Knowledge (XXG)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The article doesn't make it clear how this mall is notable, and I haven't been able to find any indication of notability outside of Knowledge (XXG). Aecis 22:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no sources can be found on this mall. Also note, it was previously deleted before (but with different content). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 22:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. At first glance, most of the Google News searches I was finding seemed trivial. But the fact that the town annexed the mall certainly isn't trivial! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 22:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Where did you look for sources? I see a lot of stuff here. Zagalejo^^^ 22:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• I have access to Newsbank, so I can add some material later. I have to get going right now, though. Zagalejo^^^ 23:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Actually annexation seems very trivial to me. It's probably done tens of thousands of times a year in the U.S. alone, and is almost always of strictly local interest only. Quale (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Zagelejo (nice catch!), some of those sources write specifically about the mall. --- tqbf 22:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 23:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per TPH are ors. Mall iks notable, article just needs some work to clean it up some more. Thewinchester 12:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above, WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This mall is unique in that it was virtually a "dead mall" and destined for closure but has since been given a new lease on life. A good example of urban renewal. Toddbarwick (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:N. --Sharkface217 20:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep JERRY _contribs 06:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Lee Riches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete No independent notability established per WP:BIO. Few of the sources seem to be wholly about this individual and are simply about cases he has filed. Knowledge (XXG) is not a tabloid - see WP:NOT#NEWS. This should have possibly been placed up for speedy since per WP:CSD since it was already deleted. Anyway, I don't see how this is a workable article since it so easily violates WP:BLP with this talk of lawsuits and its reliance completely on media speculation and rumors. Strothra (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how there's a case for a BLP violation, considering that the article is thoroughly sourced; there are more references than sentences in the article, in fact, all to reliable sources. Ubernostrum (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep --- crackpot? yes. notable? clearly. references include print newspaper article about the subject, with subject's name in the lede. --- tqbf 22:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#NEWS states, "While Knowledge (XXG) strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news. Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article."--Strothra (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't WP:BLP1E --- subject appears to be at the center of multiple incidents, all about him. --- tqbf 22:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep "Not News" does not mean that anything made notable through the news media should not be included. Plenty of sources and verifiable for a variety of events (or cases). Joshdboz (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Agreed with Joshdboz. Not news doesn't apply here because this is over a long period of time; three years, not a week and a half. That level of media attention over a period of years makes him notable. matt91486 (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• strong keep - The Fox and Boston Globe (actually AP) articles alone are enough to satisfy WP:N. Torc2 (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with tqbf. The article is about someone who is notable, not merely for a single trivial incident, but an ongoing, well-known, and newsworthy chain of events. It would be a loss to the encyclopedia to not include him. Plasma (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - this fellow is becoming a cultural icon, and is still producing a body of work. See . Quite noteworthy. Erielhonan 02:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete being in the news for being bizarre is far from an establishment of notability rather it is an establishment of noteriety. These are not the same thing. This is not the kind of article that belongs here, per WP:NOT. ⇒SWATJester 03:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  "Too bizarre for Knowledge (XXG)"? Did I miss a memo? =) --- tqbf 03:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  Nothing in WP:NOT is remotely applicable to this, including WP:NOT#NEWS. This isn't a one-time newsflash. This is a person whose actions over a period longer than a year have resulted in people taking notice and reputable news organizations writing about his work. It doesn't matter if his work is ridiculous or surreal; there is nothing in Knowledge (XXG) that excludes an individual if they've behaved absurdly. It doesn't matter if you personally do not appreciate his work or label him 'notorious' instead of notable. The simple fact is he is notable, and that notability has been established by multiple articles about the subject from multiple reliable sources. Torc2 (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - So Mr. Riches is too weird for Knowledge (XXG), but Kibo is notable? :) U (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - While it's a bit of a pain making sure that the article stays within BLP guidelines, I believe that the individual is sufficiently notable for an article. --Moonriddengirl 19:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly notable. Dreadstar † 03:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BIO and WP:HEY. --Sharkface217 20:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirected, merge as needed. Pastordavid (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Congressional Order of Merit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable money raising scheme. I can't find any reliable sources, and once you take -wikipedia out of the equation, there are only 130 Google hits, and nothing in news.google.com. Corvus cornix_talk 21:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with National Republican Congressional Committee. - Not notable enough for own article, although I did find this as a reliable source. National Republican Congressional Committee already documents similar "scams", so I don't see why this one can't be integrated. Joshdboz (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. This title should be kept as a redirect for the benefit of readers who may encounter a reference to the "award" and come to Knowledge (XXG) for information. We can tell them that it's awarded by the NRCC, not by Congress. JamesMLane t c 08:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per JamesMLane - 52 Pickup (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Neıl ☎ 11:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

We don't have an article on Christianity and domestic violence, Judaism and domestic violence, Buddhism and domestic violence, Hinduism and domestic violence, or any others that I can see. This article is a POV fork of materials that could be better discussed in more generalized articles (and many of them already are, so merging is probably unnecessary). By lumping together a large number of disparate phenomena under the banner of "Islam and domestic violence," this article violates our prohibition on original research by synthesis. A separate article on the subject also potentially constitutes undue weight. *** Crotalus *** 21:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Be careful of "we don't have " arguments. Remember Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Nudity in Judaism. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. If there is published research on the other religions and domestic violence then start an article by all means. Read the reference section of this article--tons of research has been published on this topic. There is no undue weight by having this here - if anything, it reduces the discussion of this issue in other articles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

*STRONG DELETE - This is nothing more than some kind of attack page, and a bigoted one at that. There is already a page on Criticism of Islam, which should have what useful information is within this article merged into it. Atari400 21:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC) -- sock puppet

• Obvious keep: A lot of sources have talked about this issue. The fact that we dont have Christianity and domestic violence, doesnt mean we shouldnt have this article. I wouldnt AfD Eastern Christianity just because we dont have Eastern Islam. As for your last argument that "A separate article on the subject also potentially constitutes undue weight", well we have Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Christianity etc. Articles have to be split appropriately if a certain section gets large enough and this has happened in all of these cases including this one. --Matt57 21:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Looks well sourced and notable. By all means start the articles you mentioned if they have substantive sources and notability. Joshdboz (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete --- A pure POV piece, this article literally asks if the subject has stopped beating its wife yet. --- tqbf 22:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• keep and comment we do have an article Christianity and domestic violence now, Uncle G started it. Also, anyone who knows even several muslim women will know that domestic violence in those communities is an issue, and there are different issues around it in those cultures than in the secular culture that surrounds them, for instance, in the UK. (Due to arranged marriages, family influence, cultural values etc.) We might as well reflect reality and have an article discussing reality, than pretend something doesn't exist, when it does. It's not PC to say it's due to Islam though, so maybe rename to somehow say it's a cultural, rather than religious issue, or make that clear in the article's lead. Merkinsmum 22:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you're referring to a cultural thing not a Muslim thing. Domestic violence is indeed a problem in many immigrant communities sadly. I see no evidence it's restricted to Muslims ones though. For example a lot of what you're referring are common throughout the Indian subcontinent and is not restricted to Muslims. Do you have any evidence the problem is more widespread among Muslim Indian immigrants (including Pakistanis etc) in the UK then it is among non-Muslim (Hindu etc) Indian immigrants? I suspect there would not be much difference if any on the levels of domestic violence. Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You say 'It sounds to me like you're referring to a cultural thing not a Muslim thing. ' That's sort of what I said, isn't it? As to whether it's more comoon in Pakistani, Bangladeshi, predominantly Muslim rather than India communities, I would say so because the role of women is slightly better in Hindu cultures. Anyway what I'm saying is not so much that it's worse, but that there are specific factors such as arranged marriage, that make it a bit different to the issues in the UK as a whole. Maybe it should be renamed, though, to be more about a cultural thing. Merkinsmum 17:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - While I consider the title open for improvement, it is IMO appropriate to have an article on the topic which is an issue of significance, and generally notable. ITAQALLAH 23:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep - nominator makes the common mistake of assuming all religions are the same. Arrow740 (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - But article needs to be restricted. Stuff like what Merkinsmum mentions above probably doesn't belong in the article. The merits of other articles should definitely be considered. We now have Christianity and domestic violence. We also have Women in Hinduism and Sati (practice) Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As Pakistani analyst Farrukh Saleem points out in the Daily Times of Pakistan "Of the 192 member-states of the United Nations almost all honour killings take place in nine overwhelmingly Muslim countries. Denial is not an option...onour killings have taken place in France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Canada. Intriguingly, all these honour killings have taken place in Muslim communities of France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Canada. Denial is not an option." Nick mallory (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per WP:SIZE and WP:IAR, mainly because the article itself, while it could hypothetically be merged into Criticism of Islam, is highly useful on its own. --Sharkface217 20:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong DELETE This is nothing more than an attack on Islam. By its over generalization. And does not teach a person a single thing. Nor does it contain any facts, rather a mer point of view, thus is not worthy of an encyclopidia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.237.147 (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Article has some POV issues but should not be deleted. Phyesalis (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —  ⇒ bsnowball  11:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• comment ask closer to consider leaving open for further discussion, as wasn't too well publicised. rename to more npov along lines of 'd. violence in islamic law' probably shld be discussed at some stage too.  ⇒ bsnowball  11:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedied as vandalism. --Stormie (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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

This appears to be a hoax. Nominating to achieve consensus. Eliyak T·C 21:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Hoax of the worst kind: the kind that doesn't even try it with humour. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as obvious hoax. It is a copy-and-paste of Pygmy shark, with a few words changed (e.g. Euprotomicrus bispinatus changed to Euprotomicrus gametus).--Hnsampat (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete indeed, although it doesn't quite fit any of the criteria. That's why we have WP:SNOW...--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 23:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete "Euprotomicrus gametus" returns nothing on Google. VivioFateFan 00:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.   jj137 23:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

