Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 2

< October 1	October 3 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue flower dance

The subject appears not to meet the notability criteria. The creator herself acknowledges that there are no sources, but removed the prod tag anyway, so here it comes to AfD. FisherQueen (Talk) 21:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just read this. I don't know what the prod tag is. If I removed it it ws an accident. We will work this out I hope. "Wikipedia greatly appreciates additions that help all people"--Stephencimini 11:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, WP:RS, WP:SPAM, and for removing the prod template. STORMTRACKER 94 21:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eh...what? I can't even understand what this article is about. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little investigation and figured it out... it's a sideways promotion for the creator, a painter who did a few paintings related to the subject. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to give references that is when I mentioned the gallery it is not to promote anything but just to give validity to the blue flower dance as it relates to soul braiding. The Wu twins are performance artists and will be in China in November--Stephencimini 12:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I confirmed with your phone call to me today (10/5/07) the exhibits ends on 10/27. The only reason it was mentioned is because it serves as a reference to soul braiding as interpreted by the Wu Twins and their blue flower dance. --Stephencimini 01:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not talk with you on the phone today. I do not plan to talk with you on the phone. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete for WP:N, WP:OR, and WP:MADEUP. Possibly spam and COI too Bfigura ^(talk) 23:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't spam why would you think that?--Stephencimini 12:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Soul Braiding is a serious subject and was not just "made up". Thank you--Stephencimini 03:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GUIDELINES WHICH HELP MY CASE
"However those who edit in good faith, show civility, seek consensus, and work towards the goal of creating a great encyclopedia should find a welcoming environment. Wikipedia greatly appreciates additions that help all people. Yes imagine the people who will benefit by knowing about soul braiding --the Blue Flower Dance enhances its positiveness. Thank you for reconsidering--Stephencimini 03:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--JForget 22:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unleashing Janus

A novel with no indication why either the book or author are notable. Published by vanity publisher PublishAmerica and the article appears to be created by the book's author. I was tempted to WP:CSD#G11 this thing but listing here in case anyone thinks its notable. —dgies^t_c 20:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:SPAM. STORMTRACKER 94 20:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Stormtracker ILovePlankton⁽^L^—^S⁾ 20:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for lack of notability. Also, no secondary sources, so WP:V is kinda shot. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm starting to think that PublishAmerica is telling its clients to try to sneak through a Wikipedia article. Anyway, doesn't meet WP:Notable. And a self-published article about a self-published novel is what we used to call "drinking your own bathwater". Accounting4Taste 00:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Stormtracker94, for the reasons stated. Bearian'sBooties 16:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unleash the delete upon this unimportant spam. Burntsauce 17:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--JForget 22:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Alfonso

A disputed prod. This article is, to put it bluntly, bullshit. UsaSatsui 20:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've tried to trace the references in the article and only come up with this, which indicates he came in third (not the winner, as stated) and was attending William Paterson University in Wayne, New Jersey (not stated in the article). I can't verify any of the other examples. Zero hits on the band/the albums. The comedy festival exists but I doubt he came in second. The film school's page of notable alumni doesn't mention his name, nor does the site. If this gets deleted, I'll make a note to delete his link in the New York film school's article. Accounting4Taste 20:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. STORMTRACKER 94 20:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication his films/videos are notable, and that plus some local awards do not add up to meeting Wikipedia:Notability (people) (Creative professional). —dgies^t_c 20:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per the nomination, just more bullshit on Wikipedia waiting to be... dumped. Burntsauce 22:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should have been speedied, although "awesome at being great" is a claim of notability, I guess ... Corvus cornix 23:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "He is the winner of multiple local New Jersey film awards and Comedy Awards." - A vague but potentially valid claim to notability. —dgies^t_c 05:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I went to his "official site" on MySpace, which contradicts this article in the sense that it doesn't mention his putative attendance or graduation from the New York Film Academy, which I have to assume is bogus. (Or he was somehow attending community college in Paramus at the same time.) The only comedy award I found is noted above and he seems to vary from first to second to third (to be truthful, I may have misread what he claimed) -- but it's for student comedians. The film awards are, yes, "local New Jersey film awards". The William Paterson Film Festival was at his (true) alma mater, therefore student film. The Passaic County Film Festival exists -- at the county level, and I couldn't find any winners' names. The Rutgers International Film Festival doesn't seem to exist under that precise name, although there are Rutgers' associated film festivals under which I couldn't find this individual's name. And the Urban Diversity Film Festival, which has been in existence since March 2007, hasn't bothered to post the names of any winners of its awards on its website, so who knows? This is all essentially student film. Probably amusing and well-done student film, but lending its creator no more notability than the average YouTube entry. I hope this answers any questions you may have had about his potential notability due to "local New Jersey film awards and comedy awards". If we have conflicting reports of something so basic as where he went to school, what can we believe? Accounting4Taste 05:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You honestly think I called this bullshit for nothing? Just looking at this article for 2 minutes, you can tell it's 90% lies.--UsaSatsui 16:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And to fully frost the cake, someone with the same username as this individual's MySpace nick has removed the AfD tag twice in the last half hour. I'm now recommending SALT. Accounting4Taste 05:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Second that. Please SALT. Burntsauce 20:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, sorry about the earlier failure to use the 'speedy deletion' thing properly, I've never done it before. Seems like it brought this egotistical nonsense to your attention, however, so I still consider it successful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.147.98 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 3 October 2007
Delete but not salted, per nom, and as violating WP:AUTO, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:N. Bearian'sBooties 17:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete for failing Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and Wikipedia:Television episodes. Arguments based on approval by the Wikiproject have been considered and rejected.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help Wanted (episode)

According to Talk:List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes, no new articles about episodes of SpongeBob SquarePants should be created until they are improved by Wikipedia:WikiProject SpongeBob SquarePants. This is in clear violation of that post. There seems to be a surge of new users creating articles about this episode becuase they are tired of waiting. I've already reverted one IP who changed a redirect into an article. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the statement at Talk:List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes. ILovePlankton⁽^L^—^S⁾ 20:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with ILovePlankton, this was not approved. STORMTRACKER 94 20:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep it because I think we should have the spongebob episodes back to normal Jibajabba 19:54 10 3 2007 Preceding comment added by User:Jibbajabba while not logged in. See note on User talk:Jibbajabba, at the bottom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read the comment in the first section of Talk:List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 10:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per me. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 10:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of the approval argument, lacks real-world information, per WP:EPISODE, WP:FICT. -- Ned Scott 07:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasdelete -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean woodward

As a writer, he seems to have limited and only local notability. The other claims to notability fail WP:BIO. Freshacconci | Talk 19:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- As an international writer and publisher he is notable for first offering a platform for a number of writers Zoshouse

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —Freshacconci | Talk 19:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be self-published, and the dragonheartpress website doesn't appear to have any content beyond the front page. The alleged quote from Glyn Hughes, who is notable, is a bit suspicious without a source to give it context. The music, digital art sections are non-notable in themselves, and adding them together doesn't help. Thomjakobsen 19:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- incorrect, the site was being rebranded and is now online Zoshouse

- Dragonheart Press is notable for first publishing a number of poets including Alec Rapkin, Poet Laurete of the Peak Zoshouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.235.15.116 (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- awaiting confirmation of quote from Glyn Hughes to post here Zoshouse

- "adding them together doesn't help" - the person is notable for their "New-Rennaisance" ability to fuse major creative avenues Zoshouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.235.15.116 (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Perhaps consider adding his non-notable band Gothick, created by the same person (presumably him?), and full of peacock language like "leading" and "seminal" despite being distributed through an occult bookshop and having no third-party coverage? This is a really shoddy self-promo job. Thomjakobsen. 19:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- peacock is an interesting subjective term as is shoddy Zoshouse

- This has Copyright 2007 Zos House / T3KTON FOUNDATION and SERVICE CONTACT : (address excised)@seanwoodward.com, suggesting that the music is self-released too. Thomjakobsen 19:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:Zoshouse is the creator and editor of both articles. Thomjakobsen 19:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also per above. STORMTRACKER 94 20:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN and self-published. ILovePlankton⁽^L^—^S⁾ 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then create redirect to Shaun Woodward, which is a reasonable search alternative. Jdcooper 22:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Burntsauce 22:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Modernist 23:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 without looking at the article - when the last name is in lowercase, the person is nearly always unnotable Will ^(talk) 23:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn, per nom & several above. Not sure about "Will's Law", especially for the Dutch. Johnbod 17:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Original research is original research whether in its own article or in a larger one, but apart from Wikipediatrix no-one has really seemed to pay much attention to that, and we have no consensus for deletion. Outcome defaults to keep; AfD does not govern merges, anyone may do that if they feel like it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

With apologies to the large number of Harry Potter fans I fear will descend on this page to vote keep based on their fandom rather than policy, this page fails to be an encyclopedia article and is entirely original research created by a group of fans listing the differences major and minor between the book and its movie adaptation without any analysis. This would be okay on a Harry Potter fansite, but has no encyclopedic value and is merely an indescriminate collection of information in violation of WP:NOT. More specifically, this violates point 7 of WP:NOT by essentially placing two plot summaries side-by-side without meaningful analysis (which would really not be possible on such a topic). Indrian 04:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if this gets nominated for deletion, I suggest that the related articles (Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) should as well--TBCTaLk?!? 04:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly second that. The reason I only nominated one is that I did not want to confuse the issue with an extended series of debates without seeing how the first one turned out. Indrian 15:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as fancruft and as per nom. Fans encouraged to use Wikia instead Bwithh 04:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic material. People can deduce this themselves, as Differences between eyes and ears. Somerset219 04:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR, unless someone can find a reputable source that describes these differences. -- Koffieyahoo 04:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into the movie's article. Same for all of the other films.--Ageo020 04:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Cruft, cruft, cruft. A merge might be possible, if such can be done in a non-OR and NPOV way. Morgan Wick 05:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete unless extensive citations are provided. Doczilla 07:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the individual film and/or book articles just like every other book/film conversion Konman72 10:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into movie's article per Ageo020. —Ben FrantzDale 12:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or expand with critical commentary). Needs context of broader article. Authors should work to add (third-party, sourced) critical commentary to explain significance of these differences. Fairsing 15:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep, but no Delete. This belongs in the film's article. If it gets too long it may need its own article. Given the wide audience of the book and film, this information should not be deleted outright. Cdcon 17:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the film's article per above. BryanG^(talk) 17:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pottercruft. Inherently original research, and not important enough for a merge. There's not a movie in existence that doesn't differ from its book counterpart. wikipediatrix 19:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film). Interesting information, but not worth its own article. JIP | Talk 19:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the film's article. We don't need a separate article on this. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 19:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, should not be deleted as it is useful information. --musicpvm 22:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into where relevant. Mukadderat 19:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi (magazine)

Non-notable, suspended magazine. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty notable, much-criticized propaganda effort. [1][2][3][4][5][6] etc. --Dhartung | Talk 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here are some newspaper articles worth tracking down. All are available on Newsbank:

Tony Czuczka. "U.S.-funded magazine in hot water over "metrosexual article". Deutsche Press-Agentur. 21 June 2005.
Daniel Pipes. "Winning the propoganda war". The New York Sun. 27 December 2005.
Tim Harper. "U.S. shelves Arabic 'propaganda' mag". The Toronto Star. 23 December 2005.
Maggie Michael. "U.S. magazine pushes lifestyle to Arabic youth". The Miami Herald. 21 September 2003.
Andrew Buncombe. "Bush launches magazine to teach young Arabs to love America". The Independent (London). 18 July 2003. Zagalejo^^^ 19:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. ILovePlankton⁽^L^—^S⁾ 20:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also per above, but may need a little cleanup. STORMTRACKER 94 21:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tagged. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being suspended has no impact on the notability of the magazine. Suggest early WP:SNOW closure. Burntsauce 22:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by (a bare) consensus. Still needs significant work, but passes notability, has reliable sources, and is not original research. Bearian 00:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Success of fire suppression in northern forests

Prod on 2007-09-27 by User:Akradecki for being an "Essay with limited context and a lot of original research". I agree it is written more like an essay than an article, though I think that is more a reason for a clean up than deletion. There appear to be a lot of reference materials used in writing the article, though not well used. I can understanding the thinking behind the prod, as this requires a lot of work, and there is a question about if the material is worth the work. And that's why I'm putting it up for discussion, because there is that question about it. My feeling is that something could be saved and merged into Fire fighting, and that there may be someone who is willing and able to do that. I am not willing to do the work myself, which is why I am not actually !voting for this to be kept. My listing is neutral. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot of sourced material there.--Bedivere 18:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not an original research. There are 20+ reliable sources. It only needs wikification.Biophys 23:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Content fork of Wildland fire suppression and/or Fire fighting. There is nothing really worth merging. -- Jreferee t/c 06:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Biophys -- Atlant 11:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikify and merge to Wildland fire suppression. References should be redone as in-line citations with a reflest, not the Chicago style citations currently used. Neither article is long enough to cause size concerns. Parsecboy 13:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (on a number of grounds). Pascal.Tesson 03:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett H. Moore

insufficient notability based on links provided and Google search; editor is employee/consultant of subject's company; unclear if one Senator's reference is sufficient CobaltBlueTony 17:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sovereign Deed had fifth most trademark applicants in FY06

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/annual/2006/50329_table29a.html Wiki BHMoore 17:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Perhaps the article should be about Sovereign Deed and not its founder. - CobaltBlueTony 18:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. So by that logic, are you saying that Microsoft would get an article, but Bill Gates wouldn't? Mr. Moore is already listed as the founding CEO of a company listed on Wikipedia (Triple Canopy), I've included unbiased, outside sources that discuss his work with Sovereign Deed, including a story with a quote from a State senator, and I've included documentation that Mr. Moore's company had the fifth most trademark applications in FY06 -- which happened to be four spots higher than Mr. Gates and Microsoft. I really would like to continue editing this page. I appreciate your help. Thanks. Wiki BHMoore 18:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Not necessarily. Bill Gates has much more documentation to his name. Wikipedia requires documentation, difficult for a start-up company. I brought this here for consensus; I've made my position known, so now others need to chime in. (P.S. You may continue editing the article. Just don't remove the AFD notice.) - CobaltBlueTony 18:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Bad example. Bill Gates is absolutely notable in and of his own right (Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, richest person in America, countless secondary source interviews with him and articles written about him, etc.) Notability is not inherited up or down - Henry Ford is notable, but not every chairman of the Ford Motor Company is. SkerHawx 18:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on current web search and article. Could be persuaded if Wiki BHMoore's rewrite asserts notability and supports such through sufficient secondary sources. I would still be concerned, though, about violations of WP:COI given the uncanny similarity between "Barrett H. Moore" and the editor "Wiki BHMoore". SkerHawx 18:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More articles with Barrett H. Moore: http://www.ethicaledge.com/IraqSummit.pdf; 2004 Iraq Reconstruction Summit.

http://www.globalsecurity.bz/conferences/past_events/hgss/2004/index.asp; 2004 Homeland and Global Security Summit .

This is the first time I've tried to create a page for Wikipedia, and I didn't realize there was a major significance in the editor name you chose. I randomly selected that name so other people working at the company would have access to this and could edit it. Wiki BHMoore 18:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Reading is fundamental!" :-) - CobaltBlueTony 18:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign Deed about to launch protective services http://petoskeynews.com/articles/2007/07/06/news/news01.txt

National Relief Center Coming to Pellston http://www.tv7-4.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=45389

Sovereign Deed's mission: Training, educating, provisioning and communicating http://www.petoskeynews.com/articles/2007/09/05/news/news02.txt

Wiki BHMoore 18:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20070219427.html Wiki BHMoore 18:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete This now qualifies for speedy deletion. The article is one sentence with non-source sources and the author has blanked the page. B1atv 19:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G7, A1, and A7. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, without deciding the issue of whether the article is to be merged and redirected. John254 00:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Carthy

Keep but definitely review for NPOV. The sources seem verifiable and numerous, and if the Barr Tribunal (a related article that should be AfD if this is) is to be believed, anything that you spend 18M Euros investigating is probably worth at least a stub. People have been working on this article since July 06; this is the first question of its notability? Deltopia 17:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim per Deltopia. I don't think it needs to go that in-depth and definitely needs to be edited for NPOV. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Barr Tribunal. We certainly don't need two articles and the government inquiry is more notable than the death itself. (But get that 19th century novelist photo out of there.) -- Dhartung | Talk 19:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Barr Tribunal as per Dhartung. Mountpottinger 22:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the subject does appear to be historically notable and the article is well referenced I see no valid reason presented for deletion. Personal motives of the author do not affect my interpretation of WP:N and similar guidelines. Burntsauce 22:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it has 21 references. it should be getting an award not an AfD nom. MarsRover 01:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Article nominated by sockpuppet of banned editor. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Dhartung. Carthy has no notability apart from his death and the resulting inquiry. Clarityfiend 01:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Subject was the focus of intense non-trivial national media attention, as shown by the references in the article, and has thus surpassed the threshold of Notability - non-trivial coverage in several independent reliabel sources - many times over. Skomorokh ^incite 15:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - The affair definitely should be in WP but a John Carthy article isn the right place for it. He isn't actually notable himself, but his death and the circumstances that led up to his death were. This is/should be covered in the Barr Tribunal article, not in an article about Carthy himself. ---- WebHamster 02:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Barr Tribunal, which was a specific investigation of this case. One article is enough. We'd normally prefer the impersonal heading, since the person has no notability otherwise. In any case, the amount of detail in here is disproportionate --kept or merged, it needs a sharp edit.DGG (talk) 09:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed as keep enough significant coverage of the concept to make this not a neologism. No comment on renaming of the article as that is not a debate for AFD. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tetris effect

Delete. Neologism. Endless Dan 16:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NEO: "New terms don't belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources about the term." There are reliable sources about the term. The paper "Stickgold, R., Malia, A., Maguire, D., Roddenberry, D., & O'Connor, M. (2000)", the Scientific American article, and the Wired article to name a few. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arichnad. The sources presented are sufficient to sustain an article on the concept. JavaTenor 16:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sounds like WP:NFT but appears legit. —dgies^t_c 16:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a perfect example of the kind of neologism that should be kept; it's well sourced, with enough material to write an interesting article around. Thomjakobsen 16:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hate to be a downer here, but I don't see evidence of this Neologism's use or acceptance in language. Needs reliable sourcing, the 4 given sources are inadequate. The first "reference" is an abstract (I'm not willing to buy the full article), but it's called "tetris dreams" and doesn't refer to anything as "the tetris effect" in the abstract, leading me to believe that it won't later on in the story. The second reference (Wired, 2005) never uses the phrase "Tetris Effect" either. The external links: Scientific American article doesn't say "Tetris Effect" anywhere. The only one of these 4 supposed sources that uses the phrase "Tetris Effect" is the Wired 1994 external link, hardly current and definitely not establishing WP:N. The phrase only appears once and in no way is doing so as establishing that "Tetris effect" is something even coined. The only GHit I got making heavy mention of "tetris effect" was this one, but I'm not sure of the sources reliability. Keeper | 76 19:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be justification for a move to whatever the SciAm article called it. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'SciAm calls it's article Tetris Dreams, but I would argue that they are not attempting to create a new idea. The are merely citing a very small Harvard study (17 subjects) that used Tetris as a medium for analyzing dream v. wake states and how "what we do" can have an effect on "what we dream" I would vote delete for Tetris Dreams as well. Keeper | 76 20:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Total neologism that probably wouldn't even survive being on Wiktionary, but regardless has no place here. Burntsauce 22:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Keeper76. Neologism, no valid references. Corvus cornix 23:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but possibly rename. This one's a problem. It's a real phenomenon, widely reported, and even used as a research tool (see here and here). As such it's deserving of an article. BUT - it hasn't yet gained a consistent scientific name, so any title we give it is going to constitute a neologism. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be sufficiently sourced, and with a quick search I found a few other references that appear to use the same term for the same purpose. Cogswobbletalk 13:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- After you make sure that these other references aren't parroting a neologism currently being popularized by Wikipedia, could you add them to the article? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The SciAm article is from 2000, the Wired article from 1994, and the Rainier et al. study in "Brain Research" from 1992, so the sources in the article establish it's hardly a neologism. --Victor falk 22:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree it's not a neologism. It hasn't even made that status yet, because the references don't even say, or rarely say, "tetris effect" in them. Keeper | 76 14:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There may be a place for an article on the confusion of actual and virtual reality, perhaps under Hypnagogic imagery , where this could be included as an instance, but there are insufficient references to support this term or this article. 09:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Rename or merge. The title is an unacceptable neologism (not used anywhere except in the Wired article), but the research itself seems legitimate enough. Perhaps it could be renamed into something like Uses of Tetris in neuroscience, :-) or merged as a short section of the Tetris article or in some relevant article on a scientific topic (I have no idea which one, though). --Itub 09:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever rename people decide on, this probably still has value as a redirect. —dgies^t_c 05:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate location. Legitimate, well-sourced term, but it has to be very important to get an article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not well-sourced at all, since the sources don't mention this term. Corvus cornix 21:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources prove it to be genuine and notable.--Bedivere 18:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources do no such thing, since this term is not even mentioned. Corvus cornix 21:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What term do the sources mention for this phenomenon? Might as well rename to Nameless learning phenomena associated with Tetris. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#A7: web content with no assertion of notability. —dgies^t_c 16:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WKids

