Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 4: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Masaruemoto (talk | contribs)
3,597 edits
Line 11: Line 11:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Influential businessmen of India}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFL Dream Team}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFL Dream Team}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat day}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat day}}

Revision as of 02:58, 4 September 2007

< September 3 September 5 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Influential businessmen of India

Influential businessmen of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subjective title and no inclusion criteria, so apparently original research. How influential does a businessman have to be to get listed? And how is "influence" measured? Category:Indian businesspeople already includes the relevant articles neutrally. Masaruemoto 02:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFL Dream Team

AFL Dream Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is not encyclopedic, it is about an obscure web game Grahamec 02:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nevermind. The creator's other edits are disgruntled vandalism. I'm speedying this for now. Chaser - T 02:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat day

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

Declined A7 speed nomination. This is a holiday that I can't find any evidence for anywhere. The web results that I've seen are totally generic. Chaser - T 02:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important Places near Thrissur City

Important Places near Thrissur City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

POV title and content, no explanation why these places are important, but if there was then it would probably be original research. Masaruemoto 02:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mentions of the places and links thereto should possibly go into the main city article, yes, if they're very prominent, but beyond that, I don't see much in the way of mergeable content. --Agamemnon2 12:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is essentially places near Thrissur and it is not notable on its own to stand Corpx 04:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is basically a list with extremely subjective inclusion criteria: "important" and "near [to Thrissur City]". I see no way of salvaging the content, whether as a list or rewritten as prose, since it is fundamentally POV and OR. Jakew 11:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mehran Ghassemi

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

Has been tagged as an unreferenced orphan with questionable notability for many months with little or no change. This may need to be kept but hopefully the AfD will be a good occasion to check the claims of notability. Pascal.Tesson 18:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 19,900 ghits. His interview is all over the internet [1] and has even been translated [2]. I don't know a lot about this subject, but it seems notable to me. -FlubecaTalk 19:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete there isn't much to differentiate himself from most journalists. The article itself needs alot of work Sasha Callahan 23:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Iran is a large country; its independent press is of wide interest and the subject appears to be one of the better known figures in it. Itsmejudith 14:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mentioned in a few sources, including The Economist. Wish it wasn't an orphan, but that shouldn't get the article deleted. Cmprince 03:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Almost all his google hits are for a single interview that has been syndicated (and the estimate of 19000 hits is way over the top. There's no evidence of his commanding widespread respect as a journalist or even being known. Deb 22:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ♫ 02:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This may be the first patient for my new WP:ICU concept. Realkyhick 02:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 699 GHits in Persian [3], once you subtract out Blogfa (popular Iranian blog site). My reading skills aren't exactly top of the class, but my cursory scan shows that many of these are articles written by him or interviews conducted by him (rather than interviews/articles of which he was the subject), which doesn't do much to establish notability. Similar comment applies to the interview with Sasan Fayazmanesh: a byline does not contribute to notability. cab 04:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and send to emergency room for immediate intensive care. :-) Does seem notable, per the above. — xDanielx T/C 06:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 05:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo GameCube Linux

Nintendo GameCube Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought Chealer 16:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that's valid, as while it might be appropriate to mention this there, I do feel it's distinct enough on its own to merit an article. FrozenPurpleCube 17:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too crufty and weaselly for that. Leibniz 18:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, the article is rewritten. FrozenPurpleCube 18:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources suggested by Mister Manticore. Ideally, merge along with similar articles (eg Xbox Linux) into somewhere more appropriate such as Linux on game consoles or, as suggested above, Embedded Linux. Jakew 00:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge as above into an article about Linux on games consoles, Embedded Linux is a bit too catch-all for such a thing.. Xmoogle 12:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. From checking around the web, it seems there is not much activity any more on Nintendo GameCube Linux. Even the web site linked from the article, http://www.gc-linux.org, seems to have not acquired much new material since March 2006. That suggests to me we are now looking at this Wikipedia article almost in its final form. The last edit which added *any* new technical information was this one on 2 March, 2006, by an anonymous contributor. Nearly all the present content is from the creator, User:Wrayal, who has not edited Wikipedia since May 2007. So I'm not optimistic about this article getting any better, and I don't think the creator is going to fix it. I'd be open to having the closer of this AfD userfy the page, in case anyone here wants to clean up the WP:OR and add references to the article. Otherwise I don't think this belongs in Wikipedia. EdJohnston 15:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ♫ 02:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although it might not be active, mention by Forbes and Wired (reliable sources) are sufficient to give the project notability already.--Alasdair 03:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve - highly notable subject, solid beginning of an article, just needs sources. — xDanielx T/C 06:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doesn't seem connected enough to O'Brian to justify it being a redirect to him, and the original production has no article.Cúchullain t/c 19:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mephistopheles Smith

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

Non-notable production. (The musical itself might qualify for an article.) Productions on the Edinburgh Fringe are most definitely not automatically notable - even I have performed there! -- RHaworth 07:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Richard O'Brien. There appears to be enough interest online as demonstrated by search engine results to support this as a proper redirect even though I would agree those same results do not yield anything in the way of reliable sources that would cement notability. The O'Brien article already goes into the subject in enough depth for this to be a viable suggestion. Erechtheus 15:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I've added a BBC preview about the show, which adds some notability. Crazysuit 02:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, or merge & redirect to Richard O'Brien, Johnbod 15:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom not notable programme.Pharaoh of the Wizards 15:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" This is a seperate production in its own right, not particularly for its own merits but the fact it was given special permission by O'Brien. Also, it would be nice to have this alone and elaborate it a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutty girl 2001 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ♫ 02:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted as copyvio MCB 05:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saleem Javed