WP:OR as attested to by the originator of the article as shown here. Shoessss |  Chat  21:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Don't Delete I wrote the definition for Knowledge (XXG) of A Spritual View of History. Am grateful for all comments. I believe with edits this document may be brought to Wiki standards which I am working on and invite anyone to join in the effort. I would be grateful of this extra time to make these edits and address the issues brought forward. Please feel free to send any comments to my talk page. Bphagan (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The term may be notable, but the content is pure OR; someone might recreate it later with references. --- tqbf 21:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I was sorely tempted to speedy delete this as nonsense. This is a rambling WP:OR discourse. I don't see how this can be more than an OR essay. Dlohcierekim 22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but not nonsense, for it is clear what the guy is trying to say, whatever one thinks of the value of the content. But it is merely a summary of the author's website. DGG (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete : utter nonsense, completely non-notable per WP:N, not sourced per WP:V and clearly original research in violation of WP:NOR. Mh29255 (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete Aside from being a synthesis of information, this article inherently speaks from a non-neutral perspective. This article (or rather, this essay) does not attempt to address the subject of how history has been looked at from a spiritual perspective, throughout the world and throughout history, and the impact this has had on society (which would probably be a pretty good article if there were a established notability of the subject). Rather, this article actually attempts to analyze history from a "spiritual perspective". This is inherently biased because (1) in order to examine something from a particular perspective, any perspective, you must adopt a particular non-neitral viewpoint, and more importantly (2) any time you present an analysis on anything, you are presenting an opinion, or an original viewpoint relating to the subject. This may be the grounds for an essay, but not for an encyclopedia article. (also, although this may be a bit besides the point, the article's title is really a misnomer, as the article discusses history from the viewpoint of Christian mythology, which is definitely not the same thing as spirituality). Calgary (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Politely Delete per WP:OR. I appreciate User:Bphagan's wish to create something that hasn't been seen before, but "original research" essays don't stay permanently on Knowledge (XXG). Even when it's interesting, any one person's own "view of history" is not encyclopedia material. It would be different if there was a book called The Spiritual View of History that had been published and had been notable enough to be praised and criticized by other noteworthy commentators (there probably has been a book with that title, come to think of it). Don't let this experience discourage you from contributing. You write well, and I hope you'll continue to do so. However, one of Knowledge (XXG)'s rules is that "original research" (in other words, one's own observations, or one's own synthesis of information) cannot be the basis for an entire article. I've been in this about six months now, and I not only know more about the rules (than I did 6 mos. ago), I also have an appreciation of why they exist. Save your work to your hard drive, don't feel too bad if it doesn't stay up. Trust me, this is not the end, but just the beginning of your contributions to Knowledge (XXG). Mandsford (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Whatever it is it is not an encyclopedic article. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Don't Delete Here is my response to address the issues brought up with regard to this topic and I have also made some minor edits to a Spiritual view of history.

This first issue addressed is that a Spiritual View of History constitutes original research. The issues of nonsense, verifiability and notability will be addressed in turn.

"Knowledge (XXG) does not publish original research." "All material must be verifiable using a reliable published source." Or, "Knowledge (XXG) is not a place to publish... original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly supports the information as it is presented." Or, to "forward claims not directly supported by the sources is original research", or "drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research."

A Spiritual View of History does not constitute original research because the material presented, the statement of Benedict XVI is verifiable since it appears in a reliable published source. (See citation footnote #2 - Catholic News Service, Castel Gandolfo, Italy 8/15/2007). Information is provided directly related to the topic of the article and directly supports the information as it is presented. The information provided does not deviate from the topic of the article nor does it deviate from supporting the information presented. No claims are made not directly supported by the sources. The claims of the source are far reaching both as to past and future history. Claims made do not exceed those bounds and conclusions drawn are evident in the reference again as to both past and present historical events. The reference itself states conclusions of enormous scope "into existence once again in the Nazi... dictatorships and the dictatorship of Stalin" and as to the present the reference states "the red dragon exists in new and different ways." There are conclusions that are part of the reference itself, to extend these conclusions or discuss their effects and consequences provided they are supported by the reference and evident from the source does not constitute original research.

If Lucifer has involved himself in relations between nations in the past and does so still "in new and different ways" if there is any knowledge to be gained in that area, how does that constitute "nonsense"? To toss him off lightly as though he has little or nothing to do with the development of human history - is that wise? According to a Gallup poll in 2003 (source the New York Times, 3/4/2003, Nicholas Kristof, "God, Satan and the Media"), sixty eight percent of the American people believe in the devil. If focusing on him, on his objectives, on his plans, on his future ability to achieve his goals - how does that constitute nonsense?

As to the question of verifiability "the threshold for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG)", is verifiability not truth? "only assertions, theories, opinions and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Knowledge (XXG)". The criteria has been met.

How prevalent is the belief that Lucifer does involve himself actively in human affairs both personal and public? This position is a majority opinion and can be "substantiated with reference to commonly accepted reference texts, " which is the test for majority acceptance. The reference text, of course, is the Bible and irrespective of ones beliefs it does cite time after time Lucifer's involvement with humans and the human race. There are no publications of note stating any significant minority views or "prominent adherents of a minority viewpoint" on this issue.

As to notability, a topic is presumed notable "if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" and "sources may encompass published works in all forms and media" and "substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence". Sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject matter appear time after time in the most widely read book in the world - the Bible. Irrespective of one's views of the Bible, Lucifer is very much a notable subject in it as well as numerous other sources. He has always had long-term notability and he appears in almost all paper encyclopedias.

Admittedly some conclusions in a Spiritual View of History appear to be a personal essay, but when carefully examined these conclusions are drawn based only on the original reference or on other sources and do not constitute personal conclusions. The Democratic Peace Theory, already extensively covered in Knowledge (XXG), explains that if strong stable democracies are extensively established throughout the world then dictatorships, a major cause of "terror and violence" are reduced in number and effect.

When Lucifer shifts his take over attempts to weaker nations, that conclusion is evident from the original reference to "new and different ways". The fact that he was behind both the Nazi and Stalinist attempts to expand and destroy democracy and the fact that he still is attempting to reach that same goal in "new and different ways" is within the bounds of the original reference. If the Democratic Peace Theory is correct then it holds that the spread of democracy throughout the world has the most promise of bringing peace to the world. This conclusion is gained by a simple review of the theory itself. Bphagan (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment You infer a lot from a few statements, in hopes that you will persuade us to agree with your view of Satan's control of world affairs. Sorry, Knowledge (XXG) is nobody's personal bulletin board. Mandsford (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment – Whooo…are you saying the article is notable because you mention Lucifer in your piece. If that is the case, I want an article about me. My first name is George and since George is the first name of the First President of the United States, and there are numerous, verifiable and reliable articles about George - I should be able to claim notability. Shoessss |  Chat  23:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment --- can I change my vote to "strong delete and hail Satan"? --- tqbf 01:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - personal essay, isn't an encyclopedia article. Addhoc (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Polite Delete per WP:NOT. This is an essay. I suggest that the user who created it saves it on a subpage before it is deleted. --Sharkface217 20:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Asexual Meat Kitchen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable single - article even states this is a B-side. No indication of any chart position or notability for the single itself. Nothing much comes up on Google. Article about the band doesn't even mention the track. No references, sources or other information given to indicate this is notable. CultureDrone (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete --- per nom, can't find any indication that this is a notable b-side; why does it need its own article? No assertion of notability. --- tqbf 21:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As above, song doesn't seem notable enough to have its own article, doesn't seem very well known at music sharing sites like Last.fm either. alex.muller (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per obvious lack of notability. --Sharkface217 20:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Madman (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Dentistry#Specialities. Neıl ☎ 11:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

This is a list of dental specialties just as the article name implies. However, it just so happens that this list is already covered under Dentistry as shown here . Shoessss |  Chat  20:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Dentistry#Specialities. -- Flyguy649 20:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: dental specialties vary by jurisdiction and there are important legal consequences for those dentists who claim to be a specialist. the list on the dentistry article is complete for USA, but lacking for those in the EU where EU law defines the specialties. I imagine the situation for dental specialists is legally complex elsewhere in the world, and would merit a seperate page to outline the different specialties by jurisdiction. Ashley Payne (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Flyguy. Kudos to Shoessss for spotting the origin of the article. This page was either created because someone thought that Dentistry was too big an article, or the information has been merged back into the parent article in anticipation of a deletion. It's not so large a table that it has to exist separately. Mandsford (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The section doesn't have to be spun out of the main article to include information on specialties in specific jurisdictions. And certainly we wouldn't want to add that information only to a sub-article, leaving the section in the main article Americentric. If the content grows disproportionately large it can be appropriately spun out in summary style. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 11:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

No reliable sources for the article's claims of notability; article appears to be a vanity page edited largely by the subject. Jonobennett (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete --- was skeptical, since the article cited notable bands and the nom used the V-word, but I can't find any news references or web cites for this artist (in any permutation of his name) or his "Halfpenny Studios". --- tqbf 21:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: --- music producers are often the least publicly recognised figure in a song's development - they are not splashed all over newspapers and do not need to seek public attention therefore the article is helpful for those who want to know more --- 12:22, 29 December 2007 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.41.9 (talk)