A Google search finds nothing to support the claim that this is a real tv show. The external link provided goes to a picture with a child's drawing. It is of low wiki quality. It's time to delete it. Clerks. 16:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 17:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan Feast

Non-notable flash game. Contested prod. Makes an unsourced claim to importance because the game's subject is cannibalism, so strictly speaking is not WP:CSD#A7. —dgies^t_c 15:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another flash game like any other. Unless there is additional notariety that is not included in the article, this one should be nuked. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with BlindEagle, this is not notable at all. STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 18:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "claim to importance because the game's subject is cannibalism"?!?--Bedivere 18:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was csd a7 -- Y not? 04:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Studley Darts League

Local darts league in England, recreated twice after speedy deletions (at Studley Darts League, Warickshire, England) by author, who has failed to provide requested reasons for notability. There are hundreds if not thousands of darts leagues in the UK, and there appears to be no reason why this one is any different. The single "claim to fame" is that a current high level player started his career in the league, but every player had to begin somewhere. 16 Ghits is all the league manages. пﮟмьεя 5 7 15:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't believe that this league is notable enough to warrant an article.--Danaman5 15:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Claims darts is important, and one member is important, but no claim that the league is important. —dgies^t_c 16:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Falis WP:N, not notable enough. STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 18:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non notable dart league. Supposedly, one player in the league is now ranked (by whom? Well, it doesn't mention that), but he doesn't play in the league anymore. If you played backyard football with Brett Favre, does that make your flag football league notable? --Cyrus Andiron 18:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cyrus Andiron. Definitely non-notable. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Falling Frog

Non-notable YouTube video. Not every YT video needs a Wikipedia page. Deproded by author eaolson 15:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again. I nominated this as a speedy a few days ago, and it still has no third-party assertion of notability. Acroterion _(talk) 15:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just one of quite a large number of Youtube videos that some people have watched.--Danaman5 15:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tons of YouTube videos have "many viewers". Non-notable subject and article appears to have been created for self-promotion. —dgies^t_c 16:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. This just seems to be one of many ordinary You Tube videos. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 17:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:WEB. STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 17:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N; no third-party assertion of notability. Accounting4Taste 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Youtube video. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Obviously, this video is probably the greatest video ever made. How is it less notable than Numa Numa? Arogi Ho 22:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Claiming your own video is "the greatest video ever made"? Can you explain why anyone else should care about it? —dgies^t_c 17:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Come on guys this shouln't even discussed. an article for a youtube video??? Delete asap. -- Magioladitis 23:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pax_Athenica

This is a PublishAmerica-published novel, which is to say that by most standards it's self-published. I get 36 Google hits for the phrase "Pax Athenica"; of those, a number seem to be online book-sellers, more are Wikipedia mirrors, a couple are the blogs of the author and a friend of his, and one's the PublishAmerica site. With no offense to the author (who created the article, assuming that "Geoffreyg1978" = Geoffrey Greer), this seems straightforwardly nonnotable. Iralith 15:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This book appears to fail all five criteria for notability listed at WP:BN#Criteria. Cogswobble talk 15:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a bit of advertising puff to me Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 15:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of importance. Reads a bit like an ad and there's no real content besides a plot summary. —dgies^t_c 16:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PLOT and WP:SPAM. Very detailed plot summary should not be in WP; and just seems to be an advert anyway. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely fails WP:N, also may fail WP:SPAM. STORMTRACKER 94 20:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jreferee t/c 06:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Color Outside The Lines

Massivly disputed prod. Issue is about sources, and WP:CRYSTAL. Procedural nom, no opinion UsaSatsui 15:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is simply no valid source for this title: see my comments on Talk:Color Outside The Lines. There is plenty of verifiable information about the album, but that does not include the title. It could be moved to Ashlee Simpson's third album, but people will continue adding the rumors and renaming the page until a title confirmation is released, and constantly policing that is just senseless. There was a previous AfD nom on another supposed title for this album: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outside of the Love. Everyking 15:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ashlee_simpson#Third_album. That way the rumors can be properly addressed and policed in one place. Rob T Firefly 15:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If and when a title for the third album is announced, an article should be created. Cogswobble talk 15:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Cogswobble - how can a future album be notable? Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 15:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Rob T Firefly's comment. -- Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. Burntsauce 22:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me point out to everyone voting "merge and redirect" that there is nothing to merge—the verifiable content is already in Ashlee Simpson, and the unverifiable content doesn't belong anywhere. Everyking 02:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - eo 15:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is an unconfirmed title and the article should be created again when more information is announced. Surfer-boy94 talk 15:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ashlee Simpson's until we actually have the confirmed title, otherwise we are using this title per crystal-ball--JForget 22:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sam Blacketer 15:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hakomi

There doesn't seem to be any sources on Hakomi independent of the Hakomi-ists themselves, making it impossible to write a balanced article on the topic. Alivemajor 21:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That problem should be reason for tagging the article with a maintenance tag, hardly proposing it be deleted. __meco 08:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An article without any assertion of notability is ripe for a WP:Speedy delete under criterion A7. Instead of doing that, however, I pushed the google button and tried to find some WP:Verifiable sources. I found about 1600 pages on Hakomi itself, and I poked through a lot of them, looking for a mainstream, non-biased institution that had done research on the subject (hoping like hell for a Time or Newsweek article, and finding nothing). Finally, I found this link - [7] - a study program for "a diploma in integrative psychology (hakomi)" at the Eastern Institute of Technology in New Zealand. It doesn't look like a shady diploma mill, but we have no wiki article on the college, and it could have been founded by the Hakomi-ists, for all I know. Lacking any first-hand information on Hakomi or New Zealand itself, this was the best I could do -- hopefully someone else will be able to springboard from this. As of now, though, I say delete for WP:V. Deltopia 16:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable therapy technique. I have also nominated Ron Kurtz for deletion. Corvus cornix 23:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for possible soap-boxing, plus the lack of reliable sources, as shown by Deltopia Bfigura ^(talk) 23:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Changing !vote. See below --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the lack of third-party sources.--K.C. Tang 02:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 06:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Sources are available, but need to be integrated into article. Sources include many citations on google scholar. Search for "Hakomi" at Newsbank.com and about 60 results are returned. Here is a detailed google book reference, and there are many more. Worldcat includes sources. I will try to add as many sources as I can, but I am not an expert on this subject, can someone please help? Fosnez 03:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears there are indeed plenty of sources for this. • Lawrence Cohen 15:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article can be improved with regular editing including the sources as referenced above. Benjiboi 17:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References now include a number of newspaper articles. The diploma Deltopia mentioned above is accredited by NZQA, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority - nothing shady about it. See NZQA summary and What the organization is accredited to deliver ('Diploma in Integrative Psychology' is a bit over halfway down the page). I don't know how to clearly reference this on the article page - can someone help with that? --Zeborah 18:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Changing !vote based on the references added. I'd be happier if some of the sources were more independent, since right now it seems a bit POV. However, notability is probably there given the academic publications. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, without prejudice to a new article being created with sources or content being recovered for merging (ask me). ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 19:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petroleum dependence

While I think is great that we have so many articles about energy development and sustainability, this one is redundant with Petroleum, Nuclear power, and Fossil fuel. As it is now, it's simply a referenced essay by a user. By all means, a good article on this could exist, but I would prefer to do our readers a favor by moving the information to the main articles and eliminating the information spam on these subjects. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry, this was my first AfD, I'll get it right next time. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: While this could be a good topic for an article, this one really is an essay on indirect consequences. If this were rewritten to be an examination of direct, proven direct effects of society's dependence on petroleum, I could see keeping it. Otherwise it probably makes sense to redirect to Non-renewable energy or North American energy independence and possibly merge a bit of the content there. —dgies^t_c 16:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Petroleum independence is a important affair. I suggest delete the pronuclear radiactive spam. --HybridBoy 21:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM, writes like an ad or essay. STORMTRACKER 94 21:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maintain. It includes references and sources and gives a global point of view that want be avoided by nuclear supporters. --Nopetro 17:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete - My main problem with this article is it's taking the basic info that (if it doesn't already exist in the relevant articles) could be merged into there - and then take away some of the conclusions being made here that IMO go one step further than an article about the subject should. As is, it's a bit essay-like. Barneyboo (Talk) 08:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is indeed an essay or advocacy piece not an encyclopedia article. As such it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. I strongly doubt that we've found the right place for a redirect; the title may be better suited for a disambiguation page than a redirect. On the other hand, iff there are sources about this topic from a global perspective, it may be possible to write an article. But there is no evidence here or in the article that such sources exist. And this content will not be helpful for an encyclopedia article on the topic should such sources exist. GRBerry 16:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obvious POV fork. -- Jreferee t/c 17:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep - POV fork, but seems well-sourced. I can't delete this article, so can another admin to the dirty deed? Bearian 17:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard King (Texas)

Non-notable page stub: farm owners are not notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The King Ranch is not a farm, it's the largest ranch in the United States, larger then the state of Rhode Island and a major subject in Texas history. Amazon carries at least 20 books on the King Ranch. The King Ranch was a dominant breeder of race horses for many years, including a triple crown winner, Assault. Total historical revenue of the King Ranch is well over one billion dollars; lots of that is oil revenue, but many millions are also from horse race winnings, the ranch won over a million dollars in the 2 years 1954/1955. The King Ranch is a signicant tourist attraction. Deleting this article would be like deleting the article on Peter Carl Fabergé because he was "just a jeweler". Studerby 04:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect King Ranch already contains a section on Richard King which appears to have more information that the nominated stub. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep based on recent edits Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The King Ranch appears to be sufficient. Cogswobble talk 15:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect since there seems to be more information at King Ranch about Richard King, than on the Richard King article itself. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For heaven's sake he's such an icon somebody wrote a juvenile novel about his life. [8] Many, many sources about him available, excess information in King Ranch should be merged back here. --Dhartung | Talk 19:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to above If the nominated article can be beefed up (ha, no pun intended!) to acceptable standards (WP:BIO), I'll gladly withdraw my redirect. As far as my own searches could unveil, he's mostly famous for founding one of the biggest ranches. Not being rude, but it sounds like King Ranch is more well-known than Richard King (WP:NOTINHERITED) Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Much of the material about him in the King Ranch article is not about the ranch; it belongs here. His accomplishments include more than just setting up a humungous ranch and are notable enough IMO. Clarityfiend 06:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article expanded. Studerby 10:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rewrite of article clearly establishes notability; significant figure in Texas history. Kuru ^talk 12:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a king in Texas. Ritametermaid 23:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP is a great place for self-education on new subjects, but it should come prior to nominating them for deletion. DGG (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Kiu

one of thousands, who learned under Yip Man. Not important

Should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.230.86 (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs many things to be a notable article. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced. One of many students. There doesn't seem to be anything to distinguish this one.--Sethacus 16:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sethacus. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 20:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 20:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No important informations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.231.50 (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuddle

No claim of notability or sources offered in article. First several pages of non-wiki ghits don't use the word in this sense. Contested prod. Contesting editor has added a reference to a Derbyshire dictionary -- this word may be more appropriate in a list of Derbyshire terms. Fabrictramp 15:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sounds like a localism to me, and not at all what my North American (NJ) English dialect expects: [9]. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tagged this as patent nonsense. It was denied. I still think it's patent nonsense. --UsaSatsui 15:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It really doesn't meet the definition of patent nonsense. --Fabrictramp 15:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I think it does. That doesn't mean I'm right. :) --UsaSatsui 17:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not a cromulent word. Rob T Firefly 15:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if this term is real, it doesn't deserve an article. No assertion of notability. Cogswobble talk 15:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently not related to Fuddle duddle, so no need for a merge or redirect. Possibly more appropriate to Wiktionary. Accounting4Taste 17:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wiktionary would send it right back with a post-it attached: "You think this belongs in a dictionary?" =) NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has no place in an encyclopedia, just like Tetris effect. Burntsauce 22:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of other 'localisms' in Wikipedia, like Chav, Ned and even "Yo". There is also an article on thanks giving which is a localism to north america and not relevant in the rest of the world, how is this any different??. User:Bmoyni 09:30, 3 October 2007 (BST)
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Rob T Firefly 10:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main argument for deletion here is that its a 'localism', I am mearly pointing out that this is not an argument for deletion. User:Bmoyni 15:47, 3 October 2007 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.129.210.61 (talk)

Thanksgiving is a major American holiday. If "Fuddle" was a major English holiday, then I would have said "keep". Cogswobble talk 13:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it can only get into Wikipedia if it is "major"? I thought the idea of an Encyclopedia was that it gives people information on items that are not widely known!! User:Bmoyni 15:44, 3 October 2007 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.129.210.61 (talk)

Bmoyni compared "Fuddle" to "Thanksgiving". I simply pointed out that this comparison isn't even remotely accurate. If "Fuddle" was a major English holiday, I would have said "keep". If "Fuddle" was an Oscar winning movie, I would have said "keep". In other words, if there appeared to be a valid argument for keeping it, I would have said "keep". Cogswobble talk 15:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is it's a localism that does not assert it's notability. If it were a localism which spread into wide-use, it would no longer be a localism, but a neologism or some other -logism, which would still need to be notable. If you can find reliable and verifiable sources that fuddle is used in the manner presented, then I'll strike my delete. Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the reference. User:Bmoyni 16:16, 3 October 2007 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.129.210.61 (talk)

I have, and what I saw was a list of non-notable local slang. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the definition of slang is that its non-notable, otherwise it wouldn't be slang! The reference proves that it is used in the context that the page suggests. User:Bmoyni 16:21, 3 October 2007 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.129.210.61 (talk)

Many slang words have taken on notability. warez d'oh are two that strike me. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. User:Bmoyni 11:53, 5 October 2007 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.129.210.61 (talk)

I'm unsure of your rebuttal. You're raising the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS flag without context. Does that mean you argue for the existence of this article because other stuff exists, or that your rebuttal is focused on my two examples above? The two examples I cited are well-sourced outside of WP, but so far, a single source has been brought forth for this nominated article. For what it's worth, undue weight appears to address the fact that an extremely limited source of information has been brought to verify the nominated article. Yngvarr (t) (c) 17:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the argument wasn't "Other stuff exists, so this should exist too". It was "This is not necessarily non-notable because has this quality, because other things with this quality are notable". There's a difference. --UsaSatsui 20:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jreferee t/c 06:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real Madrid C.F. Matches 2007-08

Contested PROD. Per WP:NOT (quite an indiscriminate collection of information, Wikipedia is not a football statistics repository) and the additional fact that this article is partially a duplicate of Real Madrid C.F. 2007-08 season. Angelo 14:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Angelo 15:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicates info already on wikipedia in Real Madrid C.F. 2007-08 season. King of the North East (T/C) 15:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Propose replacing article with a redirect to Real Madrid C.F. 2007-08 season. - PeeJay 15:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does not duplicate the information, it expands upon it. This is a perfectly acceptable fork. --UsaSatsui 15:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The additional information is merely a list of past and future matches, including friendly match reports which were previously considered non-notable by the Football WikiProject. In any case, all this amount of information is way excessive detail (WP:NOT) and does not add any significance to the parent article, so there's no need at all to keep it. --Angelo 15:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything about it on said Wikiproject's notability page. --UsaSatsui 20:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That page does not cover the issue. You can find something about importance of non-competitive matches in the WikiProject talkpage archives. Here is one. --Angelo 20:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...I don't see any consensus on notability there either. So far haven't seen a single valid reason for deletion, except for it's maybe an indiscrminate colection of info. --UsaSatsui 16:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - even the season article is overkill in my opinion, but precedent has seen these AfD many times, so redirect is the next best option. This could probably have been done without recourse to AfD. - fchd 15:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason why the info couldn't be incorporated into Real Madrid C.F. 2007-08 season. пﮟмьεя 5 7 15:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This page Real Madrid C.F. Matches 2007-08 includes all info about matches like goalscorers ,actins (yel,red card), time of each events as we do in {{footballbox}}. All of this info are linked with Real Madrid C.F. 2007-08 season by (Report) sectin. So, look to each pages, you will find that info in Real Madrid C.F. Matches 2007-08 complete with matches' report. thanks Saudi9999 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Saudi9999 is the article's original creator and main editor ChrisTheDude 06:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically delete. Not really needed as a redirect. The amount of info expanded upon isn't even that much - goal scorers & times - but even so, that in itself is overkill. A sports wiki would be a much better place for such an article, not Wikipedia. I'm fine with the season article, but a list of matches is a bit too much, really. An article for the individual competitions w/ results listed isn't too much trouble, surely... AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. There's so much information in the article to the point that it's not relevant. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 20:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Real Madrid C.F. 2007-08 season is more than enough, and to be honest, I think these season articles have been the thin end of the wedge such that more and more recentist articles are being created about every possible aspect of a season. Soon it will get down to the level of people arguing for articles for each and every league match. Let's concentrate on quality articles, not just making wikipedia an almanac of what's happening this season. Robotforaday 11:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete It's stupid to have n articles related with one unsignifiant season --Hadrianos1990

11:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete per WP:NOT. -- Magioladitis 23:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unneccessary duplication. Woodym555 14:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Robotforaday. Oldelpaso 21:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect Wikipedia is not a schedule guide and score-stats board--JForget 23:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Darko Dimitrov. This deletion does not affect User:Darkodimitrov. User pages need to be sent to MfD for deletion. Jreferee t/c 06:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darko Dimitrov

This person is not notable per WP:MUSIC. The main assertions of notability are unreferenced. The only reference is to a peripheral point, viz. that one of his songs competed in the Eurovision contest. The user who created this page clearly has a conflict of interest based on his username; I consider his userpage for deletion alongside the article. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The song noted has made it to a national chart which is one of the criteria for notability in WP:MUSIC. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with comment I think the link in the article is misleading. It appears the song took 12th place in the Eurovision contest, in which case he's not notable per WP:MUSIC, unless I'm missing something. In fact, the article Elena Risteska confirms this.--Sethacus 16:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on main article but keep user page, which seems within the bounds of what is allowable.--Bedivere 18:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments towards passing WP:FICTION, and redundancy. CitiCat^♫ 02:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in Stargate