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

Totally violates WP:NPOV barley reads wiki at all. And just how notable is this guy? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 01:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE. Vanity page for non-notable singer. Google search turns up singer's attempts to market his songs, bit absolutely no reliable third party sources that have given him any coverage. OfficeGirl 02:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, spam, vanity, just plain crap. Realkyhick 02:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Clear-cut WP:CSD#A7. Also, please avoid using the term 'vanity' in AfD's. See WP:AFD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD. --Bfigura (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as copyright vio of [6].--Alasdair 03:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cúchullain t/c 19:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firestarter (Charmed)

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

No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context Jay32183 01:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - I thought we were doing television article reviews with this type of stuff, because AfDs are long, and generally ask for deletion when most people want "merge".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, I created this back as a noob. Create a new article for all the silly Charmed words that make no sense to normal folk? And then merge this, Whitelighter, Darklighter, Elders (Charmed) etc. into it. ~ZytheTalk to me! 02:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes our early works come back to haunt us. :-) Since you know more about the subject, go ahead and do the merged article, then let us know when you're done. Realkyhick 02:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I thought this was an episode at first glance, so ignore my initial comment. No one is going to look for "Firestarter (Charmed)" in a search, though mention of it on the disambiguous page may be ok. It should be something regulated to one of the season articles (if one exists).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
  • I believe you mean relegated, although regulating them is indeed appropriate. But yeah, merge to the appropriate episode article, and put in a redirect from Firestarter (disambiguation) (and if it happens to pop up somewhere else). --Agamemnon2 12:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Ottawa Senators teams