• Delete per Jonobennett. Madman (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - per Jonobennett. A vanity page mostly edited by the subject. - 52 Pickup (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Declined speedy. Non-notable videogame character. Smashville 23:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note that Twinkle didn't complete the process, so the AfD is actually starting on 12/27. --Smashville 20:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• delete nothing more then an Georgians research plot summary. Ridernyc (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Which doesn't mean that it isn't unfixable or that it couldn't made into a better article. But my feeble protestations of principle aside, delete - characters don't come much more minor than this, and he doesn't figure into the main plot. --Kizor 08:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• delete, game is notable. character is not. And they didn't even spell the name right anyway.Umbralcorax (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - incredibly minor character in the game he's in. 90% of the article's content (as well as the article's name) is rubbish created by the author that is false or doesn't exist in the game. Sephiroth BCR 06:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Could this be merged into a list of KOTOR characters? --Sharkface217 20:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• which parts of the unsourced original research plot summary should be merged? Ridernyc (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• It shouldn't even garner a mention on the character page. He's a NPC that is present in a sidequest for about thirty seconds and carries no significance with the overall plot. Sephiroth BCR 01:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Madman (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The latter portion of the article is a complete fabrication, and his name is Deadeye Duncan, with an 'A', anyway. Alloranleon (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The article, as per the edit history, appears to be a student's dissertation and a work in progress at that. Knowledge (XXG) is not a place to store and work on dissertations. The article seems to be about a non-notable subject and contains no references. Parts seem to be promotion/advertising, parts seem to be defining terms that are defined elsewhere on wikipedia. Sassf (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Borderline speedy, as the majority seems to fall under G11 (spam). The rest of it comes across as a somewhat poorly written resume. I won't tag this myself, but if anyone else is feeling bolder, go for it. Otherwise, delete. --Badger Drink (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity ad for nonnotable individual. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per obvious WP:NOT violation. --Sharkface217 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Madman (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Not notable yet, biggest claim to notability is guest vocals on a couple Avenged Sevenfold songs and a guest spot in a few Big & Rich tours. Only links are official site and MySpace; no reliable sources could be found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 17:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:V and WP:MUSIC. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rt. 20:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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) 19:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak KeepNeutral. This suggests sufficient notability from tours/performances.--Michig (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC) updated to neutral.--Michig (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V and WP:MUSIC. Purevolume.com is not reliable. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's not reliable, but it asserts notability. The live performances should be verifiable.--Michig (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Point. Still fails WP:V, though. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't find much in the way of independent coverage, however, so maybe this should go until her Atlantic Records album comes out, when no doubt the major-label promotion machine will generate plenty of coverage.--Michig (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep WP:N seems to be met here, if only just. I think that she is barely notable. --Sharkface217 20:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not really notable. Madman (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination's basis does not appear to be correct - as Phil Bridger shows, there are plenty of hits on Google. Neıl ☎ 11:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahmed Cali Cigal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable. No hits on Google (outside WP). Only one link from another article. No references cited. CultureDrone (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Actually there are loads of hits on Google outside WP. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 07:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: appears to be notable enough. --Soman (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep/Nomination Withdrawn --JForget 00:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

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

No evidence of notability Rtphokie (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge or Delete Merge into The Unicorns, Th' Corn Gangg, and Islands *if* citations can be found. No justification for a seperate article, particularly when it provides zero citations. Pharmboy (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - some media coverage - added citations. Addhoc (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

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) 20:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• A frontman of a number of notable Canadian bands, usually known by his stage name Nick Diamonds, he has had some media coverage on his own; I added a feature interview with The Globe and Mail from 2006. Keep. --Paul Erik 08:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik 08:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Searching his various aliases produces more sources, some of which I've added to the article. Some are just trivial mentions, but others talk about him individually as an artist and not so much about his bands. –Pomte 08:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis of significant press coverage, NYT Times and Globe and Mail especially. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Does have independent press coverage, but even if he didn't, a musician who's been associated with three different notable bands is not a redirect candidate since there's no easy or valid way to prioritize one of his bands over the other two as the primo inter pares of potential merge targets. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to meet WP:N and now meets WP:MUSIC. --Sharkface217 20:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment withdrawing nomination as the article has been significantly improved.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirected to McStroke - "Peter Strokes His Meat" was a working title for that episode. --Stormie (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter Strokes His Meat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

episode of Family Guy that has gone way past its projected airdate; doubts about existence Will 20:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rt. 20:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I don't want to be seeing this ever again, thank you. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge with List of American Dad! episodes. --Moonriddengirl 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Frannie 911 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

article about a future event with no sources Will 20:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rt. 20:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

sources include tvguide and fox press releases. Was initially scheduled to air in DEC, but due to strike and shortage of eps it was moved to Jan 6, 2008, although the xbox live marketplace release never changed from the initial date so its already available there.Grande13 (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Working with episode articles myself, it's a real let down to see articles with fictioncruft in and for them to be unreferenced, so, unless references can be found and it can be expanded, deletion is the best thing here. Qst 13:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No, deletion is not the best thing. WP:EPISODE#Dealing with problem articles says to "avoid listing episodes for AfD" and to "consider merging or redirecting" articles for non-notable episodes. DHowell (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no references, no real world notability, fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to List of American Dad! episodes. No claim of real-world notability; WP:EPISODE says such episodes should not have their own article.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Further comment -- this also would apply to most, if not all, of the episodes of this show.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of American Dad! episodes. Recreate when significant coverage in reliable sources can be found. DHowell (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - the episode name, planned airdate, and plot synopsis are verifiable to a primary source: the Fox press release reproduced here. Doesn't establish notability but does establish a valid redirect name. DHowell (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy A7 by Jerry. Tevildo (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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

A non notable community theater that is using wikipedia as an advertisement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Floydzamarripa (talk • contribs)

• Comment this debate was originally listed at Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion. I have moved it. Hut 8.5 20:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion of notability. --Alfadog (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, no assertation of notability. I tagged for speedy. --Badger Drink (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Spliff Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is not a notable committee by any means and thus I recommend that the article be removed. Delete. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No assertion of notability. --Alfadog (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I checked their website, appears at most to be an informal group of friends who have given a clever name to their posse. --Sharkface217 21:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nice idea, and in theory worthy of having an article on the whole cannabis acceptance theme. That said, the article is not very well-written, and as Sharkface217 pointed out, they're little more than a bunch of friends with ideas far above their station. EDIT: that last part was a joke, btw. Alloranleon (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• REMAIN I am one of the founders of The Spliff Committee and the one responsible for posting the article. Can someone please explain to me why our group being listed is any different than Steve Kubby having his own listing? We are in the process of authenticating our organization as a pro-marijuana group, but do not understand why is is relevant to have an article about the group published on Knowledge (XXG). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robstyles21 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• REMAIN It should be noted that the Spliff Committee has made significant developments in the areas of graphic design and fashion. Using it's reputation and influence through the NY Metro area, The Spliff Committee has had significant discussions with some notable industry types, and is in the process of releasing a clothing line bearing it's many logos, designs, and symbols. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaoming88 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Feel free to contact myself or any other administrator when the article is released or almost released, when more information would be available, or request recreation via Deletion Review. Neıl ☎ 11:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

BoA sixth Japanese studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball. We can always wait for the album to come out before creating the article, not to mention that there are no citations explicitly stating that this album will be coming out, let alone on February 20, 2008. Pandacomics (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball. No assertion of notability, no album title and no sources for verification per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I am sorry that it had no source but I'll properly cited the page now it is confirmed BoA is releasing her sixth album on February 27th of 2007. It also had confirm the following track are include on the album: "Sweet Impact," "Love Letter," "Beautiful Flowers," "Smile again," "be with you." The only problem left it the title which is currently unconfirm.
  • Source: CDJapan a major online CD seller "BoA / Untitled" - AVCD-23498, AVCD-23497, and AVCD-23499 — ■~∀SÐFﾑｻ~■ =] 05:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Also the album will have more information as released date comes closer even Oricon has confirmation of the album beside the lack of title also the album's released date has been push back a week. — ■~∀SÐFﾑｻ~■ =] 06:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as crystalline placeholder page for expected future album: no title, no good sources. Can be recreated when released if necessary. tomasz. 13:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --Sharkface217 21:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under WP:CSD A7, no assertion of notability. Elkman 20:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Dran0n Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Non-encyclopedic, non-notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Speedily delete as per CSD A7, the group is obviously not notable. --Nn123645 (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: no assertion of notability. Mh29255 (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge & redirect to Woodsball. Keilana_(recall) 00:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Does not have any reference, is written like an essays and some kind of stategy guide, and very tecnical GunSlingerFrag (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge -- Perhaps this article could be cleaned up a bit, maybe shortened to highlight important points, and eventually merged into the Woodsball article. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd just really hate to see this go to waste (even tho it seems like a game guide, I still think a minor overview of strategy (similar to the Tactics section in Ice Hockey).Lazulilasher (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC) -- amended 2 minutes later Lazulilasher (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge I suggest it be merged, but I would suggest it would be kept per WP:USEFUL (and yes, I know where the link goes). I think I'll keep a copy of this on one of my subpages, though. --Sharkface217 21:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to WikiHow, where there is already an article on How to Win at Woodsball.  —SMALLJIM  13:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge the useful parts to Woodsball. Not my expertise, so another sysop will have to finish this. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge Just because it isn't written well isn't a reason to delete. Master of Puppets 23:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. — Scientizzle 17:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

QMA, Mini-QMA and HPQN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- A complete encyclopedia would provide full coverage of the range of coaxial connectors. This doesn't strike me as an advert or anything else that should be readily deleted. -- Atlant (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- per Atlant; WP is filled with technical writing about technical topics; I can find multiple vendors for these connectors in a quick search. --- tqbf 21:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as G11 spam. No sources in article, and none found in a search of Google News Archive. We are not a catalog of internal cell phone electronics. --Dhartung | Talk 00:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with QLS connector. One article on the various SMA replacements would avoid the appearance of advertising a particular solution.--agr (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- I originally wrote the content for the QMA and QN connector sub-category and as a result of edits that were made to that page and some research on my own part believe that other quick locking connectors also deserved recognition to avoid the appearance that there is in fact only one solution rather than many. Also, SMA and N connectors (quick lock or threaded) are very important to the RF and Microwave industry, and have nothing to do with internal cell phone electronics. -- Jamusi (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per above points. Highly encyclopedic. --Sharkface217 —Preceding comment was added at 21:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable to me. I've wikified the article and added a couple of easily-found sources.  —SMALLJIM  13:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable article per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this version. If another editor writes a sourced, encyclopedic article, then ok, however this version appears to be an excuse to post a link to their rockband webpage. Addhoc (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no assertion of notability whatsoever. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —JERRY _contribs 05:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tauranga. TerriersFan (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —gadfium 08:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete in its present form. I intend to go through the various List of schools in New Zealand subarticles in the next two months and redirect each primary and intermediate school article (where no substantial article already exists) to the appropriate locality - in this case it would be Pahoia, which will require me to create an article on this community. This article will include a paragraph on the school, mostly sourced from and , but I'll search the local papers as well (if I can find them online), and I'll use the school website as well.-gadfium 08:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to district JERRY _contribs 15:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Should have been speedied per CSD-A7. --Strothra (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Keilana_(recall) 00:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