Half-formed pointless page already long subsumed by an entire category of Stargate character (and race/culture, etc.) list articles. See {{StargateLists}}. Easily misleads editors into thinking that this is "the" WP article on this topic, when it is in fact not even a proper overview of the topic. And it is not even on a single topic, but mixes characters and character races/cultures as the same type of entry. Also named incorrectly (should be "List of...") The content in it should be merged as needed into the entries at the related lists of SG cultures, SG characters, etc. May also be wise to make it a redir to a disambiguation page at a more likely-to-be-sought name, probably List of Stargate characters with additional redirects to that from List of Stargate SG-1 characters, etc., so that readers looking for such lists but who have yet to run into the navbox template mentioned above can more easily find them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep The article as it sits is problematic. Foremost is a misleading title, where I am presented not with characters, but with a racial overview with points to some of the characters of those races. Characters != races. This is a useful clearing house and there does not seem to be a single article which presents this information clearly. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Turn into disambiguation page. This article duplicates information that is already better covered in Aliens in Stargate, Human civilizations in Stargate SG-1 and Human civilizations in Stargate Atlantis (plus a few more), so the information should be deleted as unnecessary. The title of the article however is so wiki-mainstream that it should be kept as a dab page portal. I'm thinking of something along the lines of the current Harry Potter (disambiguation) page. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and possibly rename. This page centralizes the information disperse on other pages, making it easier to navigate and understand. Perhaps it should be renamed and reworked a bit, but NOT deleted. --Andromeda 19:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: It does not "centralize" anything at all; it very, very poorly attempts to be a substitute for far richer articles. I agree with Sgeureka (and myself; I initially proposed this after all) that it can be replaced with a disambiguation page that directs people to the list articles that have already been developed. The entire page could easily fit in one screenful. The information at the page right now is 100% redundant with real articles on the relevant topics, and misleading to readers because it does not serve properly as a DAB page that directs them to the real articles (most readers would be lucky to notice that such articles even exist, as they have to read a small-font nav box to find them at all; converting this page to a DAB would solve that problem.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & fantasy deletions.--Gavin Collins 08:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This in universe article provides no real world context, analysis, critisism or secondary sources to demonstrate notability for this character summary. --Gavin Collins 09:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lack of reliable source material independent of Stargate keeps this topic from meeting the general notability guidelines. Since the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines, the article cannot comply with Wikipedia's article standards, including WP:A. -- Jreferee t/c 17:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 19:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, list of NN characters, from a sci fi show. People really need to start putting these massive pop culture databases on wikia. Also if we get rid of this there are a ton of other pages that should go List of Stargate lists. 19:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Tilde error by User:Ridernyc 20:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject adequately covered by Human civilizations in Stargate Atlantis and Alien races in the Stargate universe.--Addhoc 19:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of science fiction & fantasy deletions --Gavin Collins 21:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Addhoc. SolidPlaid 02:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Addhoc. It's a duplication of efforts elsewhere. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Jreferee t/c 06:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum consciousness and ion channels

Article reads like a research paper, possibly copied from somewhere. Delete. (Contested proposed deletion.) - Mike Rosoft 11:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced. If someone sources it, then it needs a rewrite. ILovePlankton⁽^L^—^s⁾ 12:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of our policy, Wikipedia:No original research. Knowing something about quantum theory and ion channels, I can tell you that there is no well-established connection between the two. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one's claiming that there is a well established connection. The article is at some pains to distinguish between conventional/experimentally based neuroscience and a hypothesis re: coherence in the ion channels that Bernroider et al felt justified in making on the back of these. Persephone19 16:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. Article is sourced now, but appears to be an original synthesis from primary sources. eaolson 15:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's guidance on original synthesis is fairly clear. Source A and Source B should not be stuck together to produce C which is an original synthesis. This has not happened in this case. The main sources are Bernroider and Sisir. The next layer of sources refer to the ion channel studies and also various works on quantum computing. They are all in Bernroider/Sisir's reference list and it is they who have synthesised these works into a hypothesis about quantum coherence in the ion channels. Other references merely back up conventional material as with Dennett and Crick and three standard text books, while Tegmark is there in the interests of neutrality. You can look at the Bernroider material to see that it isn't copied, their stuffs much more complex.

Its more difficult to know what to do about the claim that it reads like a research article. I'd be quite happy to redraft in another style but I'm not sure what to aim for. Clearly the fairly difficult nature of the material, the need for referencing and the requirement to keep reminding people of what the opposing views are create a lot of constraints on style. Persephone19 16:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Pete.Hurd 17:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above, OR. • Lawrence Cohen 17:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The staggering bad faith shown by those claiming that this is original research is astounding. The article desperately needs to be wikified and copy edited, but the claims that this is original research or unsourced are completely and totally ignorant. Read the article (for some, this may be the first time); Look at the numbers (sometimes they're ranges of numbers) that appear in parentheses in the article; a single number is a single reference, multiple numbers separated by a hyphen are pointing to many different references. Look at the References section at the bottom of the article, where you'll find the references, conveniently numbered, that correspond to the references cited in the article. For the benefit of those who are of the rather large school of thought that believes that anything you haven't head of is "pseudoscience", take a gander at a Google News Archive search on "quantum consciousness" which finds a few dozen sources from newspapers nationwide. There are far many more articles, for the layperson and in scholarly publications, and dozens of books published on the subject. Alansohn 20:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~merge (changed opinion see below) The article rests on the claim made in the first sentence, (reads in part "recent proposals from a number of scientists(26-31)" which are supported by references 26 to 31 (listed below), all "papers" by Gustav Bernroider. None of these papers have ever been cited in the ISI World of Science, none of the titles generate a single hit in the ISI World of Science title search, similarly a WoS search of "Quantum consciousness" AND "ion channel" in the topics generates zero hits. The journals "Forma" and "Neuroquantology" are webjournals not indexed by the ISI (but have Gustav Bernroider on the editorial board. I note that the journal Forma (references 27 & 31) is not peer reviewed per se, but papers are judged by members of the editorial board, "many of whom are engaged in research fields far from the topics of the submitted papers"(!?)), and I'm reluctant to treat them as primary peer-reviewed literature without knowing more about the journals (I note that many of the statements in reference 27 are italiziced for emphasis and end with exclamation points e.g. "Ion permeation is a quantum-chemical process! the same difference as predicted by the present dimensional analysis between the quantum scale and the action order behind spiking!", "the same difference as predicted by the present dimensional analysis between the quantum scale and the action order behind spiking!" which is highly unusual for scholarly publications.

References 26 & 28 are conference proceedings. Correct pages for 26 is Vol. 5841:205-214, the term "quantum conscience" appears nowhere in the full text of reference 26, or in the full text of 27. Reference 29 is not 2:pp.163-8, as the article claims, it is 1:163-8 (and the work "experience" is spelled correctly in the journal). My university does not have access to this journal (a bit unusual) so I know nothing about it's contents, but note that google scholar says it's been cited a mere three times (once by Bernroider). The most prestigious looking journal reference to buttress the introductory sentence is "Dimensional analysis of neurophysical processes" Physical Review E,61:4194 (only cited once, by Benroider himself, according to Google Scholar), but the reference must be wrong, since another article is at that location (hint: see reference #37) and a search of Physical Review E for either the title given, or the name "Bernroider" generates no hits.

26) Bernroider,G.& Roy,S.(2005) - Quantum entanglement of K+ ions, multiple channel states and the role of noise in the brain - SPIE (International Society for Optical Engineering) Vol. 5841

27) Bernroider,G.& Roy,S.(2004) - Quantum-classical correspondence in the brain: scaling, action distances and predictability behind neural signals - Forma,19,pp.55-68

28) Bernroider,G.& Summhammer,J.(2007) - The role of quantum cooperativity in neural signaling - Quantum Mind 2007: Conference abstracts

29) Bernroider,G.(2003)- Quantum neurodynamics and the relationship to conscious expereince - Neuroquantology,2:pp.163-8

30) Bernroider,G.(2000) - Dimensional analysis of neurophysical processes - Physical Review E,61,pp.4194

31) Bernroider,G.et al (1996) - Neural phase time coding from the view of the electrodynamic pertubation problem - Forma,11, pp.141-159 references

In summary, I can find no evidence that this a notable theory, rather this seems clearly a WP:FRINGE theory using wikipedia as a soapbox. Pete.Hurd 22:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Pete.Hurd. At best this seems to be the viewpoint of a tiny minority, and as such it is not notable enough for wikipedia. Tengfred 11:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pete.Hurd. Exceptionally committed comment! Eusebeus 13:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reply mainly to Peter Hurd on a few points. The other scientists referred to at the begining of the article are Bernroider's collaborators, Sisir Roy and Johann Summhammer, who are in the references and also Menas Kafatos.

You are right about the Physical Review reference. It was listed next to Tegmark's Physical Review reference in Bernroider's reference list and I got it down incorrectly. I will alter this in a moment.

As a general comment on your analysis of the references, I think we should take account of 'Wikipedia Verifiability -guidance on sources. As one would expect peer-reviewed journals top the list but they are not the only sources suggested. Books from university presses, university level text books and academic publications other than those that are peer reviewed are also 'highly valued'. With respect to this Bernroider is at the Neurodynamics & Neurosignalling Unit, University of Salzburg and Sirir Roy at the Indian Statistical Institute.

'Using a Wikipedia as a soapbox' is a reference to neutrality. Any reading of the article will demonstrate that it clearly emphasises (with references) that Bernroider's is not a mainstream view and along with the reference to Tegmark it highlights decoherence at a particular problem to quantum consciousness theories,and indicated the abscence of any experimental evidence that Bernroider's proposals surmount the decoherence objection 82.36.240.102 16:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the above should be signed. Persephone19 16:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Tengfred, I would point out that Wikipedia has for some time had a Quantum Mind article, as well as articles on related theories notably Orch OR, quantum brain dynamics and the ideas of David Bohm. Ion channels is put forward as an addition to these long established articles. I don't think its controversial to say that Bernroider's model is sufficiently different from the others, and those from one another to justify separate articles. As it stands Bernroider's material contains much less blue sky speculation than those quoted above. Persephone19 16:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm convinced, it is a fringe theory that probably passes WP:FRINGE. But the article is stuffed with twinkie references (it's still not clear to me how many of refs 26-31 actually support the first sentence, many are clearly parenthetical to the point) and looks to me to have COI / balance issues on top of the lack of wikilinking etc. Some of the references support the material, while other seem to be essentially WP:SYN. Other references merely document trivial statements (e.g. references 5, 6, & 7) and seem intended to puff up the number of references -which impresses some AfD !voters- and ought to be simply replaced by wikilinking to articles such as ion channel and action potential. I support merging Quantum brain dynamics and Quantum consciousness and ion channels into Quantum mind as long as the material in this article is trimmed of excess and off-point references. I think that'll make Quantum mind into a better article as well, all three articles are short, and will make more sense if presented together for comparison and contrast purposes. (changing my !vote above) Pete.Hurd 20:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree that expansion of Quantum Mind, may be the best answer. It's a daunting prospect. Forgetting Bernrroider, there are atleat four main approach, QBD, Stapp, Orch OR and Bohm's implicate order. Separately, it may be necessary to say something about the whole decoherence argument and something about quantum computing. Also the Quantum Mind discussion page does not suggest a great deal of consensus. However, I did say on their page that I might try to add something. Persephone19 15:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as WP:SYNTH, but not as WP:OR, so should not be salted, and terribly in need of an expert's attention. The cite list needs to be [[WP:V|verified as well. Bearian'sBooties 17:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've been over this synthesis discussion higher up on the page. The article is about one set of ideas. It is the authors of those ideas who have called on the support of other peer reviewed experimentation. The article is not very long. If you think you have an example where the editor has synthesised two third parties give the relevant examples and the article will be altered. Persephone19 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A hoax or non-notable pseudoscience. This article cites some good scientific papers about ion channels, but they have nothing to do with "Quantum consciousness". BTW, this article does not really explain what "Quantum consciousness" is.Biophys 00:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to the University of Salzburg site to see that this is based on genuine material. I've just added the link for that. As for other some other quantum consciousness theories the widely touted pseudoscience label is incorrect. It is perfectly feasible to falsify the whole thing by demonstrating the abscence or at least non-detectability of quantum coherence in the brain. The normal definition of pseudoscience is that it is incapable of being falsified, i.e. 'the Face on Mars was put there by aliens.' But, yes, a para. defining quantum consciousness might be useful. Persephone19 05:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Quantum consciousness sounds like the thoughs proposed by Roger Penrose in his book The Emperor's New Mind. If that is what the article is about, then it's certainly not OR Rune X2 15:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Perhaps there is such thing as "Quantum consciousness" (aricle does not explain what it is), but it has nothing to do with ion channels.Biophys 18:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jreferee t/c 06:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaci Starr

~~Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 11:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)~~ Doesn't pass Wikipedia:Notability (people). Epbr123 21:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:PORNBIO ILovePlankton⁽^L^—^S⁾ 12:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as mentioned above already, this doesn't meet criteria of WP:PORNBIO. Iamchrisryan 13:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Magioladitis 00:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong technical keep. WP:PORNBIO was merged into Wikipedia:Notability (people) so the question is does she meet that criteria. Vegaswikian 21:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see that she's sufficiently notable.--Bedivere 18:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP due to the merger, all porn AFD should be re-listed to establish consensus under the correct policy. Granted, consensus wasn't established prior to the merger, but let's pretend it matters. Horrorshowj 07:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Consensus agrees that the blackbeltcombat.tripod.com site posts copies of sufficient reliable source material for the topic to meet the General notability guideline. -- Jreferee t/c 17:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced commando combat system

Advert. Almost a speedy but not blatant enough. Done minor cleaning but would need sourcing of notability claims to be worth keeping. Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs secondary, verifiable sources. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and source-able [10]. JJL 13:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and source-able. Dear Friends The ACCS is a well respected system of military martial arts popular with Indian Army. It appears that there is a group of individuals who are biased towards it and keep recommending it for deletion. The website www.commandocombat.com or http://blackbeltcombat.tripod.com stands testimony to the fact that : (A) This art has received official appreciation of the Indian Army chief ( Ref- Scan Letter http://blackbeltcombat.tripod.com/id59.html ) (B) This art has been received by many special forces like Garud, Para, Delta, Counter Terror forces, National Security Guard (Ref- Scan Letter http://blackbeltcombat.tripod.com/id56.html ) (C) ACCS has received many acknowledgements, Trophies & awards from Special Forces (Ref- Scan Letter http://blackbeltcombat.tripod.com/id132.html) (D) The founders have been endorsed by State Intelligence department (Ref- Scan Letter http://blackbeltcombat.tripod.com/id60.html ) ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE OFFICIAL SCANNED DOCUMENTS FROM INDIAN FORCE HQS and not personal advertisements as may be alleged. So the proposition that this page sounds like an advertisement needs to be corrected. Most organizations promoting Krav Maga donot have letters from top brass of government forces other than from sergeants and Police. ACCS has scanned letters from Chiefs of Army Staff in 2001, 2003 and also a letter endorsing it from the present Indian Army Chief Gen Deepak Kapoor while he was Army commander of most significant command (Ref- http://blackbeltcombat.tripod.com/id114.html ) Wikipedia must refrain from highlighting seargents who harp about their "new" systems derived from known systems like BJJ and Wikipedians must open their mind to newer systems gaining ground with second largest army in the world. -- Regds Col Sharma (retd) Indian Special Forces —Preceding Teacherpreacher 04:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC). (talk • contribs) 13:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC) — Teacherpreacher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee t/c 17:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Comment http://blackbeltcombat.tripod.com is a site promoting the UCCA which offer courses in ACCS and implies that it is the only organisation allowed to do so, it is there for a primary source. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 15:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, but http://blackbeltcombat.tripod.com/id53.html indicates that there are many secondary sources--in The Indian Express (18 June 200?), the Sunday Express (3 July 2005), etc. JJL 17:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on that, some of those are about the UCCA teaching other things than ACCS (JKD for example). If kept needs some work on the tone as it is promotional currently. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have now signed the above article, penned by me, sorry I was not aware Regds Col Sharma Teacherpreacher 04:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - notable and source-able The following link highlights the achievements and sources of various citations received in their endeavor. http://jkdmumbai.tripod.com/id38.html [11] These articles are in National Newspapers, National & International TV like BBC, NBC, Canadian TV, etc. & also various magazines. Righead 5:18 PM, Thursday, October 04, 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC) — Righead (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee t/c 17:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Note This comment is the above users only contribution. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What has that got to do with the subject discussion? - Righead —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 06:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin keep--Bedivere 18:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VID (TV Company)

This was speedied by Tregoweth (talk · contribs) a few days ago but although the article is in pretty bad shape I think it's salvageable. The "Logo" section reads like OR but it does seem to talk about a genuine part of Russian pop-culture. Pascal.Tesson 11:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Pascal.Tesson ILovePlankton⁽^L^—^S⁾ 12:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not to say the article as it exists should not be cleaned up, of course, but VID is a notable company that should have an article about it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not sure if it still exists, but back in the early 1990s it was very notable. Colchicum 22:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although article was stripped down to a single statement, the remnant still fell short of verifiability. --Aarktica 14:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII

The page has existed since 18 November 2005, in that time not one reference has been cited despite the use of template:Fact some of which have been on the article for more than six months. If in the future new information from a reliable source is found, then the article can be recreated citing the new sources. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page Talk:Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII and specifically these sections: Rename? (May 2006 ) This article is actually a disaster (Jul- Aug 2007) explain why others two think it should be deleted.

Note also there is already a much better article called Attacks on North America during World War II which covers similar ground to this article but is a better name for what actually happened. As one contributor to the talk page says "The topic is fascinating along the lines of a "what-if". Undoubtedly, there were small teams inside Japan, Germany and (perhaps) Italy brain-storming further plans had things gone extremely well for them, most of which were likely impractical & would never have been actually presented for consideration, let alone implemented". If someone comes up with one of more reliable sources to cover these contingency plans then the article can always be recreated relying on those sources. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know this has been written about and there are sources, and if I can tomorrow I'll go look for some. The framing of the article is problematic, as there is a world of difference between "plan" and "intent" and "capability". The saying goes that the Pentagon has a plan for invading Canada somewhere in a desk drawer, and of course there were dozens of plans for invading Iraq over the years using different means. Germany's military certainly had "plans" for attacking and/or invading the US and there were "plans" for creating Roman-style colonies across Eastern Europe (the areas needing "Germanization") and there were "plans" for divvying up South America into occupation zones (Ian Fleming, I think, obtained a map). But intent was never quite there and capability in logistical terms not even close. On the other hand some of Germany's technology, such as the V-2, obviously had eventual uses in mind, and there was the Amerika Bomber project (mainly on paper). Finally, we have the angle the article doesn't even touch on, which is exaggerated American fears of a Nazi invasion. For now-quotidian reasons (production capacity, etc.) it was never a serious consideration; after a certain date sometime between June 1940 and December 1941 the tipping point was already reached and Germany could only have won in the long run if they'd settled for some sort of temporary European hegemony and bided their time. So the fears were never justified. (Some would argue they were just as unjustified during the Cold War; see Red Dawn et al.) But the fears were real and continue to be part of the lore and mythos of the war, that we had to "stop" Hitler before that happened. Anyway, I'm more confident than you that there's available citable material and that there's notability (i.e. not just wargeek wankery). I'd like to see this article reflect that. And yes, this is separate from the actual attacks article, which is "real" history as opposed to "what-if". There's a relationship but not so close that this belongs in that article. --Dhartung | Talk 11:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if sourced. I gave a superficial try online without much success., but it needs a more thorough searchDGG (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If cited sources had been provided this would be an obvious keep, but non have been provided in 2 years of the articles existence despite {{fact}} requests. To give example of the problems with this article: At the moment paragraphs like this "(Fall Felix) and Operation Sealion, planned the occupation of Ireland and Operation Ikarus, would have provided some support bases for installing the Wehrmacht and Kriegsmarine infantry seaborne or Luftwaffe Airborne forces for the invasion." fall foul of WP:NOR, first there are no sources for the facts "Operation Ikarus" and the assertion that they would have been bases for an invasion of the USA. As I said above if it is deleted and someone comes along with new references that can be used for an article with citations then it can be recreated. But as it stands at the moment if the uncited material was deleted it would be a blank article. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep', but a complete overall. I mean there's no sources for this? I've seen like two different History Channel docs on it. This is a total disaster of a page, but it shouldn't be deleted entirely Doc Strange 16:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there is not one paragraph that carries a citation. There is nothing to keep. As I said above if in the future someone writes an article that is properly sourced on this subject then it can always be recreated, but currently it does not meet the criteria of a notable article -- if it did there would be third party sources available to include as citations. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep... providing that it is sourced correctly. -- Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I take that to mean that if there are no verifiable cited reliable sources before the end of the AfD process, then you would be in favour of deleting it? If not how long should an article go without cited sources before it is deleted? --Philip Baird Shearer 18:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep concerns a major historical topic during our planet's most terrible war that even the History Channel had a program on. See this forum for some additional discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forums are not reliable sources --Philip Baird Shearer 18:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Books have also been written on the topic: TARGET: AMERICA Hitler's Plan to Attack the United States] and the forum just reaffirmed my memory of the History Channel having a show on the topic. One thing I will say is that the article should be renamed to not have the WWII abbreviation, i.e. Axis plans to invade the United States of America during World War II would be more formal. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When an editor has such a book and wants to write the article then good luck to them, but if by the end of this AfD process no cited references have been provided this article should be deleted because a blank page is not desirable. Or are you suggesting that we should keep text in Wikipedia that has no references because in the words of Jimbo Wales quoted on WP:V:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