History of Ottawa Senators teams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is one long essay that tries to link together the various incarnations of ice hockey teams named the Ottawa Senators. This article is complete original research and synthesis of facts. All reliable sources about these teams point to them being separate entities, not connected as this article suggests. Further, the histories of the current Senators, the original Senators and the senior team are already well documented at their respective articles, making this one redundant. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominaton. GoodDay 01:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SYNTH. It is an attempt to bind three different franchises into one, and is completely redundant to the three articles listed by NeoChaosX. This POV fork is also being pushed against consensus in a debate that is currently spanning at least three separate talk pages: Talk:National Hockey League, Talk:Ottawa Senators and Talk:Wikiproject Ice hockey. FWIW though, I do beleve that User:Alaney2k meant well when he created this. Resolute 01:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all policy compliant info with Ottawa Senators. Should have read nom statement better :) Delete per nom as redundant because of the other Senators pages listed in the statement. J-stan TalkContribs 01:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Peter Fleet 02:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete teams are seperate. per WP:SYNTH. T Rex | talk 03:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SYNTH --Djsasso 04:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete If it is deleted, then information written about the Ottawa Senators history will be deleted. For example, the financing struggles, etc. I would dispute that all of this is in the other articles. To delete would indicate A) that the article has not been read, B) that a group of Wikipedians is unwilling to allow other than their points of views to be heard. Also, complaints have been heard about the amount of History info in the Ottawa Senators article specifically. Therefore, instead I suggest that people willing to take the time to document the history go ahead and edit it. I believe that people will find that these teams sharing the name 'Ottawa Senators' are linked historically by various factors, including name, people, city, etc. This is not a denial that the three clubs are different, rather that they are linked historically. It would be a shame to not have that overall view present. Alaney2k 05:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think you are still missing the point in that the history is all there and is all linked in each of the 3 articles. Each of the articles mentions that the other ones exist and any user can follow the wikilink to those pages. That is sort of the point of wikipedia actually. You don't have to have everything all on one page, and as a matter of fact its preferred that you don't have it all on one page due to page size issues. --Djsasso 13:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Do not delete The financing history is not in the current Sens article. Secondly, I have tried to put the links in the various articles and they keep getting deleted, some of them by you djssaso. I can't even mention the Cleveland Browns as a comparison! :-) :-) Anyway, since there had been comments about too much history on the current Sens page that I moved text to the 'History of' article. Anyway, it makes a reasonable sized article and frees up space for the current Sens article to focus on the current. This is the point of the other 'History of' articles, such as NY Rangers and Leafs. Alaney2k 13:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and Expand Accordingly, otherwise Delete I would be in favour of the article being changed to Ice hockey in Ottawa, Ontario, where you document the actual hockey history of the town. The creation of the Ottawa HC, of the Ottawa District Hockey Association, the Silver Seven, the Senators, the Sr. Senators, the CJHL, the gazillion jr. leagues that popped up, how the Ottawa 67's were bred from the CJHL, the Ottawa Nationals of the WHA, so on and so on and so on... There is useful info in the article... but I too think Alaney2k is pushing his own agenda... DMighton 05:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Do not delete Whoa. That's much more than one article. Yes I have synthesized from the 3 Sens articles. Much, if not most of the text is not mine. I put it together, but, these are facts that have occurred, not my 'speculation'. There ARE links between the teams. How is that not neutral? In fact those links have been present in the 3 Sens articles for a while now, and were not all highlighted or originated by me. The first owner of the current NHL club had a campaign to win an NHL franchise called 'Bring Back The Senators' with a representative of the past players, a representative of a past owner. It was prominently displayed in the campaign materials about the number of Stanley Cups won. After the franchise was won, the president of the league 'reinstated' them. Controversial and not followed up on, but nevertheless it happened. I think we could remove the sentence about operating under the reinstated franchise, as the only proof I found was the certificate, and Total Hockey doesn't mention it. But then TH doesn't mention everything about the NHL. Not to denigrate it, only to mention that there is more than the NHL's books to consider. The second club is linked to the first by having an owner who owned a piece of both phases, consecutive seasons, played in the arena of the first. The second club is linked to the third by the owner's descendents of the second club giving permission to the new club to use the name. I have given references for everything or tried to. The links shown between the teams also are similar to situations encountered by other NHL clubs, as shown in those articles. E.g., Vancouver Canucks have played in multiple leagues, with different ownership. You would not say that the Vancouver Canucks of the WHL moved to the NHL. The WHL franchise would have terminated and a new NHL franchise started. The Montreal Canadiens have a franchise discontinuity in 1911 where George Kennedy bought the rights to the Canadiens name, but bought the Haileybury club, not the Les Canadiens club. The Les Canadiens franchise instead went to Toronto. The Toronto Maple Leafs are listed as starting in 1917, but that was a temporary franchise owned by the league, operated by a separate company. The Cup won by the Arenas seems to be claimed by the Leafs. These are all things that are part of the history of those teams, so it would appear that no consistent policy exists. In any case, the differences and discontinuities are mentioned as well. So, my vote, is to work towards improving the article. Alaney2k 06:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. While the editor has done much good work on early hockey articles (hell, I gave him a barnstar for it), he has been pushing a determined POV that several unrelated clubs must be the same team by virtue of having the same nickname, to the degree that WP:POINT violations have been made. While the details of the dispute have been exhaustively listed on the appropriate pages, WP:HOCKEY does have a consistent policy: teams that have demonstrated common ownership, players, recognition of records, nicknames, corporate structures and unbroken lineage of seasons played (such as the Montreal Canadiens, Vancouver Canucks, Edmonton Oilers) have unitary articles. Those with no common ownership, no players in common, no recognition of records, no common corporate structure and breaks in continuity stretching over decades, such as the various Senators teams, don't. If there are facts in this article pertaining to the individual teams, they should be in the individual articles.  RGTraynor  13:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: do not delete I came up with my 'biased' point of view from working on those early ice hockey articles. I did not even know about the Senior Sens until I read the recollections of Frank Finnigan and others in his daughter's book. Also, Lord of the Rinks and Deceptions and Doublecross and Robinson's book on the Sens. I did not know that the NHL suspended the Sens franchise in 1935. I assumed they just shut down. On the same page in the Globe and Mail of that day with the info on the Eagles shutting down is an article about the Sens' upcoming season. We are not talking about the field of science or anthropology here folks. There are articles on singers and their current CDs on Wikipedia. There are NHL articles out there that have no attributions or references. I have attributed the information in the 'History of' article, and tried to cover the clubs with reasonable and interesting information. What the real objection should be is not that the article exists, but that my style or choice of words is misleading. That is not my intent. My intent, like the early history articles, is to provide all of the information. I think it's wild that the NHL would provide a certificate of reinstatement, then not follow that up! But it doesn't make sense to put that in an article without referring to the previous clubs. So, I urge you folks instead to consider a case for improving the article, not deletion. Alaney2k 14:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I mentioned on one of the talk pages, fully one third of the History section in the Ottawa Senators article is talking directly about the original team. The links, tenuous as they are, are very much front and centre. The issue with this article is that it unnecessarily combines three articles into one, and therefore tries to argue that three different franchises are the same. This is original research as it was created to advance a position. Whatever new information you have added to this article, please feel free to add to the appropriate article for whichever team it is most pertinent to. Incidentally, you only need to say "keep/do not delete" once. Resolute 15:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote is still don't delete If I were to transfer the text from the History of article to the current Sens article, the proportion would be even higher. I do not want people to think I've changed my mind about deletion. Alaney2k 15:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've worked on the article a bit. I have tried to make it more clear about the distinctions, though I do need to work on the first and second paragraphs. (Please try to read it again. I know, I know, it doesn't taste good. :-) ) I think partly some of the issue with the article is due to some of the text being unfinished. I copied it over from the existing articles and expanded it, but I would not say it is ideal. Alaney2k 15:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The 'histories' of the 'three' Ottawa Senators franchises, are already covered by their respective articles. GoodDay 23:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've copied over the text from the 'History of' article to the the original and current era Sens articles. I predict however, that the Reinstatement paragraph won't survive as-is after making the trip. I think feelings are quite dead set against it. However, I have tried to cover both sides of the argument about the certificate, and it does fit in with the info about the banners, etc... Alaney2k 03:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. RS1900 10:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed the links to the article. The redirect from History of the Ottawa Senators is still there and will have to be deleted too. Alaney2k 15:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You realize this is a discussion about deleting the article. Not a discussion about what you are currently changing in the article each step of the way? --Djsasso 16:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Duh. :-) Alaney2k 17:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sorry, was that a '[WP:MOCKERY OF PROCESS]'? Maybe it was. :-) Lighten up, I'm trying to be helpful. Alaney2k 18:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (see T-rex). Also the article of the Original Senators should not include the expansion team, it's long enough. --Hasek is the best 02:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 04:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davide_Stefanini