This article fails WP:NOT#PLOT, since it is almost entirely plot summary and character history without real-world context or importance, and WP:FICT, since reliable secondary sources are not provided to establish notability. Google returns only non-WP:RS fansites and the like, which indicates that this article likely cannot pass notability guidelines no matter what. I both tagged the article and raised my concerns on the talk page a month ago and it has not been improved so I am bringing it to AFD. Doctorfluffy (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Mh29255 (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, here's a pretty problem for you. Per our style and notability guidelines, articles for characters that are not independently notable should be merged, not deleted. However, the closest thing to a target is Banpresto Original Characters, which lists characters not just from this character's games but ALL games by the originating studio -- and only as links, not short summaries. The article for the games themselves does not have a character section. I note, however, that the text of that article claims that the characters are part of what made the games so notable, and that reviews can be found to support this in gaming magazines. (Like the nominator, though, I'm not quickly finding any sources online, but the earliest games are from before the 'Net -- and I'm not a gamer to know where to look other than blindly.) What I would like to have happen is that the relevant WikiProject be notified that the entire suite of articles needs to be revisited for organizational problems (which are severe) and notability concerns, and if nothing is done after a good-faith period of time (I suggest a couple months, given the size), and then if nothing is done then bring this and its sister articles back to AfD, where I'll quite gladly vote for delete. Keep for larger-scale cleanup and a hearty thanks to the nominator for having tagged and waited before bringing it to AfD (even if I want more notification). —Quasirandom (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks for your articulate response. First, this article is a rather blatant violation of WP:NOT#PLOT; there is zero real-world context. Per WP:FICT's section on merging, In-universe information should be condensed or removed as necessary, and meaningful real-world content should be integrated. There is currently no real-world content in the article to be merged elsewhere. I don't see what from this article could be put in a parent article of the series' characters. If you followed such a course on a larger scale, instead of having a bunch of small articles that fail policy, you'd just have one larger one that still likely fails policy. I do acknowledge that the entire set of characters may be more notable than each individually, but I'd like to see sources before we go down that road. Second, as you noticed yourself, it doesn't appear that reliable, secondary sources exist to establish notability for this specific character or to add any encyclopedic information on the subject. Lastly, I think a month is plenty of time to wait. That's actually longer than I was planning to wait in the first place, but I decided to be generous. Frankly, I just don't see what effect extra time would have. It seems like anybody who would've noticed my comments, even largely inactive editors, likely would have done something to improve the article by now. A month without such improvements indicates to me that nothing will ever be done, so I started the AFD. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  I quite agree that the plottiness needs condensing and more real-world context needs adding, especially to establish notability. I'd still like the video game Wikiproject to be directly notified and given a chance to improve things, however, as the members may have access to print reviews etc from before Google's usual reach. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but I just find it extremely unlikely that anything you are describing will happen. I doubt such sources exist and, even if they did, I doubt the person who has them will improve the article. A month is plenty of time to do something and even after the article was directly in danger of deletion (AFDed) still nobody has done anything. Assuming this AFD doesn't go through, the most likely outcome is that the article remains untouched for a few months and then I nominate it again, and we have the same discussion. If the article is deleted and then amazingly someone produces legitimate sources then the article can easily be recreated. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• DeleteNothing more then an original research plot summary. I doubt there is anything beyond first parrty sources for any of this. Ridernyc (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Quasirandom. Edward321 (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Quasirandom Hobit (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Doctorfluffy. At the moment it has no real-world context or sources and even no in-universe sources; I don't think it likely that the article can be improved, as my Google search for "Lune Zoldark" turns up no reliable sources in the first five pages. Of course, if reliable sourcing does pop up, a recreate would be perfectly acceptable. Master of Puppets 23:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as lacking good cites and any verifiability of notability as a fictional character. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as article fails WP:V, WP:FICT and WP:WAF and WP:NOT#PLOT; there are no sober arguments for keeping this fancruft. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Quasirandom. Article passes WP:FICT and WP:NOT. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  This article blatantly breaks both of those policies, so I find it difficult to accept that you would argue otherwise if you read the article and are familiar with said policies. Please articulate your arguments on how this passes WP:FICT and WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, but I'd recommend the keep voters spend some time cleaning the article up, it looks quite poor as it stands. Wizardman 16:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Delete Non-notable band. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• AfD Listing was incomplete, added AfD to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 27. Improbcat (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. We should avoid systematic bias here. This band appears to have some notability in Egypt, even if not in the Anglosphere. etcetera, needs an expert on the subject though.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 19:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Agree with comments made by HisSpaceResearch. Mh29255 (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Awards imply notability per WP:BAND. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - article appears to be copied from their myspace page. Plus, the user who created this article has the user name "Massar14" obviously indicating a WP:COI. The article, if kept, would need to be stripped down and completely re-written. Did anyone not notice this before? Scarian 23:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy G12 by East718. Tevildo (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

J.D. Webb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete No notability proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• AfD Listing was incomplete, added AfD to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 27. Improbcat (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep information is accurate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Therealsource (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: I have never said the information is inaccurate. The matter is of notability. It is non-notable. If you think it notable, then provide references by which its notabity can be established.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

*Weak keep per h i s. Delete per nom. Provides no sources, and I could find none. Subject's name, along with his "critically acclaimed" album "Bring it on" gets 6 g-hits, but none support notability of this subject. My bad.--Evb-wiki (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• If you spelled his name correctly, you'd get 77 ghits.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 19:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know if it was your intention, but you removed my 'delete' vote. I'll retract it though, and just say weak delete.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 19:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry. I don't know how I did that.--Evb-wiki (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Changing my !vote again: Delete as a copyvio of His YouTube page. I've tagged it as such. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

F90 Gundam Formula 90 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is written in a completely in-universe style. There is 1 line of context, and about a hundred of fictional specifications, and plot summary. Outside of the universe style, I doubt that the article subject is notable. RogueNinja_talk 17:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as completely unreferenced in-universe fancruft. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note 2nd nomination. 1st result was no consensus. See Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/F90 Gundam Formula 90. --Alfadog (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Zap it for now. I plan to start working on a complete rewrite of all Formula Project related articles presently and have had the relevant stuff backed up in my sandbox for some time. Jtrainor (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete per nom Thinboy00 @852, i.e. 19:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete written entirely in in-universe style, and it simply cannot be written from real-world perspective -- there's absolutely no notability, no reliable sources, no nothing. Fancruft is the only word. Delete. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment You're not the one to determine whether this can be rewritten or not. That falls to me, because I'll be the one doing it. Moreover, making such a claim is crystal balling and should not be done. Jtrainor (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can find multiple, non-trivial reliable sources -- which are actually about this object, and not just mention it in passing -- then you're welcome to write something that shows real-world importance and notability of this. Obviously, fan sites and blogs and suchlike are not acceptable as sources. As the article stands now, it's pure in-universe cruft about something that absolutely nobody cares about -- and that's putting it mildly. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What has that to do with your claim that this particular article could never be adequately sourced? Jtrainor (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Regretful Delete A fun read, but unfortunately it falls under WP:CRUFT. --Sharkface217 21:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Collective for Research and Training on Development-Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does this organization pass Knowledge (XXG):Notability (organizations and companies)? Avi (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• You tell us. Per Knowledge (XXG):Guide to deletion#Nomination you should check for yourself before nominating an article for deletion. So … what did you do to check for yourself whether multiple non-trivial published works from independent sources that document this organization in depth exist? Uncle G (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete fails to assert notability Thinboy00 @854, i.e. 19:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral per User:Uncle G --Thinboy00 @855, i.e. 19:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete : this was already tagged as a G12 (copyright violation) of http://www.crtda.org/en/book/export/html/1 and is specifically listed on the Knowledge (XXG):Suspected copyright violations page. Mh29255 (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The owner of the text has given permission under the GFDL. There is no copyright violation and this cannot be speedied as a G12. -- Avi (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Good work? Maybe. Good page? No. Ψν_nu 19:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • That is not a rationale for deletion, per our Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy. Please come up with a proper rationale that has a basis in policy. Uncle G (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I did some edits to the document. the source website states that content can be used. Can you please reassess the article? Mcheblak (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the effort - but it seems to me that virtually every link is to another CTRDA subsite. There are no outside news references, which still begs WP:NOT. Therefore, my D stands for now. But I do like when people try to respond constructively, so kudos for that. Ψν_nu 23:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

PR@vantage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete No notability proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete/Strong Delete. Totally biased corporate spam, zero point zero on notability scale, weasel words a-plenty. Ψν_nu 19:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• AfD Listing was incomplete, added AfD to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 27. Improbcat (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Rewrite It's a stub, it mentions an award, if sourcing could be found for this... but right now it's an advert. Thinboy00 @857, i.e. 19:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: no assertion of notability per WP:N and possibly WP:SPAM. Mh29255 (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Reads like a PR agency decided to put together a page, so blatant advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.muller (talk • contribs) 23:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Very weak keep as it is written too spammy, and has no cites, but may be notable based on its almost 8,000 Ghits: , many of which are reviews and news of rewards. (I know, that's not a strong argument, which is why I wrote Very weak.) Bearian (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Spamvertisement. Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Manchester College (Indiana). –Pomte 05:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Department of History and Political Science, Manchester College (Indiana) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The Department of History at Manchester College is no more notable or worthy of an independent entry than any other department at the college, let alone the multitude of individual academic departments at thousands of colleges and universities around the world. This article should either be deleted or merged with the main Manchester College article StudierMalMarburg (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge any relevant information.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 19:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge any relevant info then Redirect. --Strothra (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge if there is anything worth the merging. It will take a truly world class department with undoubtedly relevant references to it a a department to justify an article.DGG (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