--Philip Baird Shearer 18:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I did "hear it somewhere", but I also wrote a Pol.Sci. primary course paper on the frequent assertion that Japan was not a "clear and present danger" to the U.S. in the run-up to Pearl Harbor. (Uh, my position was neutral to skeptical. Many of my sources differed.) I am not against pruning the article, but a good portion of it can be sourced, as I wrote above. --Dhartung | Talk 19:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup, per above. Notable topic. — RJH (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 10:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sink to the bottom of the ocean, like any axis invasion without help from UFOs would have been, as anybody with the slightest inkling of military logistics understands (which one would presume includes the Axis general staffs). Attacks on North America during World War II are one thing (and the the nominated article is nothing but a sub-par duplicate of it), invasions another. Weapons like the Amerika Bomber or the Maiale midget submarines are not an invasion plan in themselves. Or did the US invade Japan in 1942 through the Doolittle raid? Those visions of fallschirmsjägers paradropping in Vermont or kamikazes smuggled through the Mexican railroad network via Clipperton are nothing but unhinged hallucinations.--Victor falk 12:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above if someone comes up with a reliable source and can create an entry something like this "From December 1941 until June 1943 when the German high command shelved it, Major Maier and his staff worked on a contingency plan to invade the US via Siberia and Alaska" (J. Smith (1995) "Nazi contingency planning and all that", academic press, ISBN ...), then there would be a case for keeping it. But at the moment there is nothing like that in the article so it can be deleted until such time as that sort of information becomes available. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Somewhere in my political science notes from decades ago is where the professor discussing the Nazis dealt with what would have followed a victory over Britain and Russia. He said that no immediate invasion of the U.S. was likely or necessary. Instead, the Axis would economically dominate the U.S. in trade with the rest of the unconquered world,during a cold war of some duration, while exploiting the colonies of the conquered European powers in Africa, Central America and the Carribbean towards eventual preparation of bases in the Americas for attacking or dominating the U.S. Perhaps the Reich had a file drawer full of plans for which railroad bridges the German paratroopers would seize to allow troops to cross the Mississippi from Mexican bases, or where the amphibious landings would be from their eventual bases in the British Carribean possessions. The U.S certainly had 20th century plans for attacking Mexico and Canada, and for defending against combinations of Mexican-Canadian-Japanese-German-British forces. The one book and the History Channel seem to appeal to the popular imagination with improbable long-range high-tech direct assault from Europe, rather than a cross-Atlantic convoy like the one which went East from the U.S to invade North Africa in 1942. In other words, Axis invasion prospects for invading the Americas and ultimately the U.S. were a concern of WW2 U.S. leaders. General Leslie Groves was reportedly recruited to the Manhattan Project with the promise that even if the Japanese and Germans conquered the rest of the world including Canada and Mexico, that the U.S. could still win if he succeeded in building atomic bombs. So keep this, prune it of unsourced speculation, reference it to at least the book , and find more historical documents. There had to at least be Axis propaganda books and films showing their ultimate conquest of the U.S. for public consumption. Edison 16:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we prune out all the unsourced information as it stands at the moment we will end up with one factual sentence about WWII: "Although Hitler declared war on the United States of America on 11 December 1941". Better to delete it and when an editor comes along with a reliable source the article can be re-created --Philip Baird Shearer 16:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be flippant, but the article's title (and topic) is "...in WWII", not "...in a contra-factual post-WWII scenario". I could vote "weak keep" to that myself too.--Victor falk 16:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup or Delete The article seems to have only minor sourcing, so I'd suggest a major cleanup, removing unsourced information. If that leaves the article without sufficient relevant information, or if the cleanup is not performed in a timely manner, I'd suggest deletion Charon X/talk 17:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to concepts for attacks as precise plans for a full scale invasion (as the cancelled Operation Sealion) is the wrong word, dreams might fit better in that regard. The whole matter is notable as such, so we should keep as overview article that should link to the weapons or persons involved, then cleanup by moving details into these articles, in order to be discussed and referenced there, or dismissed as hoax. I'm not sure about merging such an overview into Attacks on North America during World War II as we want to keep done deeds apart from failed attempts, abandoned preparations and pure proposals. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 18:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. — Matthead ^discuß! O 18:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merge some content to... the article about actual attacks as a blurb on plans for more. I stand by what I said before, the article is a disaster:

Japanese plans should be cut entirely, I can probably find sources to back me up that they had planned on a quick strike at Pearl Harbor concurrent with a land grab betting on America to sue for peace right away. They were so sure we wouldn't fight that they went a bit beyond their initial plan. IF Midway had turned out differently, they MIGHT have targeted Hawaii.

Then there's the assertion that Japan would have attacked America around the end of WWI to help Germany. Japan and Germany weren't to chummy at the time, Japan having relieved Germany of all territory in the Pacific, for example Truk.

Italian plans section has 1 ref to Nazi Uboat attacks on the East Coast, but none about Italian plans discussed in the rest of the section. Anynobody 23:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Has a few sources, and the topic is notable. Unless it is shown to be full of hoax info or some terrible bias, just tag it with 'refs needed' and similar templates.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is just too much unverified material in this article. Once that has been deleted, its non-viable. --Gavin Collins 08:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is now 2 days since this AfD was made. Several editors have said that they can/will add citations, but so far the only one we have for a fact is that Hitler declared war on the USA. We also have one from a book entitled "What If? The World's Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been". There are two others. One for a First World War plan and the second (from a non reliable source) covers attacks by a U-Boats (not an invasion) on New York harbour. This subject is already covered in Attacks on North America during World War II#U-Boat operations. If this is a notable subject there should be several books and scholarly articles (reliable sources) and Wikipedia editor who know enough about the subject to put in some more reliable sources. At the moment if all of the unsourced material is removed there is not enough left for this to be even a stub of an article: see User:Philip Baird Shearer/Sand box. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - heavily edit down the article to the referenced parts even if this leaves the article as a stub. Perhaps some edittors from [[WP:MILHIST] can keep an eye on the article to prevent a rebloom of unreferenced additions. -- Whpq 16:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is less than a stub because the introduction assertion is not referenced, nor is the introduction a summary of the rest of the article, so what do you suggest we do in this case? --Philip Baird Shearer 19:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless there this a major rework, with getting all the speculations out, and adding reliable sources. But I really doubt that there will be much left afterwards, so just delete it. Cheers, MikeZ 13:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with reservation -- certain articles, such as this one, are interesting SPECULATIONS and should be labeled as such to facilitate discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.55.219 (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per Piotrus above. It is not unlikely that there were plans -- & to say otherwise would fall into the logical trap of attempting to prove a negative. However, there has been lots of speculation over exactly what these plans were, far more than whatever evidence of them exists; this is a subject that has fascinated Americans since the 1940s. Deletion would seem, in effect, to send the message that this topic is not notable; perhaps stubbifying the article -- or reducing it to a paragraph (I could furnish a couple examples of "Axis plans for the invasion ofthe US in Popular Culture") -- would be a better choice. -- llywrch 17:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to date not one reliable source about any Axis invasion plans of the USA has been included in the article. I have now removed all the paragraphs and sections that did not have citations. I have not yet removed the lead but it does not have a source to support it. As I said above if there were contingency plans for the invasion of the US (and most major armed forces have contingency plans for every eventuality) then when someone comes up with a reliable source that documents them we can recreate this article. But at the moment there are NO RELIABLE SOURCES at all in this article to justify keeping it. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but allow for recreation. Even if no sources of the actual plans exist, even if no plans to invade were ever made, the newspapers at the time and various media to the present day have commented on the idea of the planned invasions. Citations can be found for the speculation. SolidPlaid 02:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PROVEIT, part of Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Among other things it says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." what you are suggesting is against Wikipedia policy. In the 7 days that this AfD, has been open -- and as you can see above it has been very widely advertised -- not one reliable source that could be used to write a summary introduction for an article stub has been presented. Wikipedia policies are quite clear that if no sources can be found there should not be a Wikipedia article about it. Of course if someone comes up with verifiable reliable sources then article can always be recreated. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. SolidPlaid 22:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:V is non-negotiable. If there are sources, and someone has the initiative to get them, they can recreate the article. As it stands right now, the article is less than a stub. The section about Germany is one line, and only states that Germany declared war on the US on 11 Dec. We don't need another article to tell us this. The section on Japan deals with pre-WWI plans, not WWII, and a vague statement that Hawaii could be used to stage attacks on the west coast of the US. Parsecboy 11:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (I was requested to state my opinion here). Today, 9 Oct 2007, I see no text contents whatsoever on the subject. I remember reading somewhere about the note on the offer to Mexico, but it's from WW1. Info seems to have been merged into Attacks on North America during World War II, and this is IMO a good decision. Maybe (if applicable) this can become a stub section in Attacks on North America during World War II, and the "References" could be moved from here to there? I've read a lot on the Axis - particularly Nazi Germany. I can't remember ever having stumbled upon anything significant regarding an invasion of US. From what I gather this was way, way, way down on the Nazi agenda (an interesting note - not a debunk though - is that Hitler in "Mein Kampf" implies that he does not seek war with UK or US - he considers the British to be dangerously stubborn fighters - and goes on with painting a picture of US as an ideal state, ranting on how wise they were to "take care" of the "Native American Question"). Nope - no firm German invasion plan comes to my mind - only a stub in another article :) . Last, but not least, the weak contribution over the years seems to say something about this issue, right? "Find it, then show it." My regards, --Dna-Dennis 11:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The topic is, without question, notable. Undoubtedly, there are sources which could document plans for the invasion of the continental United States (and Canada?) during WWII. However, the existing article consists of the date on which Germany declared war (Covered already in multiple articles), and a mention of the Zimmermann Telegram, which is already covered in depth in its own article. There is no remaining material for this article, so it should be deleted. As noted, I would have no objection to a properly sourced article on this topic - but the existing text is unsalvageable. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Zimmerman Telegram was WWI - which is my point, it has no bearing on WWII in this context. Its existance does not prove or disprove the existance of similar plans during WWII - it just fudges up the issue, and should be removed. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A redirect is not necessary to preserve attribution history, as this article contained only an image and a table of population figures sorted by state name, and has never had anything else. There was no copyrightable content to be infringed here, and if there were, it would have been the property of the (unnamed) source both articles were created from. —Cryptic 04:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of states and territories of India (population, area, languages)

Redundant. The article name implies that it contains consolidated info about populace, area and languages, however, the article has info only about the population. This info is well-documented in List of states and territories of India by population. aJCfreak yAk 09:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to the article listed above. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 10:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Both the articles were created by Dorfen, who made his/her last edit in 2004. utcursch | talk 10:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Keb25 10:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - I agree with above, the article is redundant. Iamchrisryan 13:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete: To the extent any content in the AfD'd article can be merged into the one it is redudant to , do so, fix any links to it to go to the good one, then delete (without post-merge redir, since the name is so poorly formed no one would ever possibly look for it). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely redundant, almost like a duplicate. This article is not needed. STORMTRACKER 94 20:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and important notice about GFDL. As both these articles have existed since 19 March 2004, when two identical articles were created: [12][13] it is not unlikely that information has been copied from one to the other and vice versa. As the GFDL requires author history to be preserved, we always merge articles when there is a significant overlap. See also Help:Merging and moving pages about why and how articles are merged. Therefore, the articles have to merged, which in this case simply means redirecting this one to the more extensive and up-to-date version, as no real information has to be merged at this point. For the record, this issue (author history) is also the reason why delete and redirect and merge and delete options are (in the vast majority of the cases) inappropriate. Also, merging of obviously redundant articles can often be done without bringing it to AfD or any other discussion forum. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like something WP:SPLICE can do. -- Jreferee t/c 06:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Artw 20:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary duplication.--Bedivere 19:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant page. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 14:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of states and territories of India by population Gizza^Discuss ^© 03:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Compare the population per state numbers in List of states and territories of India (population, area, languages) (undated) with ditto in List of states and territories of India by population (as at March 2001), then redirect. Anthony Appleyard 08:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not going to touch this one. Can an experienced sysop help here? Bearian 00:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scriptnetics

This seems to be a very good hoax, similar to the article Fibernetics, also nominated for deletion today and presumably from the same author related to Rebecca Phillips. Probably the editors of both articles have the same ip-adress. The editor here also made only this article. This article has been even more work the fibernetics article but again: Not one of the references or names in this article can be connected with this term Scriptnetics, here presented. Google gives no links of this term in connection with the people mentioned in this article. Google search for Scriptnetics and cybernetics give only references to the wikipedia article or one of the many existing clones. This fraud has been noticed by an expert in the field User:Nick Green, and further investigated by me - Mdd 09:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hogwash. There is a legitimate company Scriptnetics in the Tablet PC/handwriting input field which would likely pass WP:CORP but this article has nothing to do with them. --Dhartung | Talk 11:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX, and per WP:NONSENSE point #2. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as if it is not a hoax, then it appears to be a content fork from Process control. --Gavin Collins 08:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an indecipherable jumble of jargon with unrelated links thrown in to help make it look legitimate. A WP:SNOW candidate? -- Hi Ev 20:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cherem (genocide)

This article consists of a few poorly constructed and misconstrued sentences of a poorly-disguised WP:POVFORK by a user who seems intent on creating controversial POV magnets (see related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jericho massacre). If this topic has any validity as a term it can be legitimately included as a sub-topic in the fully sourced Cherem article. Otherwise, this is starting to look like a deliberate violation of WP:DISRUPT and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. IZAK 09:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons. IZAK 09:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 09:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 10:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:POVFORK given the Cherem article. Best, --Shirahadasha 14:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I would be in favor of a snowball early close. Jon513 20:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This should not be deleted based on the user's motives here, this sounds like a legitimate subject. Can it be widened with sources and citations to make it look more professional? Hell Yes!! But in no way does this article contradict any policy. I definitely am for a strong keep since i see that this discussion was opened with clear intent to turn into evidence against a certain user that he is disruptive for opening this, it should not. this is a well known subject and requires its own article since mush can be written in it--יודל 22:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely a POV fork with intent to disrupt. There's not enough information to merit a separate article anyway, not without citations. Even if citations could be found, this could be added in a much more neutral tone to the existing article at Cherem. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. --יודל 23:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]
STRONG KEEP: Give me time and I will write this article for Wiki. I researched it for my honours thesis. The word harem in English comes from the Arabic haram meaning "forbidden". Essentially, the herem of ancient Israel was an extreme form of spiritual quarantine. Non-Yahweh worshippers were spiritually dangerous to Israel. Let me add, the Christian view of the future involves the return of Jesus and the destruction of all who do not worship him. Biblical Christianity, like Biblical Judaism are very serious beliefs. But in neither Judaism, nor Christianity are people called to take matters into their own hands, quite the opposite, even if someone does wrong to you, the Bible teaches restraint, and condemns revenge. Jesus even says "love your enemy". Jews were encouraged by the Old Testament to be hospitable to outsiders, the herem is a very specific and restricted feature of the Old Testament. In fact, God even threatens to make Israel herself herem if she rejects him.

I have literally hundreds of references on this topic from the bibliography of my thesis. I should add, the topic will be distasteful to many, is vulnerable to vandalism, and if I write it I will be accused of bias regularly, and it will not be true. I would actually appreciate a non-expert watching the page and participating in any discussion regarding such things.

It is a fascinating topic, and actually explains why "salvation" is so important in Judaism and Christianity. The blame for the genocide of herem falls fairly and squarely on the God of the Bible. And that God is perfectly happy to defend his actions. There is a lot of text in the Bible of God doing precisely that.

~~Personally, I think Wiki will run into problems if it censors articles because it cannot develop a system for handling heated but inappropriate criticism of "hot topics"~~. Alastair Haines 02:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Stupid me, I only just woke up and didn't read everything first. There is an article on Cherem already and it is passable. The genocide aspect of herem is real, important and reflects no discredit on anyone. Joshua applies it to one of the Israelite community at Jericho. Many American states have death penalties. While I support deletion of this namespace as a POV fork. I also support writing up an accurate (hence distasteful) report of the war-herem in the Bible, within the Cherem article. If such material is excluded from the Cherem article it is censorship. POV forking is discouraged to facilitate co-operation and dialogue, not so that an unstated view can be suppressed. I will personally help anyone who wishes to research and write up the war-herem, within the Cherem article. Alastair Haines 02:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork from known POV-pushing editor Avi 03:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yossiea ^(talk) 04:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MPerel 04:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missed call

Seems to fail WP:NOT, is essentially social commentary and no references are given for the major assertions presented. Orderinchaos 09:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a junk article, not notable. Jmlk 1 7 09:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know guys, this thing is very prevalent in our culture. See [14]. I don't know for other cultures though. --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could possibly be mentioned in an article on Telecommunications in India? Twenty Years 15:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Philippines is not India.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. I don't see why we should not keep this. .. Elmao 10:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are bazillions of articles on cell phone etiquette out there to source this. I think the money-saving angle is only one part of it. --Dhartung | Talk 11:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...which could easily be covered in the article entitled Telecommunications in India. Twenty Years 15:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, i added enough links to merit inclusion. it is not just a social commentary, it is a business, revenue and profit headache too. the apex body of indian telecom operators, coai has even instituted studies for tracking revenue loss. pls revisit the article to see the new links. Ankur Jain 12:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: hate to add this, but i believe there is a distinct anglo-american bias to article editing. just because you guys don't know about the widespread use of this thing, probably never having visited india or africa etc., that does not mean it does not exist. there is world beyond your countries.Ankur Jain 12:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I'd say you shouldn't have gone there. While systemic bias exists, that doesn't mean that anyone who criticizes an article you like is doing so because of systemic bias. The article in question is an unsourced, misnamed, poorly-written stub of no present reliable use to any of our readers. Fix that, and then see if people still want to delete it before accusing them of bias, please. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If its so big, why dont i see any mention of it here? Twenty Years 15:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not Akashic records. Developing countries don't have a strong presence in the net so fewer contributors can represent them, just because you can't find much of it on-line doesn't mean that it isn't notable. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, cleanup and source, or delete: Aside from lack of refs (which I believe can be found; I've seen enough evidence that this is a real phenomenon), the problem is mainly that the article is about a specific phenomenon, not about missed calls in general. Every time I fail to answer my phone (cell or otherwise) then that is a "missed call" but it is not what is being described here as a missed call. I do not consider myself knowledgeable enough on the topic to suggest a better name for it off the top of my head. Adding links to other WP articles does not do anything to "merit inclusion". If it does not have at least one reliable source by the time this AfD closes, it should be deleted, per WP:V, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with American bias. If the phenomenon is notable, someone will create a reliably sourced article on it later. It also needs copyediting, as it reads like it was written in an e-mail or something, i.e. it has an inappropriate informal tone and imprecise, ambiguous wording. PS: Agree with Dhartung that there is likely more than one rationale behind calling someone and hanging up before they answer so that they call you back. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for seeming to accuse. I take back the words on "bias". Other points noted - missed call is a wide word - includes a call missed accidentally too. may be we can call it "pitiful call" :)
Ankur Jain 15:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I expected yet another dictionary definition, this time for "missed call", but was delighted to *GASP* find an actual encyclopedic article. Burntsauce 22:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So by encyclopedic article, you mean poorly referenced, poorly written and failing notability? Twenty Years 15:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Poorly referenced? (newspapers and Reuters poor refs?), poorly written (now that's just hitting below the belt, still that could be fixed by cleanup but not Afd) and failing notability (something notable on developing countries not notable at all?) --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
shall we now decide to keep this page and delete the "deletion tag" on top?
Ankur Jain 14:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'd hold off until consensus is reached. There's no harm in waiting another few days :) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 07:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generally, this sort of thing should be merged into another article. But, the lack of any sort of encyclopedic information seems to deter me from posting a merge. Some here have argued that its a business/profit making machine, if so, its lack of coverage certainly proves it, if some are to be found, this could easily be merged into telecommunications, as it wouldnt exactly merit an article on its own. If its prevelant in one culture, then woopdy-do, add it to the telecommunications article. Long story short: Its junk. Twenty Years 15:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is prevalent in more than one culture (not a good merge into India article alone) and just because it isn't notable in your country it is considered junk. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete under CSD G1/G4; Article was deleted as a hoax before on 24 September. — Edokter • Talk • 21:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draafstein