AfDs for this article:
Davide_Stefanini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no established notability, and the claims of being a leading expert are puffery. This should really have been a candidate for speedy deletion, but someone has deleted that (in the apparent belief that there is some claim to notability).Gregalton 01:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. The original speedy tag was spot-on. Not notable. Realkyhick 02:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of significant coverage of him Corpx 04:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From what I know and have been able to find, he is a leading expert in his field; the work of his agency is notable; but there is a lack of reliable sources to establish his personal notability to justify an article. –SESmith 07:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I wrote 'leading expert' - perhaps this is not sufficiently precise. Someone might be an expert, but 'leading' expert implies (to me) personal notability (i.e. substantially published and cited frequently as an expert in the field in relevant publications), as per SESmith. It was not intended as a comment on personal or professional qualifications, just notability. The text also says 'leading world expert,' which none of the refs appear to support.--Gregalton 14:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Yes, thanks. I think we are on the same page here. –SESmith 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the text of the article was a bit strong, so I am chaning some of the words as I know the subject matter. I think he is an expert within the field, and an expert within the United Nations, so I dont see why this should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burton372 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user has only two edits, all of 5 September 2007. --Edcolins 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete totally non-notable UN bureaucrat. Bigdaddy1981 17:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont delete. Bureaucrats are those who deal with papers, not those like him who manage projects in humanitarian and development action, benefitting thousands of people. If these UN figures are not notable, what is the benchmark or yardstick ? If you are a UN official and notable within the UN, I would say you are notable by this. Otherwise you should also delete the Chilean Ambassador to Paris or the Sudanese ambassador to Kenya... user:myth1727 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myth1727 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user has only eight edits, all of 6 September 2007. It may be a sockpuppet of Burton372. --Edcolins 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bureaucrats can benefit people too. Its quite ludicrous to liken this man to the Chilean Ambassador to France, by the way. Bigdaddy1981 00:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Why is it ludicrous ? The Chilean Ambassador to France may have done nothing more than attend receptions. This guy at least is notable in the country as someone who helped 200,000 people, and this is all referenced and sourced. And as a relatively senior UN official already, and very senior in the country, he is not less notable than a senior Chilean diplomat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edges273 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user has only six edits, all of 7 September 2007. It may be a sockpuppet of Burton372 and Myth1727. --Edcolins 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are many hundreds of senior project managers at the UN - this man is just one of them. The issue isn't whether he is a good person or whether his work helps people - both of those things may be true. The issue is whether he is notable - and I cannot see that he is. Bigdaddy1981 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 03:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of -cons

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

WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics. A pointless list based on the extremely trivial connection that all these events happen to have the letters "con" at the end of their names. Next week, List of company names that end in "com". Masaruemoto 01:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per con...uhm, nom. I connot see anything contrary to your concise conmentary on the topicon. --Agamemnon2 12:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conment If we keep going, this AfD will get convoluted. We shouldn't continue. I couldn't help myself. Pursey Talk | Contribs 22:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have to concur. aaak. --Evb-wiki 22:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A much better way would be to organize lists of conventions (AKA -cons) is based on their types and locations. --Farix (Talk) 14:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Farix (Talk) 14:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Biggest WP:NOT#INFO violation I've seen. --Evb-wiki 18:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:NOT#INFO and above. Giant directory of links. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Comical list, total crap, spam ............ totally useless. RS1900 10:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete but could be useful to the Sci Fi project. Probably better just as a category of conventions, which already exists. Some of the above comments are funny, but not helpful. Bearian 22:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 03:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W.O.M.A.N

W.O.M.A.N (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It is a rumored single. See WP:CRYSTAL Oysterguitarist 01:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 01:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article even states that the single is "rumored". J-stan TalkContribs 01:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, nominate after the end of October if appropriate. Otherwise someone is just going to create a new revision of the same article and the work will be effectively lost. Besides, the subject does already seem notable. Lots of sources out there just waiting to be added. — xDanielx T/C 06:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 03:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zen chapters

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

List related to publication of Shonen Joufu, which has been listed for deletion Fg2 01:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Farix (Talk) 01:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:HOAX. Google only turned up one results for "Shonen Joufu" -wikipedia and that was a copy of an unrelated, uncredited Wikipedia article. "Shonen Joufu" Zen only turns up 6 articles, all of which are Wiki related. So I seriously doubt that this work actually exists. --Farix (Talk) 01:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Shonen Joufu article states that "Shonen Joufu was launched April 1, 2007 as a means of circulating several American manga" and "all of them are written by high school students in the North Penn School District." This is someone's school project. Or after school project. Or something that some North Penn School District kids made up in school one day. And the List of Zen chapters is part and parcel of the whole Shonen Joufu nonsense. OfficeGirl 09:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under A7 as something made up in school one day. And a mass nom for the whole article family might have been a good idea in this case. -- Vary | Talk 15:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that a CSD A7 tag is inappropriate (see non-criteria for speedy deletion). Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 00:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hover boots

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

No more than a dictionary definition of hover boots, and I don't think it will ever be more than this. Even as a definition the article says nothing about them that isn't obvious - they are boots that hover (that don't really exist). I have tried to find sources discussing hover boots in fiction so I could expand the article, but they only seem to be mentioned in video game guides. Basil Richards 23:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no real world information here. I suppose it could be a list, but it would still lack any significance of the topic. -WarthogDemon 01:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, if these will even ever be invented. Yeah, let's worry about inventing them first, then we can write an article for them. J-stan TalkContribs 01:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, let this one hover away. Realkyhick 02:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but maybe we could ask if any helicopter parents wear them. The only significant appearance in sf film I can think of is Star Trek V's opening sequence at El Capitan. I'm sure they've made minor, uh, atmospheric appearances in various stories and novels, but not as a key world-changing technology or anything approaching WP:FICT. Plus, there is no See also to Seven-league boots. --Dhartung | Talk 04:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Wryspy 05:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article can be re-created as soon as my crazy uncle hauls them out of his garage to present to the world –SESmith 07:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crap! RS1900 10:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirectify/Merge-Delete -- I'm made this into a redirect; people are now welcome to use the history to merge what (apparently little) content there is. --Haemo 19:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Culture in Chico

