Stand-up Comedians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Brown Standup Comedians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Another article about a non-notable student improv stand-up group. The best claims to notability is that they were mentioned in a roundup article Time did about college stand-up groups. Additionally, I do not feel that hiring well known comedians to perform at their school makes them notable. Finally, although it is great three of their members were semi-finalists in the student stand-up contest on nibblebox.com, I don't know those members' individual achievements in this case are notable enough to make the entire group notable. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 09:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The members' individual achievements add up, as they were the majority in a late round of a notable comedy festival. The founder of the troupe has gone on to be on comedy central. A group that has multiple people in it get onto television is notable for a college group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FalconBob (talk • contribs) 19:03, 20 February 2007
  • Comment: This is a stand up comedy troupe, which is not the same as an improv comedy group.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FalconBob (talk • contribs) 19:03, 20 February 2007
    • I can't seem to find any reference to this appearance. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 03:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This link[[6]] has an article titled "3 Brown U. students make final 5 in HBO's 'Best College Comedian' contest." FalconBob 14:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This might merit a line or two in the Brown University article, but that's about it. I'm not convinced that the founder is very notable; I'm even tempted to afd his article. The list of "well known comedians" they have hosted is meagre and frankly not even up to what I would expect from a major university. The Time magazine article has about two paragraphs about them, it is about college stand up in general. Out!! --Brianyoumans 04:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promo. The "Notable Comics Hosted by the Brown Stand-Up Comics" stuff is a dead give-away that these people are nobodies. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I'm not inclined to believe enough notability for an article. Carolfrog 08:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The Time profile gives them the opening two paragraphs...but other than that they have three of the five semi-finalists at the US Comedy Arts Festival's Best College Comedian contest. Semi-Finalists aren't finalists, nor are they winners. The notability is almost there but lacking. IrishGuy talk 08:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per substantial precedent on student societies. Inadequate references, and notability not obvious. WMMartin 13:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 12:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flashspring

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

Software with no evidence of notability (as defined by WP:SOFTWARE). Article cites no sources. Conscious 10:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wrote according to Guidelines for writing about software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOFTWARE), without advertising or subjective points of view, only provided short info about oCPS Labs company and one of its products, FlashSpring.
Actually, today i found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articulate and didn't find a big difference between Articulate page and FlashSpring page. So far, i think propose for deletion to be doubtful, but still accept it.
I'll appreciate your assistance and point of view.
Sergeysid 13:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Would someone please add links to published reviews of this software? --Eastmain 21:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thank you Eastmain, it seems some links are added. What is the next step? A word from Conscious? -- Sergeysid 09:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. WP != free advertising. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Yes, WP != free advertising, i didn't even mean it. When you state a fact, people name it advertising; when you write about something which is your own, people call it advertising. What if i wanted to give people more choice about their search? If Conscious also thinks my FlashSpring article in WP to be an ad, ok, i'll remove it and try to make a better piece - it's your kingdom and your rules -- Sergeysid 16:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Doesn't seem terribly notable, and the company that created it definitely isn't notable. Probably doesn't pass WP:SOFTWARE. No prejudice against recreation in the future if more notability is attained. Carolfrog 14:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the references establish notability. Since the article is now NPOV, I don't think it's an advertisement. --Eastmain 18:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll appreciate if someone tells me what's next? The article can be at WP or not? Sergeysid 15:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The outcome of this discussion will be determined by an administrator soon. Conscious 11:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per nominator withdrawal RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Swan

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

non-notable artist withdrawing nom, article has since been cleaned up SERSeanCrane 04:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Definitely a commercial artist, but seems notable enough. You can get Fred Swan calendars, Fred Swan jigsaw puzzles, Fred Swan prints... and his paintings go for 5 figures. Brianyoumans 05:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This guy has a gallery dedicated to him in Stowe, Vermont. His prints run for 400 dollars, and I can only imagine what the originals go for. Definitely notable...why not? Fred Swan is a very famous artist. Bmrbarre 23:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article has only been created for three days!! Stubs need to be given time to develop. Yes, independent references are needed but that is a matter for article development not deletion. This is a popular artist with wide coverage. TerriersFan 00:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your cleanup of the article am withdrawing nom. Great work. SERSeanCrane 01:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. TerriersFan 01:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete; reevaluate if new article is written. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:44Z

Kleinmann Family Foundation

Kleinmann_Family_Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

No outside links, unsalvagably POV, probably not notable. --Hojimachongtalkcon 20:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, for now. We should let everybody have more than three days to work on an Article before screaming delete, but I am afraid that unless the article improves greatly it will soon be a goner. Besides, and this especially for new editors: you can write an article in your sandbox and not release it before you are confident that it meets at least WP:V Alf photoman 17:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speed delete cut-n-paste copyvio from [7]. No prejudice against recreation as an original text. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see signs that this foundation is terribly active or notable; looks like it sponsors a conference or two, has some archives. It is basically a private foundation (I bet "mandated by the government" simply means that when they filed the non-profit papers, they gave the government the purpose listed.) Out. --Brianyoumans 06:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete In this case I think the foundation might well be N, bu tthe existing article/essay/PR is hopeless, and a proper article should be written instead. DGG 02:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article has not improved in the past 7 days so I am going to suppose that bothing is going to happen to it. In the present form : cut and paste, no references, no sources I think we dont have another choice. No prejudice against the theme itself. Alf photoman 14:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

R. Jay Fisher

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

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

  • Delete. The subject is the elected sheriff of Baltimore County, Maryland (not to be confused with the city of Baltimore, Maryland). As such, he could potentially qualify under WP:BIO per the clause for "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." The problem is that I can barely find any press coverage for this person. If it can be established that he has received significant press coverage, I may reconsider. --Metropolitan90 17:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence given of notability beyond his post. Billlion 12:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:BIO unless some evidence of notability is forthcoming. Nuttah68 09:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Total Control

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

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

  • Keep. In the era (5-10 years ago) when dial-up was king, these were pretty widely used by ISPs. Pinball22 15:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate or redirect to The Motels Ohconfucius 09:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/notability

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 American ensign. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 08:05Z

American Merchant Stripes

American Merchant Stripes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence that a flag of this name existed. ScottMainwaring 04:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this seems to show that the flag is real. If not a keep then Merge into Flags of the United States - Peripitus (Talk) 12:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, described on US Navy page[8]: Since American merchant ships often displayed a simple red and white striped flag, there is a good chance that the striped jack to which Hopkins refers was the plain, striped flag used by American merchant ships. On the same page Benjamin Franklin and John Adams are quoted, "Merchant ships have often only thirteen stripes, but the flag of the United States ordained by Congress is the thirteen stripes and the thirteen stars above described." Little information on the flag is online, though. --Dhartung | Talk 19:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Flags of the United States. There are Google hits that aren't mirror sites, for example [9]. Suriel1981 09:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply that flags of this design did not exist — the Sons of Liberty apparently used such a flag, as did (most probably) the Continental Navy (see First Navy Jack). I hadn't been aware of the Franklin and Adams quote, which does look like good evidence that this design was also used as a U.S. Civil ensign. Nevertheless, I have yet to see any solid evidence that such a civil ensign was named the "American Merchant Stripes"; a single flag retailer's site and a personal essay don't seem to me sufficient bedrock on which to ground a Wikipedia entry. Given all this, I would like to change my vote to Merge into American ensign. --ScottMainwaring 06:36, 2 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_February_25&oldid=110758382"