Article seems to be a hoax used to support trolling on the helpdesk by a SPA editor. This was PROD'd as a hoax but prod removed by IP editor. No sources exist or seem to exist to support the "facts" of this article. Fredrick day 08:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is most definitely a hoax. A quick google search shows up only three hits for this subject and all of them are not reliable sources. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 08:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also think it's a hoax. Iamchrisryan 13:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I remember this going by on the helpdesk... the language seemed to be akin to Pig Latin in that suffixes and umlauts were added to ordinary English words. Someone went to a lot of trouble to create what I believe is a hoax. Accounting4Taste 19:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think it's a hoax, too. No sources, no google entry, probably not real. --əˈnon gahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to the single's page. Will ^(talk) 23:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Bet You Look Good On The Dancefloor (song)

Two articles on the same song. Someone must think the song and the single are completely different. Should be speedy. (What would this fall under, for future reference?) Rocket000 07:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Edit:This nomination is not a notability issue. This article is a duplicate with nothing to merge. I'm proposing deletion. Please, let's WP:SNOWBALL it out of here. Rocket000 18:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See WP:MERGE. Best solution here, rather than AfD. --Folantin 07:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete anyway. Nothing to merge, we don't need the redirect (it would just turn up on WP:RFD eventually). I don't think duplicate articles fall under any specific speedy rule but maybe we can WP:SNOW it out of existence.--Dhartung | Talk 11:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G6 Non-contorversial speedy delete because page is simply a duplication of information that appears on the single's page. Would the deleting admin please remove the tag to this page from the top of the single's page. A1octopus 16:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge. Fails WP:MUSIC. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 17:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you guys even read why an article is nominated!? This song does not fail WP:MUSIC. It's simply a duplicate. Rocket000 18:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Actually, I had read your nomination and the article. In fact, I have read the article several times now and compared it to Songs criteria for notability. Perhaps I'm being dense, but I do not see the matchup and, at this point, still see a delete stance for this afticle is viable as there appears to be no notability displayed in this article. However, for whatever can be salvaged to be merged into the appropriate original should be done. I have added a merge stance to my original statement. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 20:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on the single. 96T 17:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as I was able to wikify the article, including the addition of references. Seems notable enough for us. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Roi, instead of reflexively !voting "keep" and adding irrelevant links or links that violate WP:EL to articles, why don't you explain how this article does not duplicate I Bet You Look Good on the Dancefloor, as everyone else who's commented seems to think it does? Deor 18:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize there was already that article. In that case, please merge and redirect without deleting. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, double edit conflict. I was just going to say the same thing. This has nothing to do with notability, which the song definitely has. Rocket000 18:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize what the duplicate article was until Deor provided the link to the original article (Thanks!). Anyway, I did find some review references that I added to the article under discussion that could perhaps be merged instead? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, go on, delete. Worthless.--Folantin 18:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicate. Artw 20:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete, there's some material on the duplicate page which isn't on the original, but otherwise pointless. Jeodesic 22:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Moon MUD

Fails WP:ORG (as a product), no reliable independent sources known. The sources given are the game's website, and a private homepage. PROD was contested with comment: "This is not an organization, it's a game." Well, we might debate whether WP:ORG applies, in any case it fails WP:N. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 07:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This subject fails notability guidelines. A quick google search shows up very few or no reliable sources for this subject. It is also difficult to verify the contents of this subject as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 08:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lack of secondary sources means this article fails notability criteria of WP:WEB also. --Gavin Collins 09:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's [WP:WEB]] that applies here. Anyways, there's nothing to distinguish this from the thousands of MUDs out there. If there is, I'll chage my mind.--UsaSatsui 14:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB as above. Article content could use a POV check, too. Percy Snoodle 15:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Without being at all familiar with the MUD itself (outside the article and controversy), it seems notable to me that it is still up and running after so many years. My own experience with MUDs can't provide any that are still running. --LeyteWolfer 18:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Personally, I cannot see how WP:WEB applies, but WP:N sure as hell does. And this article fails it. Burntsauce 22:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Content distributed exclsively on the internet. It's not explicitly web content, but I think it applies. --UsaSatsui 22:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- MUD games can be played without an internet connection. I'd say it does NOT apply, but from a distance I think we agree on what the outcome should be. Burntsauce 22:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And webpages can be viewed offline, too. It's primarily an internet-based thing, and designed to be so. You're right, though, it's nitpicking...can there be any wikilawering more pointless than "Which notability policy does this fail"? :) --UsaSatsui 23:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Fin ©™ 09:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Bradford

A student athlete, notable only for his death. Jmlk 1 7 06:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable student. How was this guy famous before his death? He wasn't. WP isn't a tribute site/memorial. Delete. Lugnuts 07:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's unfortunate, but people get murdered every day and there doesn't seem to be anything notable about him. TJ Spyke 07:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the information in this article can be easily verified, the subject is not notable at all before his death. Wikipedia is not a tribute or memorial site. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 08:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E - leaving aside the circumstances of his death, he does not meet the notability criteria. --B. Wolterding 12:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the reaction to his death (closing of classes on a large public university) alongside his notability as a Football player with multiple, non-trivial reliable sources is enough for a keep. Consider the AfD on Keeley Dorsey.--Thomas.macmillan 13:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The closing of campus after a murder is common now after the Virginia Tech shootings, a cop was killed several miles away from my college two weeks ago, and class was canceled the next day because the suspect was still on the loose. 131.94.65.85 02:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - death doesn't make one notable. If it did, we would all be notable one of these days. Iamchrisryan 13:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.It's not very informative. I say delete it.--Rory666 05:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Even though he was not a very well known player on campus, he was known for his leadership and his senseless murder should be noted. I'm sure there is a page for everyone of the Virginia Tech victims. Why not keep this one? People in the future would want to know how a player possibly made a difference in a football team's season. It could be expanded on by using the University's player information pages. I say if it is deleted, move his information to an article that could be created for the 2007 Memphis Tigers football season that could recap games, injuries, stats, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.169.186 (talk • contribs) — 70.146.169.186 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete didn't even play in a game for the Memphis Tigers according to the article. Carlossuarez46 23:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of people are "only notable for their death". That alone is not a good enough reason to delete. nut-meg 18:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If they are notable only for their death, they most probably do not qualify for inclusion since they gained attention only for one newsworthy event, and Wikipedia is not a news site. That is a very good reason to delete. --B. Wolterding 18:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then we will have to do a lot of deleting. Laci Peterson, Polly Klaas, Marcus Fiesel Dantrell Davis all only notable for their deaths, all only notable for one event in their lives. Just because it is news, does not mean it isn't notable. If this was just some local news story, you'd be right. This was, and still is a national story. nut-meg 19:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 17:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish bowline

The "Irish bowline" knot discussed in this article shows no evidence of ever having been used or written generally about in the real world, thus appears to fail WP:N. While it was published in a single issue of Knotting Matters (the IGKT's official publication) no commonly available sources are available which discuss this knot, and generally it appears to be a "vanity knot", so to speak. The article has been tagged with various cleanup tags since early 2007. --Dfred (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N; fails the primary notability criterion (multiple, independent, reliable sources). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 20:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hard to believe that it's a widely used term.--Bedivere 19:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 17:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities with the most billionaires

Comment It's from Forbes like the article says. I remember reading it, so that's how I know, but it's also sourced at the top and bottom and includes four links. It is referenced. I don't know if it would be a copy vio. It is a list completely by Forbes, but unlike Rolling Stone's lists, this isn't subjective, so I don't know what kind of rules are placed on it. Whatever the case, "who's cares" is NOT a good reason for deletion. -Rocket000 06:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original figures may have been sourced, but many changes have been made since; some vandalism, some based on sources not given. If it is going to be based on the 2006 Forbes article, it should be reverted to the original set of figures and left that way. Instead, people have tried to update it, badly. Brianyoumans 21:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could go both ways on this. It's basically reproducing a Forbes article (or series of capsules) in table form, true, but there is minor interest on the wires in the stats as well as who's on top (a couple years ago, it was Moscow; now Istanbul is a surprise #2). Exchange rates, of course, influence the rankings enormously. It might have more significance if it had more than one year listed, but then it's even more of a list-copyvio.--Dhartung | Talk 11:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Istambul is NOT afaik in second place; that is an example of how badly vandalized this article is. Looking back in the history, I was unable to figure out what the real rankings and numbers should be. Brianyoumans 17:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a copyright violation--list of this sort are not copyright in the US; only the arrangement and presentation is. We can report that have have listed so and so. DGG (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Useless silliness: Will not age well (is probably already obsolete), is meaningless because of the exchange rate issue, isn't properly sourced (statistical things like this need more than one source to back them up, because stats are easily manipulated and falsified), and is generally non-informative - the article does not present any analysis of why a city might have more billionaires, and thus is like a List of the world's largest navels or List of buildings painted red. Essentially a nonencyclopedic list of indiscriminate information. It is also original research, specifically of the "novel synthesis" form - there doesn't seem to be a Forbes list of this sort, but rather a pair of Forbes articles about billionaires that someone has synthesized into a list of billionaires by location, without any reliable sources backing up that anlysis (the most obvious resultant problem is that many rich people do not consider themselves residents of any particular single city, and do not act in such a capacity, having multiple homes, often on multiple continents). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete : Uh-oh, someone took my idea and is running with it (see this Afd [15]) This will be waaay too difficult to manage, given how quickly money changes hands these days. If it were spanned over say a 5 year period, not counting the current year, then I could see it working proving enough sources were referenced, and possibly an analysis were offered (as mentioned by SMcCandlish). As for copyvio, I don't think it applies to facts, correct me if I'm wrong though (using the word facts loosly here). A^RendedWinter 20:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. There's no possible way this article could be kept accurately updated. Forget the fact that people gain and lose money daily (billionaires have a lot at stake in stock market runs). Consider instead that the list is in USD, which makes the list further subject to ongoing currency valuation fluctuations. Finally, we should ask why the list is in USD (see WP:CSB) as opposed to Japanese Yen or Turkish Liras. SkerHawx 19:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should be in Icelandic Krona or the Chinese Yuan. C'mon, let's not get politically correctly carried away here. It's in USD because that's what Forbes measured it in. Also, the U.S. dollar is what the most people can relate to (especially English speakers); it's the most meaningful to the most people. It would be ridiculous to have it in Yen. Anyway, it doesn't have to stay updated if it's for one given year (2006). Rocket000 09:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and if it won't be updated, and will only be a list of how many billionaires lived in each city a year ago, it reinforces the irrelevance of the article. SkerHawx 11:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (edit conflict) this is the list as of 2006, so it's nearly a year out of date. People move, and lose and gain money. It's a footnote to Billionaire (keep the refs), but not worth an article. Also, possible COPYVIO if the list appeared in Forbes and someone just typed it up here. Totnesmartin 09:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Generation Honda Prelude

Direct copy of a previous version of Honda Prelude, does not have enough information to warrant a separate article. --Leedeth 05:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, direct copy of Honda Prelude#Third_generation_.281988-1991.29. Generally these "generation" articles are done within the article for the model, as there are only minor differences and the notability is not of the generation but of the model broadly. --Dhartung | Talk 07:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge any relavant info into Honda Prelude. --Rehcsif 17:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a direct copy from the parent article so nothing to merge -- Whpq 17:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MWV

Delete nn student journal at a university, no sources showing coverage in media Carlossuarez46 05:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:ORG. Non-notable student journal. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This subject is clearly not notable. A quick google search shows up very few reliable sources for this article. It is also difficult to verify the contents of this article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 08:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Iamchrisryan 14:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly not notable. Burntsauce 22:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - of course Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 12:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP and WP:N. Carlosguitar 03:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Paul Horn

I seriously doubt that this individual is notable enough for his own article...I certainly don't feel that notability has currently been established. He may have been a guest on the Dr. Phil show, but I don't think most talk show guests are worth their own Wikipedia article. Also, this article about Mr. Horn appears to have been written by Mr. Horn himself. MatthewUND^(talk) 05:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - person with a host of personal problems and some claims of advocacy work who was on a talk show for bored housewives. Who cares?--Nobunaga24 05:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mere appearance on a talk show is so common that it cannot possibly be a stab at notability. (And the free gifts certainly aren't notable.) --Dhartung | Talk 07:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability Elmao 08:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Not Notable. Imagine what would happen if we started letting everyone that appeared on a talk show (like Springer) to have an Article here! Iamchrisryan 14:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet the notability requirements of participants on reality programs (I assume talk shows and game shows fall under that heading); his continued presence, or being featured on another program, might have done it. Accounting4Taste 19:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some guy with a mullet, some other guy with a mullet, and the half-sister they both love is well-referenced and notable and I won't stand for you bringing it into this discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 20:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless he can document an appearance on Springer. Tiptopper 23:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was quick-delete, consensus is/will be evident and this is degrading the quality and integrity of the encyclopedia. Daniel 07:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Gear Solid 5: The Seven Snakes

Crystal balling game without attribution. I failed to find reliable source for it. Carlosguitar 05:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gakusha 05:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Carlosguitar 05:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the content it's clear somebody made it up as a joke. - Ubersuntzu 05:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks very hoax-y. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is completely fake. --Impossible 06:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Kojima has not said anything about a sequel yet after MGS4. Fake indeed. Ominae 06:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...oh, c'mon, let me add some more message boxes to it first. I like this part - "COMING EXCLUSIVELY TO THE XBOX 360!!" Delete.Rocket000 06:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Maxa megalon 2000 06:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that there is a lack of historical significance to this recent news event. Jreferee t/c 06:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Petit

Delete sad story of a young woman being killed, but unfortunately does not meet our notability guidelines, WP:BIO, WP:N, and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL Carlossuarez46 05:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral with comment I have no opinion, at this time, as to whether this article should be deleted or not. This is a story of some importance (ABC covered it last week and Newsday has been running articles on every aspect of it from day one.) If it is kept, well, the title is misleading as practically the whole family was murdered, so a renaming would be in order.--Sethacus 05:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A tragic crime, but being a victim of a tragic crime is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 07:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral with comment I just read about this in a UK crime magazine so it has had international coverage, albeit in a niche market. Per Sethacus if it's kept it should be renamed. MorganaFiolett 08:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As is, it doesn't belong. If it were apart of another article on crime, or with a different title, like mentioned above, I might change my opinion. Iamchrisryan 14:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People are killed everyday across the world as a result of strangulation, blunt force trauma, arson etc. There is nothing in particular that makes this case any more notable than the other murders that are committed. It's a sad case to be sure of, but that doesn't mean it deserves a place in an encyclopedia. --Cyrus Andiron 18:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain and Revise The Cheshire home invasion was the most important news event in CT in 2007 and received worldwide press attention. (486,000 hits on Yahoo for "Cheshire home invasion") http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0WTTkgWxgRH.EkBdQvQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTA4ajhnZmc5BHNlYwN0YWJz?fr=sfp&ei=UTF-8&p=cheshire%20home%20invasion&fr2=tab-news. While the victims of this crime did not meet notability standards, the legislative reaction to this crime continues to be the top policy issue for Governor M. Jodi Rell and the rest of CT government. This was no ordinary murder, and if we are going to use the criteria "people are killed everyday" articles on Son of Sam and Charles Manson also should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.60 (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best, this is a "15 minutes of fame" event that few will recall in a few years' time.--Bedivere 19:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
retain by that basis, then this article about a crime involving one of her majesty's subjects ought to be deleted as well [16] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.60 (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personalities Renowned By Mother Names

Delete exegetical posting without sourcing appears to be WP:OR. Carlossuarez46 05:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. However, I think should consider converting all our articles to that format. - Rocket000 06:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Huh? It doesn't even have any formatting. It is bare ASCII text. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, bad joke. :) Rocket000 19:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be an obscure debate within Islam about how souls are named on reaching heaven[17]. The limited reading I've done indicates that it's disputed in any event. Until WP:NPOV and WP:OR can be satisfied, it should go. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 14:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:COPYRIGHT; this is clearly a copy-paste of someone's material from a message board or blog, and we have zero evidence that the poster of it here was the original author (though perhaps related; they share "Ammar" in their names). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's from here [18] or here [19] and are straight lifts from Islamic texts. AFAIK Allah has not released these texts under GFDL. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 00:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete incomprehensible list. JJL 13:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/Americanitis

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 merge to neurasthenia. The only thing needed to merge was a single reference item. Note, merge proposals generally need not come to AFD. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 07:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Americanitis

Redirect/merge into neurasthenia. When it's just an alternate name for the same thing, a stub like this doesn't warrant its own article. As is, it's deletable even without a redirect because of WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Doczilla 04:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chow Chow (Band)

Band article tagged speedy but unsourced claims to meet WP:BAND. Carlossuarez46 04:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND Bfigura ^(talk) 04:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another band bites the dust. Fails WP:BAND. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And another one gone... Rocket000 06:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being on a notable label does not make one notable (Mungo Jerry vs Demon Fuzz on Dawn, for example). notability has not been established. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 14:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: hello! i know this page is ugly, but i have limited wikipedian skills :) anyhow, i think the band truely deserves an entry. its on a notable label (which is already on wikipedia), the term "Chow Chow colours lines fantastic plastic" return nearly 150 000 results on google, they have an entry on discogs, last.fm, musicbrains, etc. lastly, pitchforkmedia has made a review on their album, and i'm pretty sure every band reviewed on this site has an entry on wikipedia. thanks! Twisted-TXB 11:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Not even. Among other things, I do band websites for a living, and most of my clients have PFM reviews, but are mostly not notable enough to have articles here (in fact, none of them do). Let's not be silly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i think the 150 000 google results justify a keep. but the page needs to be cleaned up. 206.41.93.242 13:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd be interested to know this figure can be regarded as accurate. Ghits on "Chow Chow", about 2 million. "Chow Chow -dog", about 1 million. UK only, about 19,000. Ghits on above search, with quotes: none, without: 1200, above -dog: 54. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 14:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND; the above arguments in support appear to be falsified statistics (boiled down to 54 Ghits and a false assertion that PFM reviews and notability-surviving band articles here are a 1:1 relationship). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

okay then, delete the page. anyhow now that the singer's dead its not like it'll gain notability in the future... you should check it out thought, its pretty good! Twisted-TXB 02:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing personal, and nothing to get bitter about. And remember Joy Division -> New Order. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles by User:Douhouga

Delete all: It appears all of these articles are hoaxes by the same user. Tagged for speedy by an IP but I wanted to bring here to see if anyone can prove otherwise. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The dead give-away was the Yetez article, which claims he plays for the San Jose Earthquakes despite the Earthquakes not currently having any players signed to the team. Google search for these people and organizations just get Wikipedia mirrors - they're all hoaxes. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all unattributed, highly possible to be WP:HOAX. Carlosguitar 05:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either extremely unnotable, or it's a hoax. ILovePlankton⁽^L^—^S⁾ 14:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax articles, there's no other way to put it. The articles assert that they played for some prominent teams. There would be evidence on the Interwebby if they had. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also came across his most recent Zincronizers, a music group with 5 CDs and absolutely 0 G-hits. Pig^man 01:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and block user. This is a very dangerous type of vandal, one who knows his way around a wiki and who is malicious enough to insert false info. Worst kind of vandal possible. --PMDrive1061 01:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected, content was nonsense anyway. Non-admin closure. Thomjakobsen 13:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oober

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Captain panda 03:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What Cap'n Bamboo Bear said... BTW, AFD notice was removed so I restored it. Pig^man 03:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a misspelling of a non-notable neologism Bfigura ^(talk) 03:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, tagged as vandalism. The stuff about John Smith and greekman Julius Ceazar were the tip-off. Thomjakobsen 03:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close; already redirected to Über. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; sources provided do not address the original problems with the article. ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 19:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Escape Technology