Culture in Chico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I noticed this indiscriminate page of directory information (see WP:NOT#INFO) while de-linking "Chico in Popular Culture" (see that AfD). It doesn't seem to have any content suitable for merging back into Chico, CA, and should therefore be deleted. Cool Hand Luke 00:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Completely unsourced. --Evb-wiki 01:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. rubbish. A favourite of mine is "In 2004, Chico was ranked as the #10 art town in America by author John Villani". Mystache 03:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge some of it back with Chico, California. This article looks like a good faith effort from January this year to split out a section which was taking up a lot of space, see this revision for example. There is no question about covering the cultural life in this town, any town or city article missing information on culture (museums, cocert halls, etc.) has a serious deficiency. Of course the list style, rather than full sentences and encyclopedia-style paragraphs, is decidedly sub-optimal, and needs some re-writing. I think most of the entries are verifiable through Chico's city website [7]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added a few paragraphs to the culture section of the main Chico article, but I am no expert on the field and can in no way do that topic justice. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we shouldn't be listing every church for any town, and the rest is pretty non-notable. Wikipedia is not a business directory (full disclosure: I was born in Chico). Corvus cornix 17:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the main article - not a big town enough to have a separate cultural article.--JForget 23:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Chico. Sounds like a nice place to live, just like McAllen, Texas or Florence, Alabama... but you couldn't pay me to visit there. Mandsford 00:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does have a university noted as being the biggest party school in the country.  :) Corvus cornix 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, if there's nothing else to do.... Mandsford 22:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is not good enough for Wikipedia. RS1900 10:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. Keb25 10:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Additionally, since when are bars cultural institutions? Bigdaddy1981 17:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep hehe, awesome!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 17:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I see no need to salt, though. --Coredesat 05:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters who can manipulate water

List of fictional characters who can manipulate water (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete vague listcruft. Anyone can manipulate water. So can an umbrella. Wryspy 01:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nothing but listcruft. Far too vague and inclusive, impossible to verify. My kidneys can manipulate water, for God's sake... Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 01:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but again, suggest move, as this too is misleading. Even experienced editors are misled by it :) Also, suggest someone strip it of all non-notable characters, and we'll see how it looks from there. J-stan TalkContribs 01:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can write my name in the snow! Delete MarkBul 01:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps interesting if it covered non-fictional characters, but alas, is crap. Delete. Mystache 03:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Despite some of the (amusing) comments above, the list clearly defines it's criterion as "...fictional characters with the paranormal or superhuman ability to create or manipulate water." That seems clear enough to satisfy WP:LIST demand for inclusion parameters. It probably still fails WP:N and WP:V, but I just thought I should clarify this point. --Bfigura (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... apparently it's late enough that my humor sensor isn't working. Apologies :-) --Bfigura (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: If this closes as a "Delete" please Salt the list article, the category, and any varient categories. The list was put in place as a result of a CfD that favored listing instead of the use of a category. If the list is found to be unacceptable, especially since arguments against the list are the same those made against the deleted category, neither format is suitable for this information. - J Greb 00:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Oh look, it's YELLOWBOX MAN who has the ability to tell everyone else what to do...Mandsford 23:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters who can manipulate sound

List of fictional characters who can manipulate sound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete vague listcruft. Anyone can manipulate sound. If there's a loud noise in the next room and I cover my ears, I've kept the sound from reaching my eardrums. If I raise the volume of my voice, I've manipulated its sound. Wryspy 00:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but suggest move, because this could be misleading per example by nom. I believe in literal terms, all fictional characters can manipulate sound in some form. But this list covers examples of fictional characters who manipulate sound on superhuman levels. J-stan TalkContribs 01:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A better way to classify superheroes by their superpowers would be through categories, not through lists whose titles are too vague.--Alasdair 03:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, categories cannot be annotated for straightforward verification, and some characters just have too many powers for that to be practical. Wryspy 05:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very well then, but still, I believe the problem of this list lies in the presentation. So, it should be changed to the best way of presenting the info.--Alasdair 08:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of notability for characters who can manipulate sound Corpx 04:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the comment "Anyone can manipulate sound." only makes clear the title needs improvement. The article needs sources yes, but the concept for inclusion is clearly explained in the article. ---Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fancruft. JIP | Talk 10:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like the above list this too should be a category. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Magioladitis 17:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This list is not good enough for Wikipedia. RS1900 10:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deletionists here are just reacting to the stupid title. "Not good enoguh" and "WP:NOT#INFO" are just generic meaningless deletion reasons that can apply to anything. It's a list of superheros with superhuman abilities just like List of fictional characters who can manipulate time. It has a stupid title, but is otherwise a perfectly valid list. —Pengo 04:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: absurd list. 24.180.148.57 16:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Even taken at face value, contradictory and arbitrary criterias for inclusion in the list makes it useless as an encyclopedia article. Fails WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --Eqdoktor 08:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because excellently organized table about notable topic that is both convenient and helpful for many readers. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: If this closes as a "Delete" please Salt the list article, the category, and any varient categories. The list was put in place as a result of a CfD that favored listing instead of the use of a category. If the list is found to be unacceptable, especially since arguments against the list are the same those made against the deleted category, neither format is suitable for this information. - J Greb 00:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE ME, DAMN IT! Mandsford 23:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 00:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posada San Pedro Hall