This article is a very brief, in universe repetition of plot points and also actual plot text repetition from the Chronicles of Narnia, and has no notability or referencing of its own. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge relevant content into Chronicles of Narnia, then redirect. Keeper | 76 23:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

My comment was a bit hasty, I agree there isn't much to merge there. Perhaps something could be salvaged for Narnia (world), with a redirect there instead of to the Main article? Whatever happens, I support deletion over keeping. Keeper | 76 18:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing particularly notable to add to the series article. A non-notable plot element. Pastordavid (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hut 8.5 17:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Just plot, nothing worth merging. – sgeureka 18:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above per WP:NOT#PLOT. Eusebeus (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Walton 20:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Author of a couple of books on a subject for which he is not obviously qualified as an authority, published by a press which is so small that I cannot find its website; the publisher's address is 2 Home Farm Cottages, Sandy Lane, St Paul's Cray. I think this is a verys mall specialist publisher. There are a couple of thousand Google hits for Michael Rowbotham, but most of them seem to be alternative lifestyle forums or user-editable directories, many of them selling the book. What there is not, is any evidence of discussion of him or his ideas in the professional or academic journals related to his field. Tagged for notability and sourcing omnths ago, and never fixed. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Leaning towards delete I hate to be wishy-washy, but this one is a tough case. He purports to be a financial expert but has no formal training. Is he an academic? If so, he fails WP:PROF on pretty much all points. Is he famous? If so, he still appears to fail WP:BIO. One reference I was able to dig up was speaking at the House of Lords , but does a single appearance grant notability? While not a valid measurement of the issues, his books have mixed reviews, some reviewers citing lack of data or other fundamental flaws . There's simply not much external evidence to grant him any kind of status beyond possible fringe theories Yngvarr 19:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Very weak delete. There do appear to be a few sources on this person and his work, and if people can source this I may well change my mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HisSpaceResearch (talk • contribs) 19:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• For related discussions, see Debt-based monetary system (AfD discussion) and Debt money (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Question. I see that this is up for a PROD, as well. Shouldn't that PROD now be be deleted, in favour of the AfD process? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  Certainly a PROD on an AfD'd article with a keep vote should strike the prod tag; the point of prod is to keep things out of AfD debates. --- tqbf 21:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Very Weak keep: my only reservation is that this keeps popping up, and I'd prefer to have an article where the text is controlled and watched for POV editing rather than popping back up in two months. At least the current article makes clear his lack of distinction as a monetary thinker (and moderate distinction as an unbalanced polemicist).--Gregalton (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per new search, appears in The Guardian and Financial Times. --- tqbf 21:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  Comment --- not a fan of the reasoning in the nom, either: notability isn't determined by who published your book, and AfD is not the cure for unreferenced articles on notable subjects. --- tqbf 21:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep on the basis of notable coverage in the Guardian & FT. I also noticed in my Gsearch that he once addressed the House of Lords? May not be in WP:BIO, but it works for me! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. About the speaking at the House of Lords bit, he did not address the House of Lords, he addressed a meeting of a private organization that was held at the Palace of Westminster. There may have been MPs present but this was not addressing the legislative body itself. --Dhartung | Talk 00:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment.: This meme about him addressing the House of Lords is constantly reiterated to emphasize his notability; thank you for clearing this up. I note that his mention in the FT does not appear that notable: it's in a light "business profile" of "Tim Smit, the social entrepreneur behind the vast domed glasshouses of the Eden Project"; the context is pretty clear, Mr. Smit is taking the piss (as they say) of the former head of the BoE: "He has asked Eddie George, who lives in Cornwall, to read The Grip of Death by Michael Rowbotham. The former Bank of England boss could find this polemic against the world's debt-based economic system rather unflattering." Basically at the level of sending a gift subscription to Vegan Living to the head of the sausage factory. Just for others to consider when determining "notable coverage." Article is here for reference, but it's thoroughly uninteresting and only has that throw-away reference to the subject at hand.--Gregalton (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not sufficiently notable. The only article that can be said to represent serious coverage is the Guardian one, and that isn't enough for WP:RS. 'Michael Rowbotham' only gets 6,000 hits on Google, which is fairly low for an author/academic; he seems to fail notability to me. Terraxos (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep - it makes a change to see a borderline article that is written by a critic rather than "his mum" or him. Notability can come out of controversy... but its the books and the refs that do it. Victuallers (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. The man is not notable. He has written two books, his credentials are non-verifiable, and he's espousing fringe theories. Zenwhat (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

  Comment --- an article that serves no purpose but to publish original fringe theories is a candidate for deletion. An article about a person who himself espouses fringe theories is not. Having non-verifiable credentials is not grounds for deletion --- it's grounds for cleaning up the article and stripping the credentials out. --- tqbf 21:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Per WP:HEY. --Sharkface217 21:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Useless without the sources, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 01:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Unsourced, weasel-worded biographical article about a real person = Delete. │_here 21:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And offers little info about the guy. │_here 21:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. WP is to document notability, not enhance it: this guy isn't anywhere close to notable, nor is there the sloghtest evidence to indicate otherwise. --Calton | Talk 02:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I looked at tqbf's Google news search list (27 Dec.), and added a few of the refs to the article. I haven't read the "subscription required" refs., but I'm happy that there are sufficient independent sources to show notability.  —SMALLJIM  17:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. See also Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Debt_money, which is related.  —SMALLJIM  17:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Spitting Llama Bookstore & Outfitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Blatant advertising for a business. Makes no claims of notability; fails WP:N and WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong 16:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. Harland1 (/_c) 17:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete per nom, does not appear to pass WP:N.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 19:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Seems to just be an ad for the store. Not notable. Phantomwiki (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result wasSpeedy Delete - A7

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

• Fails Knowledge (XXG):Notability (web).
• Just three lines of irrelevant content.
• It's an article for publicity Armando.O 17:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Spam. No assertion of notability. Looks like Spam --Alfadog (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:WEB --Pmedema (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, I tagged as A7 web content that doesn't assert significance.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 19:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I do not think we should be hosting spam. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, no Reliable sources found during this debate. Secret 21:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

No evidence of notability given that satisfies WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Tabercil (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Epbr123 (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and salt as this has been deleted several times already.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 19:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep She's an older model who was very prominent in the early 1990s. I can't imagine there's not sourcing for her-- if not currently on the Internet. Removing articles on major models from the past would result in a bias towards what is popular right now. I'm not at liberty to do such research at the moment-- maybe tomorrow, but Boobpedia's article probably has a few sourcing leads. Also, IMDB has an interview and several appearances listed HERE. Dekkappai (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I looked around on the web a bit, and there are a few comments that she may have been the first popular BBW porn star (for example and ), which would meet the "started a trend" criterion, but they're not anything reliable. We need a reliable source that says that. --AnonEMouse 16:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Article titles like "Voluptuous Legends: Roberta Smallwood--Over a decade later, this FF-cup legend remains the Queen of the Super Plumpers." would seem to lead credence to her prominent status in the genre... I'll see if I can find some information later today. I know I've seen her mentioned in Japanese sources, which, at least, shows she's known internationally. Dekkappai (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, my Internet search didn't provide much... All I can say is she was pretty big in the genre at the time. We get clues like the above-mentioned article, over a decade after her retirement, and a video titled "A Tribute to Roberta Smallwood", and comments by fans of the genre about how major she was to that genre, but nothing that jumps through the "Pornbio" hoops. So, I guess, on a technicality, another subject on which Boobpedia will provide the only well-written article. And more power to them. ;) Dekkappai (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Absolutely none of these are reliable sources. See Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Kerry Marie for a precedent.-h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 12:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Using Lanasbigboobs.com, Myboobsite/Mybbwsite, IMDB, Boobpedia and Wikiporno and trying to claim that entries on all of these together add up to some kind of notability is just totally wrong. If Knowledge (XXG) played by that standard, we could have an article on Bea Flora. As it happens, though, Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for inclusion are more strict than that.-h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 12:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I personally consider this porn actress to be unattractive, this has got nothing to do with the fact that I want this article deleted. I want this article deleted because there are no reliable sources that fully back up anything about her.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 00:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Dekkappai. Rray (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• You might want to reconsider that given that reliable sources have not yet been provided.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 22:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep - nomination withdrawn. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Nomination withdrawn --Busy Stubber (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This article began as an advert back in 2005 and is an expanding list of external links with no evidence of notability. I cannot verify that the company is related to eBay. Name-dropping in article (eBay and Gumtree) seems unrelated.--Busy Stubber (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - article is about a very notable company and is owned by Ebay. I added a citation from a completely 3rd party in reference to the notability and that it is owned by Ebay. Yes, the article could be expanded on a little and wiki'd... don't know why it had to come to AfD... --Pmedema (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - , , , . And that was only a 10 second Google News search. Busy Stubber, in the time you took to nominate this article for deletion you could have performed the same Google News search and incorporated what you found into the article, thereby improving the encyclopedia rather than bogging it down in unnecessary processes. Rockstar (/_C) 18:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that -- I searched eBay and Kijiji and Google, but not Google News. Thanks! Do you want to add the references or do you want me to? --Busy Stubber (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Gumtree/craigslist competitor owned by notable ebay. Kellen 20:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep --- Busy Stubber, can you strike the nom so we can close this discussion and move on? Per Rockstar, clearly notable, clearly verifiably owned by ebay. --- tqbf 22:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to strike the nom? Can you help? --Busy Stubber (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Put <s> - </s> tags around your nom, and above it write "nomination withdrawn". Someone'll clean it up. --- tqbf 02:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Secret 21:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