Delete nn company; fails WP:CORP - was tagged speedy as spam, and it smells a little spammy but less than many so tagged - was created by a SPA (User:EscapeTechwriter). Carlossuarez46 03:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure spam. Created by an SPA who could not be bothered to provide any third-party refs. -- RHaworth 03:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not demonstrated notability. I couldn't find secondary sources of substance. SkerHawx 19:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm the author. I really resent you guys calling it spam. I intended to try to get an explanation to the reviewers before people started shooting. Here's my thought. I love Wikipedia. I use it daily, and consider it a fantastic resource. For me, it's equal to Google. I would like our company to be represented in Wikipedia, as I'm sure many small companies would like to be. When our potential customers search the web, having a Wikipedia entry adds credibility. We are a company that has helped thousands of users, and saved the taxpayer a lot of money with our systems which are much more efficient. In the end, we help students, because the Admin is being handled more efficiently. I certainly saw the message about "don't write about yourself or your company." I reviewed pages on other companies such as Borland, Clarion and the like. Why is our company less deserving of having a Wikipedia page. Is it solely because I would have to have someone else do the submission? I appreciate someone saying it smells less spammy. I took hours to write this, such that it reads like a set of facts. I think it is free of marketing gibberish or boasting of any kind. We are a company that has dedicated our professional lives to the business of education. We get new business mainly by word of mouth. I have a 5 day per month salesperson. I apologize for the fact that I did not include any references. Maybe I don't understand this well enough to find any, as I don't know of any. In any case, I don't believe this should be the criteria for inclusion in the world of Wikipedia. Perhaps you could consider how companies such as ours can be included. I would have no problem with some type of disclaimer that says the information was provided by the company. Thank you for your consideration, and any advice you can provide such that our company can be included. Bob Towery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EscapeTechwriter (talk • contribs) 18:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Bob, I know it can be frustrating to write an article and have it considered for deletion. I've been there. Please bear in mind that a discussion of the notability of a company does not mean the company isn't successful, important or famous. It simply is an evaluation of whether or not the company has merited an entry in an encyclopedia. Here are some links that might help you in the course of a re-write: WP:COMPANY, while being careful of WP:COI since you're apparently an employee of the company in question. To your question about references, if there aren't available secondary source references, that's usually sufficient to have an article deleted, no matter how well the article is written since Wikipedia isn't a directory. Good luck. SkerHawx 19:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you SkerHawx. I have read the pages on verifiable references. I don't believe our firm has been written up in such a way that qualifies. While it looks like we are headed for the trash heap here, hopefully I have generated some discussion fodder. I can tell you that as a Wikipedia user, I don't come here for the references. I come here for what the people have contributed. As to having a COI because I am an employee, my only choice there really is to be the ghost author for a "shill," something I'm not willing to do. I maintain that there are a class of entities, which being excluded, do not benefit the users of Wikipedia. We will never be "famous." If you have to be famous (i.e. written about elsewhere) to be in Wikipedia, well then Wikipedia is a different animal than what I thought it was. I do appreciate everyone's time, no matter which side of the argument you are on. EscapeTechwriter 19:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, hopefully everyone sees that my choice of a user name was deliberate, to identify myself, with no attempt at subterfuge. The comment about my account being a SPA is interesting. As much as I use and enjoy Wikipedia, I hadn't really thought that I should be a contributor. I'll rethink that since I have some expertise in a few areas. I definitely like to give back any time I'm enjoying a product or service. EscapeTechwriter 21:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Comment~~ - Here are some references. (1) Sacramento Business Journal. (August 29, 1988) Escape Technology keeps close tabs on schools. (company profile). Volume 5; Issue 22; Page 34. (2) Swartz, Jon. (June 7, 1996) San Francisco Chronicle Netcape wants final word on suffix. Section: Business; Page B1. (3)Gammon, Robert. (February 23, 2003) Alameda Times-Star Jordan could've done more, others say. Jordan says there were no red flags. Section: Headline News. (4) P & J (May 10, 2004) Families in focus at entrepreneur awards. -- Jreferee t/c 07:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Revised to Keep in view of sufficient reliable source material. -- Jreferee t/c 16:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 18:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless Imaging

Article already exists at Multimedia Messaging Service. Delete this article or redirect it. Captain panda 03:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Captain Panda. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. For future reference: "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD" (From WP:AfD#Before nominating an AfD). —gorgan_almighty 10:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above.--Bedivere 19:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carioca 01:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Art Hodgins

This article is on a hockey player. It was created by the man's son as a memorial, and he removed the prod tag I added a few months back. He asked how he could improve the article, and I replied, but he didn't take much advice. There are no sources and no ELs. I don't know, however, if the leagues mentioned make this player notable or not. It appears he did not play for any National Hockey League team, but are the "all-conquering Harringay Racers" and the other teams at the highest British level of hockey play?

Since there are no sources to confirm the claims made or investigate notability, the article should be deleted. - KrakatoaKatie 02:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pro player meets the notability guideline, and I turned up some sources via google. See here. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hall of Famer [20], and some sources are easily found with a quick Google search [21], [22]. THe article needs improved referencing, but remains a valid article about a person who meets the criteria for athletes listed in WP:BIO (professional league, etc.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as member of British HOF. Smashville 00:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sjakkalle. The Hall of Fame membership is sufficient for notability. I agree that the article needs some work, but the above sources should help. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enchante

WP:ADVERT, fails WP:NOT. Interestingly the creator User:Avelias1 seems to know a lot about Jennie Elias. Who the Enchante article mentions is the mother of the UK distributor of Enchante, one Alexander Elias. Spot the WP:COI... FlagSteward 02:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam for a non-notable product, regardless of the COI. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads as an advert (WP:ADVERT), and I thought the same about the Jennie Elias conflict of interest. I also just tried to find information about the product online and only found one site that mentions how great it is and a downside is that it is not readily available, which makes it non-notable and how could anyone expand this information without information available, so the article is also a dead-end even if it didn't have all of the other issues.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 21:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ads, non-notable product. Keb25 10:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per ad. -- Magioladitis 00:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears to violate the WP:AD policy and since it has a very limited regional availability it appears to be a non-notable product as well. - Jeremy (Jerem43 08:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability seems addressed pretty definitively, but the article needs a lot of work to remove conflict of interest (COI), and then needs to be tucked under the wing of the Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) crew. Right now the talk page has no tagging at all, so there's work to be done. If need be the article should be stubbed out and rewritten from scratch to get the COI under control. If need be, User:Mignucci may need counseling on best practices --++Lar: t/c 04:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andres Mignucci

This article is about an architect. I nominated it for speedy deletion a while back, which was declined. After consideration and the limited research I'm able to do, I don't think this architect is notable. I can find references such as "created by Mignucci..." but no real reviews of his work, and I'm unable to examine the works listed at the bottom as references. Unless I've missed something, which is certainly possible, this article should be deleted. KrakatoaKatie 02:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete I can't find enough references. It is a tough call. If I would see more, verifiable references, press, etc. I would consider changing my mind to a keep. Iamchrisryan 14:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's an AIA fellow [23], his Children's Park Project won the National Puerto Rico Architecture Award in 2001 [24] (recognized award, per WP:BIO), he is not just a private architect, but also advises (or has advised) the Governor of Puerto Rico on overall city planning [25], and he was the editor of Arquitectura Contemporánea en Puerto Rico from 1976-1992 [26], among many other things. The other thing we ought to consider is that since he's Puerto Rican, those are only the references I could find in English. If you do a search for "Andres Mignucci" and "arquitecto", you get many hits, but my Spanish is unfortunately too elementary to read them quickly. Perhaps someone else can help with that? We have to be careful to consider WP:CSB, as I believe this person has more than demonstrated notability vis a vis Puerto Rican (and even broader - Latin American) architects. SkerHawx 14:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 06:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a google search turns up little more than that he's active as an architect. Nothing that asserts any particular notability, including Spanish language. Eusebeus 14:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Andres Mignucci has demonstrated notability following the criteria outlined in Wikipedia Guidelines regarding Notability for Academics and Educators WP:PROF.Maribel ortiz 21:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CRITERIA 1 The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.

Mignucci, is one of seven members of the Governor’s Council on Planning and Urbanism, is also one of the authors of the Economic Development and Government Transformation Plan for Puerto Rico. See below.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND GOVERNMENT TRANSFORMATION PLAN FOR PUERTO RICO (PDF) Economic Development and Government Transformation Plan for Puerto Rico: Architect Andrés Mignucci, FAIA, Architect Thomas Marvel FAIA, Dr. Gabriel Moreno, Atty. Omar Jiménez, Architect Liz Melendez www.gobierno.pr/NR/rdonlyres/1A90948D-8AF2-4827-B92F-C938378C1620/0/PDETGEnglishVersion_Nov906_FINAL.pdf]

CRITERIA 2 The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field.

In two recent books on Iberoamerican Architecture one in Madrid and one in Mexico, Andrés Mignucci’s work has been highlighted as exemplary in the current architectural discourse in Latin America, Spain and Portugal.

see Gras de Mereles,Louise Noëlle (see bio in Wikipedia German), Arquitectos Iberoamericanos Siglo 21, Fomento Cultural Banamex, Mexico DF, 2006.

Rispa, Raul, Arquitectura Iberoamericana, Madrid, Tanais Editores, October 2004.

Also see

Segre, Roberto, “Arquitetura hispano-americana na mudança de Milênio. A globalização fragmentada: idioma comum, caminhos divergentes” in Arquitextos, Sao Paolo, June 2003.

Montaner, Josep Ma. & Muxi, Zaida, “San Juan: Laboratorio Metropolitano” en Cultura(s) 153, La Vanguardia, pp. 22-23, 26 Mayo 2005, Barcelona.

CRITERIA 3 The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature[1].

Mignucci is the author/editor of Arquitectura Contemporanea en Puerto Rico 1976-1992, one of the few books on contemporary Puerto Rican architectural history. He is also the co-author of Arquitectura Dominicana 1890-1930, on traditional architecture in the Dominican Republic. (Mignucci, A., Rigau, J., and Martinez, E., Arquitectura Dominicana 1890-1930, AIA Puerto Rico, San Juan, 1990).

Other publications and articles by or about Andrés Mignucci include the following:

Acosta, Candida, “Santiago tendrá un Gran Parque Central” in Listín Diario, 18 August 2002, pp.1/18.

Alonso, María Elena, “La Propuesta Ganadora Integra Paisaje, Urbanismo y Arquitectura” in Habitat, Nº1, October 2002, p.26.

Alonso, María Elena, “Premian Diseño Ambiental y Urbano Para Santiago” in Diario Libre, 25 September 2002, p.36.

Campodrón, Teresa, “Andrés Mignucci: The Symbolic Garden / El Jardín Simbólico” in Santa & Cole, Santa & Cole Editores, Barcelona, October 2003.

De Carlo, Giancarlo (ed.), “Andrés Mignucci: Construire Nei Tropici” in Spazio e Societá, No. 84, Milano, October-December 1998, pp. 94-97.

Del Cueto, Beatriz “Formando Ambiente/Making Places” in American Architectural Foundation Newsletter, Fall 1991.

Driscoll, John & Melendez, Liz, “The Revitalization of Traditional Urban Centers in Puerto Rico”, Center for Urban Development Studies, Harvard Design School, May 2004.

Fiedler, M.L. (ed), “Parque de los Niños” in Entorno, Colegio de Arquitectos de PR, Vol. 7, July 2001, pp. 8-12.

Fiedler, M.L. (ed), “Escuela de Bellas Artes de Mayaguez” in Entorno, Colegio de Arquitectos de PR, Vol. 13, 2003, pp. 12-13.

Gonzalez, Santiago, “Parque de Santiago será mayor pulmón ecológico de la ciudad” in Listín Diario, 26 March 2002, p.8.

David Gosling, “The Evolution of American Urban Design : A Chronological Anthology”, Academy Editions, London, 2002, p.155.

Habraken, N.J. with Aldrete-Hass,J.A., Chow, R., Hille, T., Krugmeier,P., Lampkin, M., Mallows, A., Mignucci, A., Takase, Y., Weller, K., and Yokouchi, T., The Grunfeld Variations, A Methodological Approach to the Design of Urban Tissues, Laboratory of Architecture & Planning, MIT, Whalen Press, 1980.

Habraken, N.J., “Architecture and Agreements- A report on research for new design methods” in Kenchiku Bunka”, vol. 42, no. 486, April 1987, pp.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Notes on the Associative Form of (Some) Spanish Towns” in Black Rose Review, no.10, Winter 1983, pp.

Mignucci, A. and Hille, T., Ranges of Continuity: Eleven Towns in Spain and Portugal, Grusfeld Foundation / Laboratory of Architecture & Planning, Cambridge, MA. 1983.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Reclaiming Ballajá” in Places, vol.5, no. 2, 1988, pp. 3-17.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Recuperando Ballajá” in Plerus, vol. XXI, 1988-89, pp.123-139.

Mignucci, A., Rigau, J., and Martinez, E., Arquitectura Dominicana 1890-1930, AIA Puerto Rico, San Juan, 1990.

Mignucci, Andrés, Arquitectura Contemporanea en Puerto Rico 1976-1992, AIA Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 1992.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Inhabiting Shadows: Notes on the Tropics as Place” in Places, Vol. 12 / No. 3, Spring 1999, pp.38-42.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Urbanismo Estratégico” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Año 9, No.22, Septiembre 2005, pp.76-78.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Puerto Rico Urbano” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Año 9, No.22, Septiembre 2005, pp.53-55.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Codex Urbans” in Escofet SA, Enric Pericas (ed.) Junio 2005, pp.140-141, Barcelona.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Lamar 557 / Casa Vivas” in Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Year 2, No.5, September 1997, pp.70-75.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Parque de los Niños” in Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Year 7, No.13, January 2002, pp.112-116.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Parque Antonia Quiñones” in Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Year 7, No.13, January 2002, pp.117-119.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Parque del Indio” in Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Year 7, No.13, January 2002, pp.120-121.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Santo Cristo de los Milagros” in Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Year 7, No.13, January 2002, pp.122-124.

Mignucci, Andrés y Moré Gustavo, “Parque Metropolitano de Santiago” in Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Year 8, No.15, January 2003, pp.85-94.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Isabela: Plan Estrategico de Revitalización” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Año 9, No.22, Moré, Gustavo (ed.), Septiembre 2005, pp.103-104.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Isabela: Plaza Pública” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Año 9, No.22, Moré, Gustavo (ed.), Septiembre 2005, pp.105-106.

Mignucci, Andrés, “Isabela: Plaza del Mercado” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Año 9, No.22, Moré, Gustavo (ed.), Septiembre 2005, pp.107-108.

Mignucci, Andrés, “La Ventana al Mar” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Año 9, No.22, Septiembre 2005, pp.109-114.

Mignucci, Andrés; Sánchez, Ilia; Bonnin Javier, “Riberas del Bucaná II & III” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Año 9, No.22, Septiembre 2005, pp.115-119.

Montaner, Josep Ma. & Muxi, Zaida, “San Juan: Laboratorio Metropolitano” en Cultura(s) 153, La Vanguardia, pp. 22-23, 26 Mayo 2005, Barcelona.

Moya, Rómulo (ed.), “Casa Vivas” in Casas Latinoamericanas, Ediciones Trama, Quito, 2003, pp.126-127.

Noëlle Gras de Mereles, Louise, Arquitectos Iberoamericanos Siglo 21, Fomento Cultural Banamex, Mexico DF, 2006.

Peguero, Reynaldo, “Parque de Santiago: Icono de una Metropolis” in Listín Diario, 2 September 2002, p.19.

Peralta, Leoncio, “Santiago se convertirá en gran ciudad jardín” in Listín Diario, 18 August 2002, p.18.

Rispa, Raul, “La Ventana al Mar” in IV Arquitectura Iberoamericana, Tanais Editores, Madrid, October 2004.

Ronzino, Maickel, “El Parque del Futuro” in El Caribe, 14 September 2002, p.6-7.

Russell, James S., AIA, “Will A New Wave Of Tropical Modernism Restore San Juan's Luster?” in Architectural Record, July, 2002.

Santa & Cole (ed),“Andrés Mignucci Giannoni” in Enciclopedia de Diseño, Santa & Cole Editores, Barcelona, 2003.

Schneider-Wessling, Erich, “Going to Ground” in The Architectural Review, No. 1145, July, 1992, pp.64-67.

Schneider-Wessling, Erich, “Bayer Informationszentrum” in Bauwelt, Heft 24 / Stadtbauwelt 114, Berlin,1992.

Schneider-Wessling, Erich, “Bayer Informationszentrum” in Form & Light, Ernest Sonn Verlag, Berlin, 1993.

Segre, Roberto, “Arquitetura hispano-americana na mudança de Milênio. A globalização fragmentada: idioma comum, caminhos divergentes” in Arquitextos, Sao Paolo, June 2003.

Serna, David (ed),“Casa Vivas” in Escala, No. 175, Bogotá, Colombia, July, 1996, pp.26-27.

CRITERIA 6 The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. Andres Mignucci was elected as a FELLOW of the AIA in 2005. There are currently 74,000 architect members of the AIA of which, in the history of the AIA, only 2,500 have been elected as Fellows of the Institute. In he year 2005, alongside Mignucci, Santiago Calatrava - AIA Gold Medalist; Thom Mayne - Pritzker Award Winner; and Toshiko Mori - Head of Harvard’s Graduate School of Design were also elected. You cannot be in such company without being notable. The American Institute of Architects said the following in its induction press release.

Washington, D.C., February 25, 2005 --The American Institute of Architects (AIA) elevated 66 architects to its prestigious College of Fellows, an honor awarded to members who have made contributions of national significance to the profession. Andrés Mignucci, FAIA, of San Juan, Puerto Rico, was elected to receive this honor because of his contributions to the field of design. Mr. Mignucci has enriched the profession by integrating the disciplines of architecture, urban design and landscape architecture in the creation of urban environments with a sense of place, human scale, and environmental responsibility. His work reflects a commitment to the role of public space as an integral part of people’s lives, as a setting for social and cultural exchange, and as a vital component in the structure of our cities and towns. In addition, his leadership through public service and teaching has made significant contributions in extending knowledge of the profession to a larger public.

Out of a membership of more than 74,000, there are fewer than 2,500 AIA members distinguished with the honor of fellowship. It is conferred on architects who have made significant contributions in the following areas: the aesthetic, scientific, and practical efficiency of the profession; the standards of architectural education, training, and practice; and other related professional organizations; advancement of living standards of people through an improved environment; and to society through significant public service. [27]

Andres Mignucci's honors and awards include the following:

HONORS

FELLOW of the AIA Washington DC, USA, 2005

FELLOW of Institute for Urban Design New York City, NY, USA, 2005

Chandler Prize for Excellence in Architectural Design Boston Society of Architects, 1982

President’s Fellowship University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras, Puerto Rico, 1979-81

AWARDS

2006 First Prize-Urban Design: Parque Metropolitano de Santiago (with Gustavo Moré) Bienal de Arquitectura de Santo Domingo.

2005 Bronze Medal: La Ventana al Mar Bienal de Miami + Beach, Miami.

2004 Finalist: La Ventana al Mar IV Ibero-American Architecture Biennale, Madrid, Spain.

2004 Mention of Honor: La Ventana al Mar AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

2002 First Prize: Parque Metropolitano de Santiago (with Gustavo Moré) International Design Competition, Santiago, Dominican Republic.