Posada San Pedro Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable residence hall. No sources to distinguish how this residence hall is different from thousands of others across the world. WP:NOT. --Hdt83 Chat 00:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not notable and we're not the Wikimapia of dorm halls. -WarthogDemon 01:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are tons of residence halls, I don't see what makes this one notable. Oysterguitarist 01:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No sources are provided other than the university's own web site. --Metropolitan90 01:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of notability from independent sources Corpx 04:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RS1900 10:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Keb25 10:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 00:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ekpyrotek

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

Seems to be only for promotional use. Fails WP:BAND, WP:MUSIC and all its sources are myspace pages. -WarthogDemon 00:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per nom. WP:NN, fails WP:BAND, and provides no WP:RS. Also, contains text that amounts to a spamish essay pushing a point of view. --Evb-wiki 00:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Appears to be some WP:COI issues involved here. --Evb-wiki 21:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NN myspace band.--Sethacus 01:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This articles references are NOT just myspace links. The main ekpyrotek website is www.myspacefears.com and also you can do a google search on 'teli brown' to verify his background. There is also a link to the defcon.com website showing he has spoken at that network security conference. Ekpyrotek is an important new age music artist. There is no reason to delete this article. Please consider to not delete this article.Alanscott81 07:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC) — Alanscott81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Delete for wildly failing WP:MUSIC (and maybe Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement). It's probably a WP:CSD#A7 speedy candidate... — Scientizzle 06:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment that's just wrong if you are really going to delete this article. This article gives hope to those that feel like they are stuck in a hard place in life. Alanscott81 07:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment this is an encyclopedia. Not a place for inspirational material. (Well one can be inspired by something here probably; but an article purely to inspire generally is not accepted.) -WarthogDemon 06:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Correct this is an encyclopedia and these are all real true events that took place in history and a real band. Just because there isnt a 'corporate' lable behind the band does not mean it should not have a place in wikipedia. ekpyrotek has thousands of real fans. please reconsider deletion nomination. Alanscott81 07:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nobody's claiming that Ekpyrotek isn't real, they're claiming that it's not notable. Read the notability guide, WP:MUSIC, to get an idea why. Wikipedia does not exist to give everyone a free homepage or advertising service. If you cannot demonstrate any coverage by reliable secondary sources from which WP:N notability can be properly asserted and verifiability properly established, then this article fails long-standing inclusion criteria. Also, sockpuppetry is bad. If Alanscott81 (talk · contribs) is EYEZONLY (talk · contribs) (and this can be confirmed via checkuser) it's better to admit it now (and have it treated as an honest mistake by a frustrated editor than an attempt at abusive sockpuppetry (voting twice in an AfD). If not, and verified, I will apologize for the implication. — Scientizzle 15:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Please do a check user, you will find out that I am not the same person. Also Check the links section of the article you will find that Ekpyrotek is played daily on the radio for meditation.fm, does that satify your notable standards? This is completly direspectful and distasteful trying to have this deleted out of history. peace —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanscott81 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Band fails WP:MUSIC in every single aspect. The fact that the article host half a dozen overtely large images doesn't help either. Besides what's the statute of limitations for drug traficing? 1redrun Talk 08:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentI don't get it.. This is a real Artist you are wanting to delete. From what point could it be added as an entry on wikipedia? After signed by a bigtime label? What if the artist chooses not to go down that route. The fact is, none of the information in the article is false and is all 100% real. peace and blessings Alanscott81 09:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP You have to wonder why one would want to take this down? Do they not like the person, or are they offended by the thought that this person is trying to expand ones mind without giving them all the answers? I have listened to all the music offered on the said page, and it was amazing. I have talked to the Artist, and learned alot from those talks. Google is your friend. I can give this person credit for expanding my mind in not only the World of Telco, but the world in General! Perhaps the people trying to have this space deleted should take some time out and talk to the Artist as well. This page does not just Inspire one to explore what he doesn't know, it inspires readers to go out and make a space of thier own ... " Only Love is Real " Share The Love ... EYEZONLY 08:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC) — EYEZONLY (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Hmmm. Let's try this Google thing you speak of. Ekpyrotek gets 36 unique google hits, almost all of them MySpace links. There are 53 for "Teli Brown", but most of the hits are some IT guy (apparently that IT guy is this guy; no reliable information about his life as either a telecome employee or musician) and various leather products. AMG has no hits for Ekpyrotek or Teli Brown, either. Discogs even comes up empty. Google doesn't seem to be the friend you speak of... — Scientizzle 19:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to point out that I tagged EYEZONLY as being a puppet of Alanscott81 and Alanscott81 as being a puppet master respectively. This is based on their edits and I'm confident a check user would confirm this. 1redrun Talk 11:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankly, you're giving this artist too much credit. I'm hardly "offended by the thought that this person is trying to expand ones mind without giving them all the answers" and I hold no grudge against anyone I've never met. I do, however, that this article is currently promotional crap for a non-notable individual. Spam is not welcome on Wikipedia. — Scientizzle 15:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't come close to satisfying WP:MUSIC. The article also looks a total mess. At the moment it looks more like an extension to a MySpace page. I'm surprised there isn't a ==My Friends== section at the end. --WebHamster 11:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to point out that even though 1redrun claims to be skilled in all these program languages, and must love the attention that gets from others on here, lacks creative thought process. Even now I can honestly see 1redrun moving to bash another persons space here on the wiki. I would love to see just a few things he has done. I can comment on the works that Teli has done. #1 He has on many occasion helped to point out and fix flaws in major Telecommunication Networks, that You (1redrun) and I use everyday. He has wrote articles in the hopes of having major Telecommunication Companies fix security holes in thier systems. As an Artist has had the strength to stand up to a vicious number of people and release music to the general public, knowing he would face narrow minded people. If you took a look at the sites listed, he has done a great job at trying to reach more then 1 group of people. The Music is creative, and helps inspire other artists to try harder and get thier works heard. And unless you are perfect we are all flawed, and have screwed up from time to time. Teli took that problem, and turned everything around. I know the artist, I respect him, and I back him up no matter where it goes ... EYEZONLY 13:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC) — EYEZONLY (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Thank you but that's just to much praise. I hope everybody else enjoys my user page as much as you did. As you say I'm hopelessly non-notable, however I guess that is why nobody bothered to create an article about me. Being narrow minded stemms from being German I guess. For that too I apologize and promise to have a more creative thinking process in my next incarnation. 1redrun Talk 13:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please be civil. Putdowns like that never saved any article. -WarthogDemon 14:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. But I love that picture with the zebra. -- Vary | Talk 15:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes please be civil, again I would like to point out, this is a real band and real events, if you delete this article, let me ask the real question at hand. At what point is an article considered 'article' worthy on wikipedia? To me that answer is very obscured. I admit it should be cleaned up some. But it should not be deleted, that is just not right. There is nothing false about this article. Just because you guys that know how to edit this discussion doesnt mean ekpyrotek doesnt have real fans and makes real music. This entire discussion itself seems to be more like a witchhunt. Alanscott81 15:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As has been stated over and over, check out the notability guideline, especially WP:MUSIC. — Scientizzle 15:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Please do a check user, you will find out that I am not the same person. Also Check the links section of the article you will find that Ekpyrotek is played daily on the radio for meditation.fm, does that satify your notable standards? This is completly direspectful and distasteful trying to have this deleted out of history. Alanscott81 15:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as Wikipedia would deserve it, but we can't yet delete things from history. If that was the case I'd like all articles about Nazi Germany deleted from WP. As for this article: The AFD (usually) runs for five days prior to deciding about deleting something. It's not deleted yet people are only voicing their opinion based on Wikipedia guidelines. Your opinion has been heard and will be (that's a WikiPromise) considered. 