This term is defined by Michael Rowbotham, who is not a recognised professional economist, the article itself seems to be a novel synthesis combining what recognised authorities say with what Rowbotham says to deliver a new whole. Google is no help here - all the hits I can find to reliable sources in a search for "debt money" have a punctuation mark between debt and money. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect If the concept in the article is directly from Rowbotham, I'd say merge it into his article. There is also a Debt-based monetary system which might be able to hold the concept. I'm inept and ignorant on financial issues, I figure an expert would be able to say if those ideas are feasible or within the realm. Yngvarr 16:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced his article is any more worthy, to be honest. This, two other related articles and his article appear to be here solely to promote his ideology, which is not widely accepted and not, as far as I can tell, published in peer-reviewed sources. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It appears that his article is been prodded. Maybe wrap them all up into a single AFD? Wider discussion might be useful. If they're basically WP:FRINGE, there's no reason to keep any of his related articles if only a few of them end up deleted. Yngvarr 17:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • It has already been through AFD. See Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Debt-based monetary system. Uncle G (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Debt-based monetary system? Sorry I'm not an expert on this subject but there looks like there are a good number of third party references available in that article. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep / Merge: Please see also the discussion at debt-based monetary system's talk page. There appear to be many references, but most of them are, to me, not reliable sources. Many of the references have also been grossly misused (hyperbole and claims not in the references, quoting a source in a way that implies the source agrees with the premise or has ever used the expression debt-based money, POV, etc). Most of the sources boil down to Rowbotham and a few other fringe sources. The only reason I'm for a weak keep is that I'm concerned this subject will show up again and again, and it would be better to have an article clearly identifying this subject as monetary crankism. (I would, by the way, be grateful for editors to beat back and cut back the thick underbrush by deleting text they feel doesn't meet the standards; I don't want to be the only one, but the content is mostly nonsense). At any rate, there should not be a bunch of articles on this obscure concept and phrasing. Perhaps one.--Gregalton (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge to Money The whole topic of fringe monetary theories is a difficult one. Although such theories are fairly marginal these days, they played a big political role in movements like Social Credit. JQ (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge to Debt-based monetary system or credit money. That article does have problems described by various templates, but it does attempt to describe a theory underlying credit money and free banking, just needs to be a lot shorter and less reliant on one source since there are others.

Carol Moore 02:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

I am an expert. I can't tell you how many Economics Prizes and Awards I won at university. I lost count. Debt money correctly reflects Michael Rowbotham's terminology and those who wish to delete the term should read his book before commenting further. Austrian Economists often refer to the concept as "fiat money". Rowbotham was really the first to refer to it repeatedly and consistently as debt money or money created in parallel with debt. I vote to keep it in. It is an incredibly minor entry, certainly not as important as Homer Simpson, or Wii or anal sex, all of which are proudly listed as WP entries. Surely this tiny entry can stay in for the benefit of those few who actually have an interest in Rowbotham's works. Which is probably around 8 people in the world. If this gets deleted, I have about 500,000 other "rubbish" non-encyclopedic entries that URGENTLY need deletion too.--Karmaisking (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment:If it's the same thing as fiat money, and the terminology originates with and is used by Rowbotham and only "a few" other people, why should it have a separate article?--Gregalton (talk) 12:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That it reflects his terminology is not in dispute. The issue is, whjether his terminology is sufficiently important to merit quite so many separate articles. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Follow-up comment:Karmaisking's argument is specifically addressed in Knowledge (XXG):Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Other_arguments_to_avoid: "The nature of Knowledge (XXG) means that you cannot make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or do not exist." So, if you don't think the article on Homer Simpson should be in WP, make the argument there. It has no bearing on this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregalton (talk • contribs) 17:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. We already have fiat currency, credit money, and debt-based monetary system; the subject of this article is sufficiently covered by those, and other articles already. It has virtually no content of its own, other than a definition; if it really needs to exist, it can be a redirect to one of the pages we already have on the topic. We don't need a separate article for a different name. Terraxos (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you have any objection to this being redirected to debt-based monetary system? I estimate that is the best solution if they're closely related but again I am not an expert on this subject, I am only asking. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

These comments show how confused the terminology is in relation to these matters, and how ignorant many people are of the distinctions between fiat currency, debt money and credit. Fiat currency simply refers to money that is not backed by precious metals such as gold. So, the paper money you have in your pocket is fiat currency. Debt money is the "virtual" money that exists in your bank account and is created through the issuance of debt or credit. Money exists as a pyramid structure. At the top is gold, still used by central banks for the settlement of international debts and is the most stable form of money known to man. Paper money or fiat currency can exist INDEPENDENT OF DEBT, and could (at least theoretically) be issued directly by the Treasury or central government WITHOUT the issuance of interest-bearing bonds. In fact, as The Forgotten War makes clear, the U.S. government has in the past "experimented" (briefly) with the issuance of "genuine" fiat currency directly from the Treasury (rather than the Federal Reserve) and although such "experiments" did not stick, this shows the inherent DISTINCTION between "true" fiat currency and debt money. As explained by Michael Rowbotham, the most volatile and fastest growing form of money is "debt money" or "credit" which is created through fractional reserve banking techniques and floats around as M3 in your bank account or (increasingly) in money market funds. This "money" can be CONVERTED into fiat currency when you visit your friendly ATM, but is SEPARATE from paper money and is created "virtually" through the issuance of new debt via fractional reserve banking. Hence the entry should stay - and judging by your comments, is desperately needed. The fact that this is not widely known is not a reason for its deletion - it is in fact a strong reason for its retention, to educate those who have no idea where their money comes from or what it really is.--Karmaisking (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I note tat you are the creator of this walled garden of articles, and have no contributions outside of this area. It is likely that you have come across the eternal tension between truth and verifiability, and have also perhaps not understood why having three or four articles essentially on a single concept, whose principal proponent has no widespread academic recognition, gives undue weight to this minority view. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

So what? These comments have nothing to do with the substance of its retention. Assume Karmaisking is a psychotic maniac bent on destroying the banking community. What has that got to do with whether this little entry should stay, if it educates?--Rememberkarma (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This article, along with a couple others, was clearly created to push a POV regarding the Federal Reserve. There's so little information, I don't see what there is that can be merged. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

See comment above. This is (yet another) "personal attack" on the alleged motives of the contributor, not an attack on the article itself.--Rememberkarma (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and consider other fringe theories for prod. As someone who is and still is studying monetary economics in course, I cannot find any mention in any of my textbooks. And these are mainstream texts, not fringe theory books and self-stated texts that so dominate the reference lists of many of the pages affected. This article is not verifiable and all attempts to verify have been unsuccessful. Also, per Guy's comment above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There wouldn't be anything in your "mainstream" texts (obviously). No one is saying this is "mainstream" stuff. The question is not whether it is "mainstream" but whether something that is ADMITTEDLY "fringe" deserves to stay on WP. I vote that even a "fringe" entry deserves to stay, if it is backed by a reasonable argument. I consider the argument presented by Karmaisking to be reasonable - at least sufficient for the retention of this minor "fringe" entry. Put POV on the article if you consider it biased in some way. Why DELETE it??--Rememberkarma (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

While I agree in this case, and don't particularly agree with the debt theory, just want to remind you that today's "fringe theories" ("the earth is round" used to be very fringe) may evolve into tomorrow's orthodoxies. Those paid and honored by the establishment often refuse to go against the establishment theories. Monetary theory is shaped by politics, just like everything else. And even big names like Hayek have wandered all over the fringes in playing around with monetary theory. So each article should be judged on its own merits and not compared to others of perhaps much lesser merit. Carol Moore 17:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Sure, and once that happens we will surely reflect it, but Knowledge (XXG) is not the place to make the change happen. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. In response to Karmaking and Carolmooredc, and to back up Guy's response, see WP:FRINGE. Knowledge (XXG) is not a medium to push fringe theories. Zenwhat (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The theory is definitely Fringe... however, WP:FRINGE does not ban articles on Fringe theories outright. Some are considered worthy of inclusion and others are not. The key is the notability of the theory... ie whether the theory has been noticed and discussed by mainstream sources (even disparagingly). I do not see enough evidence that this particular theory has been noticed and discussed in mainstream sources. It is, therefore, not notable enough for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). Should it become so, then an article can be written. That said... I could see including a brief mention of the theory as part of the broader New World Order conspiracy page, as it seems to relate. Blueboar (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• delete - fails notability in reliable sources. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The article seems to be mainly promoting the linked website, and the only contributor has the same nickname as the owner of the website uses elsewhere. The links given are to the website itself, Youtube, and a dictionary where anyone can add words. I don't think notability is really demonstrated. Pseudomonas_(talk) 15:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't look notable to me and even if the term /did/ exist notably, there seems to be undue weight given to the website (And we are not a dictionary are we?) Narson (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Evidence points toward the deliberate promotion of a non-notable neologism, and in any case, as Narson points out, this would be a dictdef. --Lockley (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 19:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per A7.   jj137 19:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Former member of a non-notable band that won a minor award. This page popped up again only seconds after it has been speedied. A new speedy tag was removed by an anon. Delete. Blanchardb--timed 15:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:BIO--Pmedema (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - It should be/have been speedied, though. I've put up the notice for SD again. Peasantwarrior (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, I agree.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 19:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete One big Cupp of Non-Notable to go. Ψν_nu 19:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom: no assertion of notability. Mh29255 (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Snowball keep. The nominator's concern about notability has been addressed below, and the fact the article is written like an ad is something that can be fixed without an AfD. I will insert the relevant tag. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb--timed 20:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Was speedily deleted twice. It looks pretty ad-like and it seems to fail WP:CORP. Spellcast (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment No opinion one way or another. Some quick digs found a few interesting pieces about them, some local coverage , and apparently an award . If anything, the article is WP:POV Yngvarr 15:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep clearly notable, no question. 70,000 unique hits for "mercedes homes", there is only one such company, passes WP:CORP, not to mention this search which demonstates beyond doubt that is passes the primary notability criterion "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources." Please do a news archive search before nominating for AfD. Lobojo (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems to pass WP:COMPANY although it could use a little expanding and some citations. --Pmedema (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Notable without question. Is one of the 20 largest home builders in the country with over 140k unitque vistors per month. Please fix this article asap. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavaliauskas (talk • contribs) 17:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the company is notable with those Google links. It's just that it read like an ad and the external links looked like spam. A keep is probably in order, but it needs a lot of improvement. Spellcast (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment to Kavaliauskas Number of visitors does not make a company notable. Right now, it appears that consensus is leaning towards keeping the article, but as Kavaliauskas also req'ed this article be created in the first place , it might be beneficial for that user to address the concerns which caused the article to be brought up to AFD in the first place. Yngvarr 17:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The article should not be stifled from expansion any further. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Those who think the article needed more sources are right - but they should have provided them during this AfD. Sandstein (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