2002 Landscape Design Award / Paysage: Parque de los Niños Martinique Architecture Biennale, Fort de France, Martinique

2002 Grand Prize / Premio Nacional de Arquitectura: Escuela de Bellas Artes de Mayaguez. VII Puerto Rico Architecture Biennale, San Juan, PR

2001 Grand Prize / Premio Nacional de Arquitectura: Parque de los Niños VI Puerto Rico Architecture Biennale, San Juan, PR

2001 Honor Award: Parque de los Niños AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico

2001 URBE Award for Excellence in Architecture: Parque de los Niños Urbe Design Awards, San Juan, Puerto Rico

1999 Mention of Honor: Santo Cristo de los Milagros AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico

1998 Mention of Honor: Cooperativa Gasolinera Cayeyana AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico

1997 Honor Award: Casa Vivas AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico

1997 Mention of Honor: Casa Vivas IV Puerto Rico Architecture Biennale, San Juan, Puerto Rico

1997 Mention of Honor: Lamar 557 AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico

1996 Honor Award: Casa Hopgood AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico

1992 Mention of Honor: Conjunto de Viviendas Bayamón 831 AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico

1990 Special Award: Arquitectura Dominicana 1890-1930 (with J. Rigau and E. Martinez) Special Research Award, III Bienal de Arquitectura de Santo Domingo, RD

1990 Honor Award: Casa sobre una Hondonada AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico

1986 First Prize: Informationszentrum, Bayer AG (with Erich Schneider-Wessling and Ilse Walter), Köln, Germany

Maribel ortiz 21:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Espresso Addict 20:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So this guy is an architect. I don't really see any notability here, as the Google test turns up less than 1000 hits and most of them are list of people who worked on various construction projects. Mr. Mignucci did not win any notable awards and did not get (non-trivially) mentioned in any reliable sources. To the above user: Why did you use the notability guidelines for professors? I don't see any mention of professorship in the article. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I missed a rather obvious COI; the only significant contributor to the article is User:Mignucci. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 23:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite for NPOV. Massive COI but Mignucci is verifiably notable by peer recognition and possibly WP:PROF too. His FAIA status (now confirmed & cited online) says that he is regarded as one of the best architects in the U.S. A Google Scholar search shows that his publications are widely cited. A Google search his Parque de los Niños and Parque Metropolitano de Santiago brings up non-trivial coverage and credit. Still looking to verify international award wins. Mignucci apparently really is an internationally respected urban planner. • Gene93k 06:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -per above reasoning.JJJ999 08:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously rewrite. FAIA citation is strong indicator of notability as is the park project award. Limited sources is at least in part a WP:CSB issue. --Dhartung | Talk 12:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Widely cited; google test often has an english-language bias. Academic work shows up elsewhere. --lquilter 16:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Decent independent third party source coverage, certainly meets WP:BIO as argued with sources above. Needs a cleanup and perhaps a rewrite to address COI issues though... --Kudret abi^Talk 07:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (and redirect) to Business band article. --Aarktica 12:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Business Radio Service

Procedural nom. Expired prod but I see little if any reason to delete this stub. Yes, it's a pretty obscure topic and the current article is a pretty poor stub but I have no doubt that there are plenty of references to build a decent article from. Pascal.Tesson 03:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to business band, of which this (I believe) is a subset. The names have changed over the years, could do with some expert input. --Dhartung | Talk 06:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:37, 27 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Business band per Dhartung...much more comprehensive on the subject. Nate 05:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as suggested by Dhartung.--Gavin Collins 17:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by Dhartung et al. Bearian 00:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gnan garra 15:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street Systems

Nom - Non-notable business; self-sourced; self promoted. Rklawton 15:40, 26 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be a number of independant reliable sources giving significant coverage out there. [28] [29] [30] [31]. —gorgan_almighty 10:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: press releases are not equivalent to significant coverage. Any business with a PR department issues press releases, and trade publications tend to publish them. They do help establish the idea that the business exists, but that's not sufficient for notability. Rklawton 14:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the references I provided links to, above, are independent news stories. What makes you think they're press releases? —gorgan_almighty 15:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's how it works. Firm X aquires firm Y or releases a new product Z. They write up a press release and send it to the trade rags. The trades then create a news item out of the press release and publishes them as "news." However, the only research that goes into the stories comes from the press release itself. These sorts of items are routine and serve as no indication of notability. Rklawton 14:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For future reference, how can you tell the difference between that and a real news story? —gorgan_almighty 13:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does read like an advert and so should be rewritten. However, this company is one of the leaders in its field (accounting and treasury software) and so the article should be kept. Somearemoreequal 15:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 11:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Must have missed this. The article contains a product list. The cited references seem to be mostly to directories of various kinds. A business like this is unlikely to be of general interest to people outside financial fields. I don't believe the ones given are enough to satisfy WP:CORP.
Even if it's a notable business, the current text needs to be entirely replaced. It says they're a financial software firm that specializes in providing treasury and transaction processing solutions. . . Are they a software business, or a chemical firm? Describing products as "solutions" is inherently POV, and a strong suggestion of spam. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW Non-admin closure. → AA ^(talk) — 13:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Donner

No content, no sources, and no evidence of any notability Yahel Guhan 02:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Thomjakobsen 02:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources are being added [32]. Just pointing it out. Rocket000 02:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To quote from a comment in the AfD it survived last year:

A full professor of Near Eastern History at the University of Chicago, which is a leading institution in that field. Has published two major monographs on early Islamic history, as well as a translation of a volume of the history of al-Tabari (one of the most important early Arabic historians), published a large number of articles in reputable journals and is a journal editor himself. His c. 500 page The Early Islamic Conquests (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981) was called "a major contribution to the understanding of early Islamic history" by the reviewer in the International Journal of Middle East Studies 1983, p. 577. Checking the Swedish National library catalogue I note that all three of his books are available in 3 or 4 leading research libraries.[1]. (That's all from about five or ten minutes of searching.) If we can have an article on every professional baseball player in America, we can have one on Donner too.

Since then, he's been awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship. I've sourced the "major contribution" review and the journal he edits. If the problem of "no sources" pops up again, I can recommend the highly specialized tool I use to find them. Thomjakobsen 03:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like your style :) - Rocket000 05:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep passes the WP:BIO test for an academic. JJL 03:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~At least Weak Keep.~~Changing to Keep per my more detailed findings in comment to Crusio below. Full professor at prestigious university, recent Guggenheim fellowship, editor of an academic journal (tho' not a good sign that I can't persuade their website to load; Google cache: [33] ), author of two books, one with highly reputable publisher with at least one independent review. Google Scholar finds little evidence of citation (The Early Islamic Conquests 1981 book gets 13), but this might well be the specialised nature of the field and the age of this book. [ETA: See Further comment below for better link to citations.] Sources have been added to the article. Willing to change my mind if further information uncovered, but I think at very least this article should be given some chance to develop. Espresso Addict 03:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Guggenheim fellowship is not so exclusive that it would appear to inherit notability. And two books in almost 30 years seems to be a small productivity for a humanities scholar (where book -not journal- publishing is the main form of publication). Unless one of those books made more impact than just one review, I don't think this confers notability either. As far as I can see, notability still needs to be established. --Crusio 04:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a third translated book. The Early Islamic Conquests certainly made an impact -- it was reprinted as recently in 2005 [34]; from the Google hits it seems to be set reading for several university courses eg see [35]; it's described as "Donner's magisterial Early Islamic Conquests (Princeton, 1981)" in a 1992 recent book review (of another work)[36]; it's also referenced in our article on Islamic conquest of Persia. Another review of the original publication is here, but it requires JSTOR access: [37]; I strongly suspect there were many reviews of the original publication, but Google is failing to uncover them. Espresso Addict 04:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Much better search here [38] which finds 49 mentions on JSTOR for Early Islamic Conquests; a quick look at some of them seems to establish that this is indeed a fundamental text in this area. Espresso Addict 09:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes the [WP:BIO] criteria. ShowerSugar 05:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Thomjakobsen. - Rocket000 05:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Espresso Addict (thanks for digging up that stuff!) --Crusio 07:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Thomjakobsen. --Martin Wisse 13:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:SNOW, anyone? ITAQALLAH 13:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 13:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Notability is not temporary and this was established in the previous AfD which resulted in keep. → AA ^(talk) — 13:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doğan Türkmen

None notable person. The only thing notable, is the assassination attempt, which is already covered in JCAG article. --VartanM 00:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom. If otherwise notable, notability should be established. Deniz^T_C 01:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletions. —Deniz^T_C 01:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletions. —Deniz^T_C 01:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. If it's already covered in JCAG, then turn this page into a redirect. It doesn't need to go through a deletion discussion, and his name is a plausible search term for the assassination attempt. Thomjakobsen 02:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i wanted to copy what I wrote on the talk page of Wikipedia:Notability here:
Are [diplomats] treated as politicians for notability issues (which would make them notable)? I could not by myself decide whether Doğan Türkmen was notable enough to be on Wikipedia. He is a former Turkish diplomat who survived an attack of JCAG, an Armenian militant/terrorist org. People are suggesting a redirect to JCAG (possibly for something like WP:BLP1E), but I don't see the merits of it (would kinda understand if he was an operative of JCAG. As a wiki reader, I wouldn't expect to see JCAG, when I type in his name). Google scholar search returns three results. Probably all info on him on the web covers the attack, and most of them include him only for the attack. Please leave your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doğan Türkmen. He was an ambassador. Also currently we don't have an article for the attack. Thanks. Deniz^T_C 04:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sources indicate he was a full ambassador. It has never been part of a guideline or even WP:OUTCOMES but generally ambassadors and chiefs of mission (e.g. from the U.S. Liaison Office to China and ranking charge d'affaires have been kept. Mindful also of WP:CSB. --Dhartung | Talk 08:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to JCAG#Timeline of attacks (note the sub-heading redirect). He's not notable enough for a separate article, as most references only seem to give him a passing mention (not "significant coverage" per WP:N), and all are in the context of the event (per WP:BLP1E). If we ever have an article for the event, then it should be redirected there instead. —gorgan_almighty 08:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is notable; as an ambassador and attacked by terrorists. Redirecting is not a good way since would cover only attcking.Must.^T ^C 10:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being attacked by terrorists isn't inherently notable, because Wikipedia is not a news source. If you think he's notable apart from the attempted assassination, then provide sources to prove it. —gorgan_almighty 13:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Ambassadors have consistently been regarded as notable here. That there is additional news coverage is another plus, but he would be worth an article regardless, even if it were a stub. OUTCOMES is just a summary of the practice here, and I can not find an AfD in the last year that closed otherwise. DGG (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What about other diplomats? By the way, the first external link is to an article by a Turkish Armenian journalist in Vatan, a Turkish newspaper, where he talks about a speech of Türkmen published in Hürriyet in 1980. The (quote from the) speech does not mention the assassination attempt, but the journalist does, when introducing Türkmen. Unfortunately, archives of Hürriyet go only back to 1997, so we (probably) don't have an access to the whole speech. This is the reason I said "mostof them include him only for the attack" above. I'll keep my vote for now. Deniz^T_C 02:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG (for once we agree). Burntsauce 22:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. If an article on the assassination attempt is created, a redirect is preferable unless more sources emerge for this ambassador. No reason at present for deleting verifiable information. Google reveals many sources, but mostly foreign language. TreeKittens 23:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is not an article dedicated to the person, but to the attack (there arent any necessary details about him, where he was born, when, is there any notable activities by him?). Hundreds and thousands of ambassadors were attacked and wounded during the 1960-80s it cant be an enough reason for a separate article! Andranikpasha 19:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to JCAG#Timeline of attacks, as suggested above. Not notable enough for separate article on the person themselves. -- MightyWarrior 22:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as coatrack article. Article isn't really about the person (of whom even the most basic biographical detail is still missing), but about the event; as such anything contained here can easily be covered in the article about the terrorist organisation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lundby (dollhouses)

DeleteClearly we see "Original research", POV, Blatant website advertising, linking the page to a website ready to take your orders! Simply because a manufacture has been around and has been selling this or that, does not make it "note worthy". Wikipedia:Spam and Wikipedia:Notability Lundby's clams that they are the "first to use electric lights" is not a pretty straightforward assertion of significance. It may be if it were cited and provable, but it isn't

We see, "Lundby houses, furniture and accessories are 3/4 scale, also known as 1/16th scale where 1 inch in real life is 3/4 inch in dolls house size. Other houses of the same scale include BRIO, Lisa, Verro, and a number of American tin houses with plastic furniture." Again clear advertising, as it has nothing to do with an industry, but rather what this particular store offers.

They offer "The most common Lundy house style is the Gothenburg, which has remained very similar in style from the 1960s to 2006 when it was discontinued. The Stockholm House was introduced in the mid 1970s (and a newer, modern version in 2006)." Noting what they offer for sale. How is this in keeping with WP:NPOV? EDIT, didn't mean to sound like I'm not AGF, if my wording is a bit strong forgive my poor choice of wordsMystar 02:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability, no sourcing. There's no reason here to suspect spamming, as this is not some SPA or flyby, but an established editor: AGF! --Orange Mike 03:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; If this company has been building dollhouses since the 1940s then that's notable. The nominator misunderstands the concept of WP:SPAM, as another editor has already explained, when they attempted to get this speedily deleted... twice. I notice the nominator claimed that they "have discussed it with a couple of administrators who also felt it was blatant advertising". Please include links to those discussions in this AFD, if administrators are claiming this article is "blatant advertising" then they shouldn't be admin, although I couldn't actually find any record of these alleged discussions, what could have happened to them? It's a standard thing in every article about a company to list the official site, that isn't "blatant website advertising". It's also acceptable (and encyclopedic) to decribe what their most popular house is, or what sizes they are. No reason at all for deletion here, good faith nomination, but totally misguided. At worst it could do with another source (I already added one). Masaruemoto 03:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I really have no dog in this hunt. I know nothing about dollhouses, I have no intention of buying dollhouses. However, this article is listed as a stub, it has been edited by multiple editors and it makes a pretty sizeable assertion of notability. And yes, I am perfectly within my rights to remove a speedy deletion template. I'm not sure what posting my past comments had to do with anything. This is not even within range of spam, much less blatant spam. I stand by my twice removing the speedy deletion templates. There is no reason for this article to be deleted...a google search even shows this manufacturer has an independent fan club. Why wouldn't an article about a corporation link to the corporation's external website and why wouldn't an article about a corporation discuss what the corporation does? How is that POV? By this logic, if we put on the Chevy article that they make the Corvette, that would be spam. Please show where there is original research. Smashville 04:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also, as I was not the original author, I find it highly inappropriate to place a warning on my talk page about removing the CSD templates. Smashville 04:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' it seems to be the leading company in Sweden in its sector. Also we have this: "Lundby, a Swedish company, was the first dollhouse in the world to be put into full production." on http://www.cheekymonkeytoys.com/lundolhous.html, and Cheekymonkeytoys (that has "been voted "Best Toy Store" for seven years as the 2007 Reader's Choice of the Almanac and Palo Alto Weekly") seem to be independent from Lundby. Seems notable. Deniz^T_C 04:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Better known (and google-able) as "Lundby of Sweden" (even in Sweden). History Hobbyist history Caroline's merger prop in academic study In the collection of the Nordic Museum. --Dhartung | Talk 08:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm having trouble accepting with good faith the claim that this was "discussed with two administrators" both of whom agreed it was blatant advertising. If they agreed that, either of them could have speedy deleted the article on the spot. At best, assuming these conversations took place, they may have agreed that -- as with any article -- a debate on notability at AFD was warranted. Please don't try to invoke invisible authority as a reason to delete an article. --Dhartung | Talk 08:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion of advertising was discussed in chat (the two quotes came from him) and on AIM. I like to double check before I place a tag, in case I'm missing something or am unaware of a specific rule. The term "Blatant" is mine alone, the rest agreed that it appeared to be. As for "original research" we can see that there is only unfounded statement as to their claims and a link to a website. Simply because a company has been around for a few years does not prove notability. Again, having a page just to have a page is not acceptable. Further this page has had plenty of time for additions (there are none as it is not notable), citations (again we see none for the claims are unfounded), and or significant contributions (again none worthy of note). So how is it again that it is not advertising? Mystar 16:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one, there has to be a conflict of interest for it to be advertising. The fact that the creator of the article has done far more on WP than just this article is proof that it is not advertising. The first company to mass produce dollhouses and you are saying it's not notable? The page is listed as a stub. Stubbiness of an article is not a reason for deletion. You need to read WP:SPAM to learn what an advertisement consists of. What you are claiming is very much assuming bad faith. Could you also direct us as to which specific admin stated this was blatant advertisement so that they may contribute to this discussion? Smashville 17:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per smashville- AGF/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did I miss the memo that was issued saying that we no longer need citations for sources, or that claims such as "was the first to....." needn't be supported? Or have I missed some new rule that now allows Wikipedia to solicit goods and services via links on Wikipedia? This site has nothing more than a few boasts about what someone "thinks" of them, and that's wonderful! Truly it is! However that in and of itself is not encyclopedic, nor is it material suitable for Wikipedia. We see several statements as to this or that, and plenty of time for these sources to be researched and cited as proof, yet none exists; yet you say, that these kinds of site and statements are now acceptable then? You seem to want to say that a page that only has some boasts as to its achievements (none can be sourced or verified, and none listed) and only has one link to the companies store is not advertising? Forgive me, I know I'm a bit slow but I guess I'm also blind. Oh, I also suspect that you didn't read my post where I stated, the word "blatant" way "my" verbage, and not the two admins. I'm only be much too happy to e-mail you their comments in privet, as I do not wish to place them on the spot, when what I asked them was for some clarification and an opinion. You can contact them on your own after I provide that e-mail. Nevertheless, WIKI is a place of consensus. The opinion or reasoning of the many outweighs the one, and I am all too happy to bow to that fact. But I do think that people need to get their facts straight and actually look at the page and its content before jumping on the bandwagon. That being said, I am curious as to how a page with several boasts and claims, with only a link to their store is not advertising?

Oh, also if the page is decided as a keep, wonderful! as it was by consensus, and had aslo a good amount of attention brought to it so that someone would perhaps add to it, and itsn't "that" what Wikipedia is all about as well? IF that doesn't happen, then it has no business being here and needs to be removedMystar 17:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, for the love of all things good and holy, quit assuming bad faith. This is clearly not a bad faith article and it's clearly a notable company and it is clearly NOT ADVERTISING. It would be one thing to argue the notability of the company, but you consistently harp on the fact that you are accusing an editor who has been posting on English Wikipedia for over a year and has made over 1500 edits on Swedish Wikipedia of advertising. The fact that you continue to assume bad faith towards the editor almost amounts to a personal attack. There are a ton of google hits that prove the notability of this. Unfortunately, I don't read Swedish and can't speak Swedish and I'm fairly certain most of the other posters here can't either, but if finding English language webpages that testify to the obvious notability of a Swedish company is that easy, there are most likely Swedish pages as well. A lack of citations is NOT a reason to delete a page. And please identify the admin who you say have stated that an editor who has been editing English Wikipedia for over a year and has made 1500 edits to Swedish Wikipedia is a spammer. It would be nice to know their reasoning and if this represents a blanket change in WP policy. Please demonstrate how this is advertising and please explain again how it lacks notability. Your only logic to why this is advertising seems to be, "The article says what the company does and what they sell." Wouldn't that be what you expected from an article about a corporation? The fact of the matter is that you have not given one reason as to why this article fails to meet WP:CORP other than the continuous accusations of an established editor spamming Wikipedia. I mean, there is an independently published magazine/newsletter relating to the company here. If you would notice, the address for the magazine/newsletter is Falls Creek, Virginia, which is not in Sweden. Smashville 18:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like someone has his undies in a bunch. Please take time to simmer down. As I've stated, I'm not assuming anything. I've stated fact, lack of citation, lack of source, boast or statements that are/were not backed up. Simple as that :) As I've stated I think it is not appropriate. And again is as simple as that. I assume nothing other than the facts. Simply because another editor places a page, doesn't make it suddenly "all ok". I've demonstrated how and why, the fact that you disagree is simply a difference of opinion, and my friend; this is why we are doing this. Also I would appreciate you reading exactly what I've stated and not twisting my words into something I didn't say. With respect to the other people I've spoken with. Nowhere have I stated "that an editor who has been editing English Wikipedia for over a year and has made 1500 edits to Swedish Wikipedia is a stammer." What I "did" say was that we looked at the page and it was agreed that it looked like an advert. I'll kindly ask you to stop assuming things and that follows into your bad faith. Mystar 02:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Traditional Conservative Party

Non-notable group. Not an active political party or group; it does not run candidates for election and my research has found no other activities of this group, either. The only Ghits for this group are Wikipedia mirrors. It is described as an "internet-based political party" but its website is a non-notable, 6-page geocities site that stongly resembles a personal webpage and appears not to have been updated for several years. Hoax. I did some additional reading on this "party's" website and if you click on the section labelled "remarques", the author of the website admits (in French) that the whole thing is a hoax. Loosely translating, the "CTCP exists only in our minds. It is an act of derision." Galteglise 01:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Not notable, and article is original research. Yahel Guhan 02:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as unsourced, non-notable OR Bfigura ^(talk) 04:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bfigura. GreenJoe 14:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable group. Keb25 01:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. -- Magioladitis 00:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No notability has yet been proved; the website is still seeking developers for feasibility/specifications studies. No prejudice to recreation if the project takes off. Espresso Addict 21:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OpenBook Project

Non-notable project, 17 google hits, almost all of which are for other things, or the wiki page itself. Saruhon 01:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I guess they didn't really do anything yet. Right now their site is just a non-notable blog, in addition to their blog. Non-notable for sure. Rocket000 02:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep merethan (82.161.0.223) sais: Yeah deleting the page from Wikipedia will really help them find developers. (the request for devs has been posted 05 sept this year so they're active) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.161.0.223 (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It isn't Wikipedia's function to help this project. If it takes off, write an article next year.--Bedivere 19:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat^♫ 03:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q1 productions

Prod tag was removed by article's creator with no explanation. I nominated this article for prod because none of the references in the article at the time discussed this company at all. More ELs have been added since, but they're either directories of companies in their business class or agendas of presentations they put on – for example, "X will have a discussion hosted by Q Productions..." and that's it. Some of them list Q1 with a 'more info' URL, and that URL is dead.