1redrun Talk 15:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With all the skills you have, I can't figure out why you would want to delete this. Don't you know what it is like to create something from nothing? I may have gone the wrong way before, but I spin music, to me creating music is great. This Artist has created his own music, and it would be a shame to see it taken away from here. It would be the same as you writing code for something, and having someone steal it, mass market it, and make millions on it without you getting anything for it. This site is one of the places an artist like this has to reachout, and have his work recorded for the future to see what this time was like. So I would urge you to try and take a differant look at the subject, and try and understand where I am really coming from ... EYEZONLY 18:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC) — EYEZONLY (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment - How difficult is it to read and digest WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC? Then look at the criteria they set out that is needed for inclusion in Wikipedia. Then extrapolate the differences between those articles and the article under discussion. If it meets the criteria then it stays, if it doesn't then it goes. It's not subjective, the guidelines don't respond to "please" or new-age rhetoric. If I can figure it out then I'm pretty sure most people can. Canvassing for sympathy won't elicit anything but lectures like this one. If the article's subject is notable (using the accepted criteria) then prove it; if he isn't then wait until he is and create another article. These are the guidelines we all have to follow, why do you feel this article and its creator should be different?--WebHamster 18:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment WebHanster is right about guidelines, so here the links are to notable credit and bio which are also on the links section of the article. The artist is listed in the artist section at http://www.meditation.fm/ and the bio can be verified here at the defcon website http://www.defcon.org/html/defcon-14/dc-14-speakers.html#Brown Is that all you needed? Now it can stay but needs to be cleaned up? thanks Alanscott81 19:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well I tried. If you are intent on subjecting yourself to Ostrich Syndrome (whereby anyone continually with their head in the sand eventually gets their ass bitten off) then so be it. It's obvious that you either have no intention of reading the guidelines or you are just ignoring them. Sockpuppetry + non-notability + inability to conform = deleted article. A link to meditation fm does not cut it as a significant, reliable, independent source neither does a few lines about someone doing a talk on phishing. Closing admin, any chance of a speedy delete, a salt and then a deep-rooted memory deletion for all concerned? --WebHamster 19:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I stated on your talk page, the meditation.fm connection doesn't help much--play on random internet radio station doesn't go very far. The defcon link has very little information and none about the music. These don't cut the mustard. — Scientizzle 19:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete The article is about a band, and the article fails to simply assert the band's significance; thus, it is qualified for speedy deletion (CSD) per criteria #7 on articles (A7). --slakr(talk) 20:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Look no one is a sock puppet here. Just because someone else agrees with me does not make them a sockpuppet. meditation.fm is not a random internet radio station. It's a great new age radio station with listeners from all over the globe. There is enough proof to validate this article for being here. It only falls short from not being signed to a major lable which is not right to be the reason for deletion. This is ridiculous just absolutely ridiculous. I can't believe even with links, still there is problems. View the meditation.fm website and click on artist. you will see ekpyrotek is listed there. That's credibility. STOP USING YOUR OWN OPINIONS AND LISTEN TO THE GUIDELINES LIKE YOU INSIST ME ON READING. I HAVE LISTED CREDIBILITY PLEASE COMPLY. Alanscott81 20:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that's not going to help your case with the caps shouting. The links you provided, frankly, suck. They have no information. What kind of deal do you think this is? You've seemed to miss the point of every explanation I've fed you. Creating an article on Teli Brown would likely fail just as spectacularly for many of the same reasons. — Scientizzle 20:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"PLEASE COMPLY" .. Are you a Terminator?--Svetovid 23:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP ekpyrotek should remain listed. this guy is modern day hero in the computer and telecom security industry. his significance is that he changed his life around 180 degrees to include doing computer and telecom security work for the f.b.i. and fortune 500 tech companies. does it truly bother you busy bodies that much for this guys entry to exist? don't you a better way to channel your energy instead of in this negative fashion? His music is amazing. R0t0r00t3r 21:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another single-purpose account/sock? Again--and please read this--nobody is saying this guy doesn't exist. We're arguing that, as the musician Ekpyrotek, he in unsuitable for inclusion in this encycopledia for a myriad of reasons deatialed above. — Scientizzle 20:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and deleting much of this page is not a good move. — Scientizzle 21:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • no not a sock puppet. Just because people like ekpyroteks music and sign up to vote their opinion does not make them a sock puppet. and saying that my links "sucks" is merly your opinion as the DO credit the artist as being creditible. What's with your opinions? eh? Those links are creditible links for this artist. Alanscott81 21:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The links suck because they aren't appropriate based on the guidelines you have been repeatedly pointed at. They aren't substantial and seem to be somewhat trivial, at least the meditation.fm is anyway. --WebHamster 21:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why hasn't this been speedy deleted yet? It utterly fails WP:MUSIC, there are no outside reliable sources, and this discussion is devolving into a meat/sockfest. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To be honest, this article was around for about a week, so I thought maybe it would be nicer if I just AFD this, instead of speedying it, having it deleted, and the user left wondering what the heck happened to it. -WarthogDemon 21:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd do it, but that would clearly be inappropriate...Besides, the motivation of the supporters indicates to me that it possibly would have been repeatedly recreated and would have ended up here anyways. — Scientizzle 21:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment That was my second and unspoken reason actually. -WarthogDemon 21:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • stong keep I'm a big fan of Teli Brown's music, and I use his music in healing sessions. I don't understand why this is under consideration for deletion. He is a significant artist in the new-age movement. NOREENoneshallpass 21:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)— NOREENoneshallpass (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete No assertion, much less verification, of notability. One source could be cited to (weakly) claim notability in the field of electronic security, but not as a musician. Notability is not inherited. Potentially an interesting example of a multi-role career, but no independent source has written on the subject from that perspective. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 22:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment: I have more information to add to this article and will clean it up when I get a chance this evening at home. Thanks for all the pointing guys. Alanscott81 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, non-notable, advertising, spam...--Svetovid 23:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. There are 12 ways a band/musician can claim notability for Wikipedia articles, this band doesn't demonstrate with reliable sources (or even assert) any of them:
    • No evidence of mention in non-trivial published works.
    • No charted hit on any national music chart.
    • No gold or higher records in any country.
    • No international concert tours, as reported in reliable sources.
    • Has not released two or more records on a major label.
    • Does not contain a member who was ever a member of a notable band
    • Is not the most prominent example of a notable music style or music scene of a city.
    • Has never won or been nominated for a major music award.
    • Has never won or placed in a major music competition.
    • Has never performed for a work of media (film, TV series, etc.) that is notable.
    • Has never been placed in rotation on any major radio network.
    • Has never been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national TV or radio network.
    Deletion does not preclude re-creating the article in the future if this band ever does become notable. Neil916 (Talk) 00:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete No assertion of notability (A7). No reliable, independent references. Seems to be written entirely for promotional purposes (G11). Would need a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic (G11). Is there really any doubt that this fails notability? Thomjakobsen 01:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • heh you guys are not cool and I say this with a smile so don't get upset taking that as an insult..I do however appreciate the fact that you guys have taken the time to go thru all the rules to prove your points to try to delete this article *for now.. And I say for now because this is not the last you will hear of ekpyrotek. In due time a new article will submerge on here and will be accepted even from those that are not fans. So cheers for now.