John Moore (contemporary pioneer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Administrator, activist and author. Several external links but do any actually refer to John Moore? Is he notable outside northwest Ohio? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This person has qualities of being notable. The article can benefit from further improvements, including more specific verifiable sources, and I would like to give the Knowledge (XXG) community time to do that. Truthanado (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:LOCAL. First black guy on a particular bank's board seems to be the primary claim of notability here. No attribution of such notability to independent sources, though. The disambiguation phrase "contemporary pioneer", I'm afraid, screams "reaching". --Dhartung | Talk 00:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability can be shown. Notability as an author hasn't been shown, nor has notability as the first person of a particular race on a particular board. If the article is kept, it definitely needs renaming. --Fabrictramp (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, source and rename Seems like notability couldn't be established with better sourcing, there is a link to a newspaper quote by him. Avruchtalk 03:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't find any sources to confirm notability.  —SMALLJIM  18:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Though his quote in a newspaper is promising, there is no source of that. The rest is minor stuff that hardly indicates notability. Master of Puppets 23:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Troy Hurtubise. More content can be merged from the history if so desired. Sandstein (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Trojan Balllistics Suit of Armor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Suits for US and Canadian soldiers, as designed by a Canadian inventor. From the tone of the article, however, it looks like he hasn't been successful at selling them to either army. Delete. Blanchardb--timed 15:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Notice that the article has been moved to Trojan Ballistics Suit of Armor. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It appears to have gotten some amused blog notice, but not much from legitimate news outlets; any useful information about this device would be more appropriate on the Troy Hurtubise article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Several news outlets have interviewed him FisherQueen. And by that logic, there should not be a 300-page iPhone bill wiki.The Talking Mac (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge anything that is not already in Troy_Hurtubise to there - where there is already a relevant section Whitstable Delete as below (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • After deleting what already is in there, there will not be much left to merge. --Blanchardb--timed 15:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, changed from merge to delete. Whitstable (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Delete removes the redirect, which should remain as a navigational aid. Delete also removes the history, which should remain in case the content is split back out again if and when the suit gets the more substantial coverage needed for a separate article. The two references on the article are sufficient to support keeping the redirect and history, but not sufficient to support a stand-alone article at this time. Dhaluza (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Merge While I quite enjoyed reading the article on the inventor that I wouldn't have done without this AfD, this product is pretty NN, at least until it gets significant coverage, which will likely come if it gets picked up by an army, until then there won't be enough info for its own bit and can remain as a part of the inventors article. Narson (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. (1) The article does not provide much of encyclopedical information about the subject, it just says "something exists". (2) The article does not suggest widespread (any, actually) use of the armor that would make it notable per-se. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The content of this article is sufficiently covered in the Troy Hurtubise article. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 21:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect: With the improvements of the article it is now more informative, but I still do not think the article is sufficiently notable independantly of Troy Hurtubise, and the content is better represented there. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Merge and redirect to Hurtubise main article. He has been making claims about his armoured suits for years to anyone who will listen. Until proven otherwise, I am going to continue assume that the so-called invention has no basis in fact.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Troy Hurtubise. Redirects are cheap and useful if somebody actually looks for or links to this project. DoubleBlue (Talk) 08:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I am improving the page, please give me time. This is a notable subject.The Talking Mac (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment It may be notable in terms of his life as he never managed to sell the design - or even a prototype through Ebay - and it financially ruined him. But on its own? Doubtful Whitstable (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment At least the suit's features are notable. The target tracking laser is a creative and useful idea. Also, the fact that the suit was built to withstand the IEDs that are killing our soldiers is definitely an amazing feat. Please take into account that this was not just him slapping something together after four beers and a night of Gears of War, the suit was developed with input from real soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afganistan.The Talking Mac (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Cool ideas about what could go on a neato suit of armour do not in themselves make the article notable.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think you misinterpreted what I said. I meant that all those gadgets were the result of interviews with men on the front line, meaning that this was not him making assumptions.The Talking Mac (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but what reliably sourced evidence do we have that he actually did this. His unsupported claims in a brief Web article? That's all I saw. (Even if he did talk to some soldiers, I'd still not be sold, mind you.) This latest suit of armour ended up being unsuccessfully auctioned, just like his previous "Grizzly-proof" suit. All this stuff is vividly true and real to Mr. Hurtubise, but I'm afraid that's where it ends, and why this latest suit belongs as a subsection on his personal article. only, IMO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read the article before you comment. There are two video interviews with him in the suit showing the features. One is off discovery channel.The Talking Mac (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have, and what I see are deadlinks to unavailable articles, his own unsupported claims (including an invisibility ray!), a personal Website that is not operating, an old e-bay listing, etc. Nothing that supports a real-world notability for this supposed invention, outside of his fantasy world of claimed inventions. My vote remains the same. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Coverage on the Discovery Channel and front page news in the Hamilton Spectator seem ample proofs of notability. The editor of this article seems new and so could use some help per WP:BITE. I have added a citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Troy Hurtubise. I've added another cite, and although this technically meets the threshold for multiple independent sources, they are not substantial or in-depth enough to cover the subject to the level of depth the article goes, raising issues of WP:NOR. The inventor is certainly notable enough for the media coverage of his exploits, and the section in that article can be expanded with the WP:V content from this article. The effort needed to clean up this article would be better spent cleaning up that one. If the suit becomes sufficiently notable later, the content can always be split out again. Dhaluza (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Covered worldwide by tons of news sources, see this among others. --Sharkface217 21:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

  That appears to be a re-publication from existing sources, rather than original reporting. The problem is that this article is longer than the source you are providing (as well as the other RS). So merging is still the best alternative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaluza (talk • contribs) 21:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Troy Hurtubise (great article, BTW), which already has extensive information on this suit and on Hurtubise's other wacky "inventions". Gandalf61 (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect as above.  —SMALLJIM  20:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Tone as copyvio, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 21:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Kyle Blueman (CHERUB) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable book character that is covered in the main article for the book series. There is also a WP:COPY violation from here. Gtstricky 15:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete – for copyright violations. Shoessss |  Chat  15:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete WP:CSD#G12, copyright volition. Yngvarr 15:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete tag has been placed on article.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 19:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - breakin' the law, breakin' the law. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My F**ked Up Friday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Using peacock terms, this article describes a yet-to-be-produced Canadian TV series. Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball. Blanchardb--timed 15:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• I was about to prod it, but I guess an afd will do the job. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, ...--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 15:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Future student movie. Say no more. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. It is practically vanity. Narson (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with all due expediency, unverifiable and spammy. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete violates WP:CRYSTAL and it totally un-encyclopedic.--Pmedema (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Snowball delete, but doesn't actually meet any of the speedy deletion criteria.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 19:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Fireball delete which is much more extreme than a snowball delete. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 19:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Prince George Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A not particularly notable public high school. Delete. Lawrence Cohen 14:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep High schools are definately notable enough. STORMTRACKER 94 15:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Jimbo's ruling obiter dicta, which I agree with, it is not approreiate to go around upsetting people over such trivial things, since High schools are almost always notable. Lobojo (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see that ruling--which was it? Lawrence Cohen 16:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