I can't find any reviews of their work or articles about them or their personnel. Google isn't much help ; there are some recruitment listings and more of the 'presented by Q1 Productions" pages. I don't think sites with only a brief "presented by Q1" count toward notability, and this group fails WP:CORP. KrakatoaKatie 01:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any verifiable, secondary sources providing information regarding notability. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 17:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and BlindEagle, as not passing WP:CORP. Bearian 00:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The discussion centered around his importance/significance rather than the existence of reliable source material for the article. He was born in 1900 and died in 1977, so it is likely that reliable source material would not be on the Internet. There was a lack of detailed discussion on the existence of such reliable source material. Rough consensus was not to delete. The keep arguments were weak as well. The consensus was no consensus. Jreferee t/c 07:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Marcy

This article essentially boils down to being a bio about a field grade staff officer. While I'm certain the subject was a good and patriotic man who served his country well, there isn't anything here that really warrants an article on wikipedia. It calls him a highly decorated veteran, but the highest award listed is the Legion of Merit. The creator of the article has only edited this page, so I think it was made as an online memorial of sorts, but really not a notable person to the public at large. Nobunaga24 00:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Accomplishment is not notability. No attribution of notability to independent sources; fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 01:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep highly decorated military officer. Chief of the Radio Division and Deputy Signal Officer of the Central Pacific command during WWII... not a post just anyone gets. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How is he highly decorated? The only awards listed are Legion of Merit, Bronze Star, and Air Medal, pretty run of the mill, especially for a colonel, and not necessarily awards for valor. The rest are campaign medals, given to everyone in theater.--Nobunaga24 02:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Who is "General Almond"? Marcy is one of the hundreds of thousands of brave members of the greatest generation, however NN. Tiptopper 10:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some claim of notability is forthcoming. Bacchiad 13:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article needs improvement on referencing, but the notability speaks for itself. Burntsauce 22:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable colonel. There are many three-star lieutenant generals (a much higher rank) without articles. Clarityfiend 04:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You realize your using a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument? ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. Just pointing out that a mere colonel is relatively far down the army food chain. Clarityfiend 20:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article could always be used for reference. The article shows key points in historical data. WIKIpedia users are getting delete happy and this seems like a big mistake. narwhalhistory 04:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not high-ranking, not highly decorated, not notable. Ritametermaid 21:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Google search only shows this page even as "Alfred Marcy". --Sc straker 01:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Guys/gals he was the head of communications for Central Pacific Command! Tell me, is that easy to achieve? And please research who General Almond was. Anyway, there needs to be more info I agree but seems like this could be used for reference.

kealma 22:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Houston isd council of ptas

Contested prod, even though there was a {{prod2}} nomination in addition to my own. The article is a mess, but even if it were cleaned up it should be deleted, because the group is not notable. KrakatoaKatie 00:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Woah, that is a mess. NN. - Rocket000 01:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable group. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as {{prod2}} nom a)nonnotable, b)if it was notable, it is capitalized and spelled incorrectly. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 23:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Bearian'sBooties 17:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voddie Baucham

Notability is not asserted, and the article has had a notability tag since May. Flex (talk/contribs) 00:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ~~WP:PROF~~WP:N. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ought to be a speedy delete, CSD A7, no assertion of notability. Pete.Hurd 05:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to be notable. *drew 12:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not asserted and I can find no impartial third-party sources that would demonstrate it (a couple of sycophantic blogs). Accounting4Taste 19:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and agree that this really ought to be a speedy delete but too late now. Burntsauce 22:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was transwiki. Wizardman 15:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaiwala

Wiktionary entry. Rocket000 00:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, go ahead and close this. Transwiki to Wiktionary and be done with it. Alba 01:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki already. Speedy close this already please. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep External links with references to Chaiwala added to the article. The article still needs to be rewritten, though. User:Pareshdesh 10:27, 2 October 2007 (IST)
Transwiki to Wiktionary.-RoBoTam^ice 17:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wiktionary can write their own. Burntsauce 22:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary; as this is a related project, let's be helpful.--Bedivere 19:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Die See

Non-notable instrumental track. Rocket000 00:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:INHERITED. Definitely doesn't deserve its own article, maybe merge into KOBUS!? NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While the band is worthy of an article, every track of theirs isn't worth an article of its own. Beno1000 00:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. STORMTRACKER 94 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fibernetics

was tagged speedy as hoax, but hoaxes are not speedy candidates, so here it is; the tag was: "Speedy deletion - Fraud & Vandalism: This seems to be a very good practical joke: Not one of the references or names in this article can be connected with this term Fibernetics, here presented. Google gives no links of this term in connection with the people mentioned in this article. This joke must be related to the Rebecca Phillips because here name turns out here out of the blau. the editor of this article only made this article. I as initiator of the WikiProject Systems wasn't aware of this kind of vandalism yet. The best thing to do is to delete this article at once now the fraud has been noticed (by an expert in the field User:Nick Green)." Carlossuarez46 00:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place for neologisms. None of the external links back up the article either, they just seem to be a coincidental company name. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Beno1000 00:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, slightly more elegant than your average hoax (yarn store? Lacan?) but just a hoax. --Dhartung | Talk 01:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism, spam, or a hoax. Doesn't matter which, it doesn't belong here. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to WP:BJAODN ILovePlankton⁽^L^—^s⁾ 04:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a nn neologism, spam, or hoax.-RoBoTam^ice 17:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN HOAX and delete WP:BJAODN too. (I thought we already did?) Burntsauce 22:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. WP:SNOW anyone? -- Hi Ev 20:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 true consensus. I'll default to keep, though I encourage those who want this merged to be bold and do it. Wizardman 15:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White House (Zork)

It's a house in a videogame--not notable in my mind, but maybe others think differently. What say you? Calliopejen1 00:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Zork I? Otherwise, delete, definitely non-notable. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge? I would say it's notable, however I don't think there's enough to say about it to warrant its own article. The only problem with merging is it spans the whole series; it's not just unique to one game. This lies somewhere between Hello, Sailor and Quendor. What is notable, in cases like these, depends on your POV, because it's definitely verifiable, yet some might consider it cruft. A merge would be the best thing, but I can't find an article (something like Places in Zork) similar to Creatures in Zork to add it to. Maybe it can be merged into Zork. I don't know, but if you delete this you are likely to be eaten by a grue. - Rocket000 01:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Within the Zork universe, the "White House" is quite notable; and as such I recommend the merging of any pertinent reliably sourced information into either Zork I or Zork. But it certainly does not meet the notability requirements for fiction. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Wasn't this just in Chuck (the TV show)? Without sources it's hard to justify the Keep, I suppose, but it strikes me as similar to other fictional entries, esp. as it appears in several games. If Forest moon of Endor merits an article... JJL —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As the article stands it has no sources or references attesting to notability outside of the Zork universe; if it was just featured in Chuck, please let us know--or better yet, improve the article to feature that and other aspects of real-world notability and then let us know here. I'd really be happy to have this article move above par and be kept; I certainly climbed through its kitchen window enough times.
  As for the forest moon of Endor, I don't see it meeting the notability requirements as is, but I think it probably could. I don't really feel like poking the Star Wars fans though. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zork. Not enough notability (or reliable sources) to stand on its own. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge NN. ILovePlankton⁽^L^—^s⁾ 04:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. The fact that it appears in or is referenced in games throughout the series makes me want to keep it, but I can live with a merge... the question is, to where? I guess to Zork, though it doesn't seem to really fit in well... I'd like to see a new Places in Zork article, as mentioned above. Pinball22 14:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Any notability is tied directly to Zork.-RoBoTam^ice 17:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if reliable sources can be provided, otherwise redirect. Burntsauce 22:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zork, unless proper notability sources can be shown. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Snow/WP:SK/Invalid nomination - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez 13:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hearsall Common

I'm not sure if this article meets WP:N. While it has been mentioned in a few local newspapers, none of them mention it specifically as the subject of the article. The only real claim to notability is the Frank Whittle story, which despite the plaque is unverified. To my knowledge, no sources have stated that he got the idea of the jet engine from Hearsall Common - it's hearsay and 'local pride' that have perpetuated the myth. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment, I'm not advocating deletion - treat this as a 'notability discussion' Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs are meant for serious efforts to delete articles, not just to "discuss" something for whatever reason. If you're not interested in deleting an article, then it shouldn't be up for Afd and the discussions can take place on the article's talk page. --Oakshade 03:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak to moderate keep. I don't like using "otherstuffexists" as a reason, but there are large numbers of articles on parks and similar open spaces on WP. Also, whether the story is true or not, there is enough currency in the Whittle story to give the common some notability. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nom's not interesting in deleting the article. See above. --Oakshade 03:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although the Whittle story needs to be corrected: [39] [40] are free articles, with more detail in a news search of all pay-per-read articles. Apparently the emergency landing was what inspired Whittle to get involved in aviation, so it indirectly led to his development of the jet engine (although of course it wouldn't have given him the idea, since he was only 8 years old). Regardless, it seems pretty notable locally, and one of those article titles alludes to the "ancient history" of the common (it was a deer park where the local aristos would hunt), so presumably there's enough material out there to form a decent article. Thomjakobsen 02:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After seeing the sources, I was leaning towards "keep" (especially if the link to Frank Whittle can be verified). After following the sources, I was leaning towards "delete". But as a whole, and per Thomjakobsen, I say it's a keeper. Rocket000 02:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and given the sources and the verifiable Whittle "event". --Oakshade 03:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starlight Information Visualization System

Procedural nomination. Concerns were point-of-view and doubtful notability but I'm hoping some AfD regulars will be interested in saving it. Note of course that it is clearly unacceptable in its current form. Pascal.Tesson 02:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is it possible to put on one of those lists for improvement or expansion? It could be a really interesting article if properly written and sourced. I definitely agree that it needs much work before it is up to Wiki standards. Renee 02:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you could list it at Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit or Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. My prefered solution is to put it up for deletion and wait for User:DGG to notice :-) Pascal.Tesson 03:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well here I am, but as this isn't my subject, all I can see is that there are 36 articles in google scholar [41], if someone can work from there. But I had not known I was unique in having heard of that way of finding sources. DGG (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. It seems to be an interesting piece of technology, but I can't find any evidence of notability. I am on the fence for now. If it is kept, it needs a rewrite. Darkcraft 08:24, 26 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, Chaser - T 23:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite. If no-one is willing to put in the effort, it needs to be stripped right down to basics. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cavalry. Definitely doesn't belong in its current form. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as argued above. The article still needs to be rewritten, though. Beno1000 00:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite or delete per Beno1000. ILovePlankton⁽^L^—^s⁾ 04:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with much editing needed I added a couple more URL's to source from, one very cut and dry, another with lots of citable content.... though the latter looks like Battle's writing, as well. Ronabop 06:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made a pass through to yank blatant PR and redundant phrasing. Also brilliantly introduced a paradigm shift into the future of this article by effortlessly improving the content through judicious and timely modifications, thus enabling end-users more accurate data to inform their real time decisions on AfD. :-) Ronabop 06:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, interesting project with Global War on Terror implementations [42][43][44]. It's not a product per se so spam isn't really an issue. A number of Google Scholar results (some also in Google Books, mainly two key academic papers). --Dhartung | Talk 08:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some sources and it seems notable. Fosnez 12:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It still has some considerable way to go before it's a good article, but it does have some references now, and it seems somewhat noteable.Mayalld 13:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient material available from the references now listed in the article. Google scholar and Google books have plenty more material. -- Jreferee t/c 09:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sekaa gong tirta sinar

This is an article about a gamelan musical group in Sydney, Australia. Unfortunately it doesn't assert notability as per the required criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music). There are no reliable sources provided in the article, just a bunch of personal web sites. A search of Google reveals only 36 hits for "Sekaa gong tirta sinar". Being a gamelan group outside of Indonesia does not satisfy the Wikipedia notably criteria. Caniago 06:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruft. Twenty Years 08:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable musical group with zero claim of notability. Keb25 09:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC, WP:N, and WP:RS. STORMTRACKER 94 20:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. ILovePlankton⁽^L^—^S⁾ 21:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Burntsauce 22:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - gamelan is an interesting subject but an article on this or any other gamelan group would require some verifiable sources to illustrate notability. I cannot find any such sources and the article doesn't provide any. There may also be a copyright issue as most of the article is a direct cut and paste from here. A more minor point is an apparent conflict of interest with the article creator User:ColinMacg probably being the Colin Macgregor named as the fifth member of the gamelan group itself. Euryalus 01:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move - the WP Indonesian Project - has indeed a problem with specifically categorising gamelan groups that are formed overseas - and which are in their own context- I would suggest that this article potentially be transferred to the Indonesian project as an orphan - and we at the Indonesian project could potentially create a 'gamelan' outside of Indonesia category and or article - so despite the fact that the nominator considers it deletable - it would be better dealt with there than here Satu Suro 07:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am not sure that the standards raised here are being applied consistently. There are a host of entries for American university marching bands in Wikipedia. They may well be known by more people than SGTS because the USA is more populous than Australia, but the relative significance of a number of them is probably no greater than that of SGTS. Also, this is a unique band in Sydney that, by its existence, I expect would be doing its small part to help build bridges between two countries that have experienced some friction in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greta007 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in view of the above comments so far - a strategy should be thought about where to move the information to - as the trend suggests that an addition into the Gamelan outside of Indonesia area rather than have to deal with or cope with the views of the delete nominators - there is the capacity in that context to accomodate such information Satu Suro 08:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Lue

Does not meet WP:BIO. It has been a stub since creation. What else is there to say about this person? Do we have an encyclopedia article for all good fighter pilots simply because they were good fighter pilots? There must be something notable about a particular pilot in order to deserve an article. Otherwise, how about articles on all the good jet fighter mechanics, or all the good (insert slippery slope arguement here). William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 16:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:[reply]

Strong Keep - this article has grown since creation so that a misleading statement. The number of combat missions alone is notable. Can you show me someone who has flown more? And yes notable fighter pilots desire an article. You nominated two fighter pilots for deletion and mention we need to do this so no "mechanics" get articles. You seem to be making the slippery slope where there is none. --MarsRover 16:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - whoa...maybe we can tone this down a little. You may not have noticed that I didn't give an opinion to keep or delete. I simply brought the pages here for discussion. Also, I didn't say it hasn't been added to, I said it was created as a stub and still remains so. I still don't see what is so notable about this man...he had a job (fighter pilot), which he did well. Does that make him notable? If there isn't enough to write in order to get the article past the stub stage, isn't that, by definition, a non-notable subject? The number of combat missions flown is, at best, an asterisk in history, but, in my opinion, the man doesn't deserve an article in an acedemic encyclopedia.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 17:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I probably should have worded that better. My apologies. Military history is part of acedemeia just like all the pop culture articles. Some notable fighter pilots who lived and died during the Secret War might be useful to future generations. Sure its a small article but there are few Hmong biographies. And there will be even less if we delete these. --MarsRover 17:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The phrase "for flying more combat missions than any other pilot" makes him notable. Also, there are sources attached to the article to backup the claims within the article. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 17:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this. The sentence "In his single-propeller T-28 fighter Lee Lue became the most important warrior in the CIA's secret Hmong army." certainly seems notable. He's described as "legendary" by the Washington Post. I'll put this article in and link to others later, as I'm stepping out.--Sethacus 17:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think you all are missing my point. The question is not whether "flying more combat missions..." is notable, the question is whether this man is notable. The part about the missions can be one sentence in an article about fighter pilots, but we don't need a permanantly stubbed article about the man. The actions are what are notable, not the man who performed them.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 17:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge Lee Lue is notable for a variety of reasons, including number of missions and role as the most important pilot in Vang Pao's army during the Secret War. There is a good deal of information about him in Hamilton-Merritts' "Tragic Mountains" that could be included in the article (if others are inclined to add it). Also, just because an article hasn't moved beyond stub status as quickly as liked, it isn't a justification for deletion. Perhaps Vang Sue does not stand up to the notability test, but he could easily be merged into the Lee Lue article. Nposs 20:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly notable. If more details are wanted then go to it and research them. Deleting the article instead would be obtuse. Colonel Warden —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no question that this meets WP:BIO and I hope the nominator can withdraw the nom. Burntsauce 22:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator - I see some more info has been added that establishes the notability of Lee Lue and that there appears to be more to him that just a good fighter pilot. However, I still maintain that Vang Sue should not be a stand-alone article. If we can merge Vang Sue into the newly expanded Lee Lue article, per Nposs, then I will concede to the withdrawal this nom.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 04:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is completely unnecessary and moreover this is an inappropriate venue to discuss merge options. This is articles for deletion, not merge requests. Burntsauce 21:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the above. There is very little, in books and other sources, beyond the fact that Vang Sue was Lee Lue's wingman and was honored alongside him.--Sethacus 15:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Americans for Religious Liberty

Notability issues I dont think it passes WP:CORP. β^_command 18:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP ILovePlankton⁽^L^—^S⁾ 21:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Bearian'sBooties 17:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no secondary sources are given that mention it. If some could be found then I'm sure the group would be found to be notable enough and the article could be restarted. I suspect that the group is really notable enough, but sources are needed. The article has been there for almost a year. Steve Dufour 04:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Star Camps

Has serious notability issues. β^_command 18:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. ILovePlankton⁽^L^—^S⁾ 21:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is really just an advertisement for the titled subject. The camps, like hundreds of others, serve a good purpose but are not notable. --Stormbay 03:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is somewhat unusual for a summer camp program to have gone on for 60 consecutive summers. I'm not sure if any individual camp would be notable in the sense of attracting zillions of google hits; summer camp and surfing the net don't mix are mutually exclusive things. Among camps, however, I think that this one would be notable because of its longevity. If not a keep, perhaps this can go into an article about camps that cater to a particular religion or denomination. Mandsford 12:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it Blue star is one of the older Jewish oriented camps in the region. As such, it is an important part of Jewish culture in the Southeast. The article should remain. John Bob 10:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)John Bob 10:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as it stands, it is just an advert. Unless it can be improved, it isn't worth keeping. Deb 11:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it- The camp holds a great deal of Southern Jewish history. Also, a Jewish camp that has been in existence since 1948 is something that people would like to know about, not just invest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.195.11 (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 17:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Caviglia

fails WP:BIO. β^_command 18:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom NN/(fails WP:BIO. - Rjd0060 02:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't seem to find information about a level at which college coaches become notable. My feeling is a delete as NN but is there not a point that the position gives notability? --Stormbay 19:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability. -- Magioladitis 00:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Bedivere 19:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bilingual manga

I think the title of the article pretty much sums up anything the article would need to say. Bilingual manga are Japanese comics in two languages, not much more to say about it.SeizureDog 18:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is just a pointless article. Like the nominator says, you can get what this is about by reading the title alone. And that isn't really an article. Burntsauce 22:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. IP198 19:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Ned Scott 07:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Futile.--Bedivere 19:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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