peace & blessings /only love is real Alanscott81 01:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It already appears to have submerged. I am so struggling to hold back comments about things that float to the surface! :) --WebHamster 01:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • reply: I was only removing the article, that action is not what I had meant about submerging WebHamster. I understand why some people would like it removed so I removed it. I will only add it or someone else will add it back, after every single one of your guidelines are met and exceeded.. And trust me my friends, that day will come. So let's please remove it now. Thank you all for your time. I'm sure you all had very much important things to do instead of reading this article. I mean this in all sincerely. Alanscott81 02:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]



  • Only Love Is real I quote your Disclaimer:

"Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information." That was written by you, and I guess in this case, you stand by that ... EYEZONLY —Preceding unsigned comment added by EYEZONLY (talk • contribs) 01:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only expertise required is an ability to read and to understand laid down guidlines. Tree-hugging isn't a requirement--WebHamster 01:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


          • EYESONLY this message is for you, I deeply appreaciate your loyalty and understand you supporting the article to stay. After teli read all of these persons responses, he now knows that it is not finished. He has came here to inspire all. And he realises none of these readers/editors feel he has had enough impact on humans to have an article on wikipedia. So he is requesting it be taken down and he will move forward and accomplish what is in store for him. One day this story will be known and it will be extra ordinary. Teli Brown's vote is to *DELETE There will be much more to come. See you in the future. Kind Regards Alanscott81 02:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Alan - When you next see a comet in the sky... don't accept any free drinks from anyone!--WebHamster 02:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • btw this really is my only wikipedia account. Those other people are friends and fans. Just to be clear about that. Alanscott81 02:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_September_4&oldid=155550594"