He basicly said that people should be able to add their own high schools as it dosent do any harm, are probably notable, and that is just WP:DICKY to make a big fuss about it. Lobojo (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Here it is for you . Lobojo (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete/Merge It contains a sentence, if thats all we have to say about the school, it really isn't notable nor does it serve any purpose other than a Family Guy-esque shouting of 'Thats our school!'. Narson (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we delete every stub in wikipedia? Lobojo (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No, but a stub with no sources and no assertion of notability beyond being a school? Yes. Narson (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You implyedly concede that being a high school is itself an assertion of notability with the word "beyond" and I agree with you. Why not just leave it and probably within a few months time other people will find it when they search in google and improve the article, essentially high schools are notable, and always meet the primary natability criterion, since they are often in the local press. And even if it does not improve what harm is it doing? Here it is for you . Lobojo (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I am merely accepting that some people seem to believe that being a high school is a claim to notability and that no claim is being made beyond that. Please don't try and shoe horn arguments into my mouth that I didn't make. It isn't my job to tell an article how notable it is, it is the articles job to tell me how notable it is. If the people who so vigorously defend schools from AFDs acctually spent their time doing the supposedly two seconds of work to verify the notability and put the refs in the article, we would all save ourselves this rigamarole. (And while I respect Jimbo, not every word he utters everywhere should be immediatly written down and accepted as strictest law. He is not the messiah, he is a very groovy boy. Even he gets the right to just, you know, talk. Without the awed hush and booming voice.) Narson (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't diagree with you more. He heals the sickly, feeds the hungry, and gives porn to the horny. He has also often denied being The True Messiah, and only The True Messiah denies His own divinity. Lobojo (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - let's avoid going around these houses again and move on. Experience has shown that all such high schools can be sourced up to meet WP:N and my research shows that this is no exception. TerriersFan (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Pretty much all high school articles brought to AFD are kept, as they are eventually established as being notable. Deletion is definitely not necessary, as if a school is not notable the article on it should be re-directed to the appropriate district article. I have done a search and found some sources which while not substantial are a start: , . I am sure more can be found offline that would allow the article to pass WP:N. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per consensus. Must we have this same argument every single day? --Smashville 18:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment also note that in 1990 there was a major news story at the school when a bus with kids on was hijacked. Very notable school, there are 3 current mentions in google news and a further 8 in the archive. Lobojo (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Personally, I think someone who is voting purely based upon writing which has been authored by Jimbo should take a step back and think about what it is they are actually voting, and why they are voting (keep arguement "per Jimbo's ruling" is ridiculous in the sense that we all have autonomy and we all have the capability of making our own educated decision about the future of articles, and this more so applies to high school articles where the notability criteria is most controversial). I do personally agree with the comments made by Narson and I think dismissing his opinion is outright rude. Although the article hasn't asserted notability in its current state, in my own experience of high school articles (I have authored several to a reasonable state which I believe are sufficient to warrant their existance), they all likely do have notability in some form, it just requires someone to put some work in and find the sources; I don't think this article is any exception to the rule, and the rule certainly shouldn't be based and defended by something 1 person, however highly they are regarded (and whom I have much respect for), wrote. I can understand Narson's viewpoint, but unfortunately high school notability is one which I tend to defend in favour for inclusion. Bungle 18:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  I am not voting based on what Jimbo said. I was merely pointing out that our most senior contributor takes my position, which is bascily that almost all high schools are notable, and that "www is a high school" is suffiecient to asert notability. You should not mischarachterise it like this, that is rude. You really don't need to call me rude over nothing, I'm not going to start flaming with you though. Lobojo (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if my comments offended you in any way, but I was commenting from what I was reading above, as the general impression I was getting from a few comments was that they were heavily influenced by that which I mentioned previously, which if that had been the case (which you corrected as not being), then I felt that to have been rude towards someone with their own comment. You don't need to convince me of the notability stance - I agree with it myself, albeit maybe not as strongly and maybe not for all the same reasons; it was difficult for me not to interpret it any other way when you start a vote with "Keep per Jimbo's ruling". Anyhow, the likely outcome will be keep which I would not argue with. Bungle 19:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per A7: no claim of notability. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - A7 does not apply to schools. TerriersFan (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sure it does, why would you say that? CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - read it. TerriersFan (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• What, you mean the comment added randomly last week? When it emerges from the revert-froth maybe I'll consider it. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep since all high schools have enough available sourcing to make them notable. However, I wouldn't mind redirecting this article to its school district until someone decides to make something out of this page. Noroton (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this particularly notable public high school. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Hopefully this will be a bump for someone to expand it, but it has no business being deleted. matt91486 (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to School District 57 Prince George. No content beyond what is appropriate in the target. No references, secondary or otherwise. Does not deserve its own article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • As a redirect, it will remain a bump waiting for the discovery of sourced content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, based on improvements (added content and references), and improve and expand. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Improvements to the article now demonstrate notability. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GJ (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per (oh my gosh, I thought we already hashed this out) the overwhelming concensus that it is convenient to assume that all high schools are notable, (if the article is more than a sub-stub, and it can be verified to actually exist) to avoid the drama of a drawn-out AfD in every case. This article is like most other high school articles that we have already kept, each with the nearly-identical arguments. There is nothing new here as far as deletion rationale to make this article stand-out from the de facto standard. JERRY _contribs 15:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is policy, shouldn't it be recorded at Knowledge (XXG):Notability (schools)? Lawrence Cohen 17:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It was in the original draft of the guidelines and was carried forward to the then Option 1 before Option 1 was arbitrarily removed by an editor. A watered down version is still there. If you want to beef it up again feel free :-) TerriersFan (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, well just a point of clarification; I did not say it was policy. I said it was a de facto standard. That means that my observation is that all prods on high schools get removed, all speedy's get denied, and all high schools with extremely small number of exceptions get kept after sometimes long, drawn out AfD's. NOw as to your question; "Should this be listed at WP:SCHOOL?" My answer, which is my opinion, is YES. Now, a proposal has been made to end this silliness and make a guideline to stop wasting everyone's time, but this proposal has not become a guideline yet, because of minor disagreements in wording an extended policy to other classes of schools that are in the same proposal. So it stands as a de facto standard, because policy/ guideline or not, this is what actually happens. Since we know it happens, we should avoid the drama and just acknowledge that all high schools can be assumed to be notable if they actually exist, and their articles should be kept if they are more than just a non-informational listing-type sub-stub. This article and school meet that de facto standard with no problems.JERRY _contribs 05:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It contains more than the sub-stub like listing now because of the AFD and the attention it brought, I suspect. Look at its pre-AFD form and its current, while it is still, IMO, lacking anything to justify its own article rather than an entry in the school district or town article. Perhaps AfDs can be a boon to the articles as well as a bane? Narson (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. I have seen it many times over that articles get improved because they get attention while at AfD. JERRY _contribs 04:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as there is nothing notable about this school. Perhaps the consensus is not as overwhelming as assumed? Springnuts (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep still this tired old debate, virtually all high schools are notable imo. RMHED (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep --Stephen 04:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

See a man about a horse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Slang term that I earlier prodded with reason WP:NOT a slang dictionary. Another editor removed the prod and asked that the article be expanded but, frankly, I don't see that happening. I think the article will remain as a simple slang definition and has already been transwikied so no need for it here. Alfadog (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary. STORMTRACKER 94 15:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete slang dicdef. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep there seem to be some popular culture references, deleted earlier, which I just restored. Based on them, the title should perhaps be changed to "See a man about a dog". DGG (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Then that might be another article. "See a man about a horse" is a slang phrase that means, at the risk of bring coarse, "go take a piss". --Alfadog (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC) And the restored links are either WP:TRIV or of questionable relevance to the title of the article. --Alfadog (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • No, really, they're the same phrase. The usage of the broader meaning has declined as there are fewer dogs and horses actually being seen about, so now it almost exclusively means urination. --Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete per nom.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 19:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• KeepAt first I was tempted to suggest delete, but I looked at Wiktionary, where it has been transwikied, and there is far more detail in this article. This is not a mere dictionary definition, it is an expansion, with examples and references. Someone did a lot of research, which apparently, we will easily toss in the trash. (Quite a few editors contributed to this article, which indicates interest, which indicates notability.) If "see a man about a dog" is more common, that should be the main article, and "see a man about a horse" redirected to it. I did not confirm the links in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 20:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I favour keeping this as I use the phrase myself and am interested in learning more of its history. IIRC, I first came across it in literary analysis of The History of Mr Polly which has a humorous passage which evokes the phrase. I have changed the title to dog rather than horse, as discussed above. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep per Warden. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There is sourced history of the phrase not fit for Wiktionary. –Pomte 12:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as a hoax. BLACKKITE 01:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

New Christina Milian album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seemingly crystalline album. No title, speculative fansite/blog "sources", titles only rumoured. Prod removed by another user. tomasz. 14:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried adding some sources, but I know they are not very reliable. I would like to keep the page, as the album will probably be released soon, and we will just have to remake it. Щіκі RoςкЗ 14:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Crystal-ballery; WP:BAND: unreleased albums may not yet be notable without substantial coverage from reliable sources, but the sources listed as a little flimsey. If and when this gets released, and if it meets the rest of WP:BAND, maybe it can be reconsidered. Yngvarr 14:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball. STORMTRACKER 94 15:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no title no independent reliable sources = no article. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete : no album title, no independent reliable sources per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If and when the album is released, we can create an article at that time. There's no rush. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. There is rough consensus leaning towards permitting this article a place on Knowledge (XXG). As expressed below, signs of notability are evident, but they need to be set in stone with reliable sources (not an easy task for somebody for whom sources may be in a non-English language). In addition, I recommend a rewrite: the article still reads a little like a résumé, which is contrary to the standards of encyclopedic material we hold on the project. Anthøny 14:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

This is a resume, not an article, and it isn't at all clear that the person meets WP:BIO. Prod removed without comment by creator. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delet – Post in Monster.com. Shoessss |  Chat  14:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  Keep based on the rewrite. Nice work and to all, Happy New Year. Shoessss |  Chat  14:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Author just copy-pasted their resume; speedy would be WP:BIO; beyond that, WP:NOT#WEBSPACE Yngvarr 14:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  Weak keep Based on the current incarnation, I'm going to lean towards keep. I'd prefer to see some inline cites for his works, and more information on the awards he's received. Given that context, it's possible he could satisfy several of WP:PROF. Yngvarr 21:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This man has solid credentials, but no asserted notability, and even if he did have some, much of the information on that page should be savagely deleted. Personal info does not belong in Knowledge (XXG). --Blanchardb--timed 14:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and gut (gut and keep?) Seems a notable academic in his country and perhaps elsewhere. See and . Certainly as notable as many US academics whom I have seen with articles (please don't point me at WP:ATA). Stubify. --Alfadog (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is just a resume, belongs on Monster. STORMTRACKER 94 15:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. A number of editors want this deleted because of its content. Content can be easily changed (that is what we do here). When I read the CV, it was clear to me that this person might (might) meet notability guidelines here if only the most minimum requirement. But each editor must draw his own line as regards notability and, for me, this fellow is likely on the keep side of the line. Or at least close enough for me to give the article a chance as a stub. --Alfadog (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment to above I'd be willing to strike my delete in favor of a keep if the issues with the article can be addressed. Right now, it's just a resume. Yngvarr 15:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I will gut it a bit later today, maybe this evening as I cannot do that now (work calls). Anyone else is also, of course, free to stubify it and I have a couple of decent links in my vote above for a bit of content. Thanks. --Alfadog (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please note that User:David Eppstein has cleaned up the article (he has my thanks for picking up my slack.) --Alfadog (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - notable scholar - . Lobojo (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: no real assertion of notability per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless rewritten with a reasonable outside reference(s). Notability of a living scientist should be always decided from an independent assesment of the subject by the scientific community, not guessed up here by number of ghits. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: With 77 hits on the Bulgarian Google it doesn't look as if this fellow is as notable as all of that. Obviously some references for the article's numerous assertions would be helpful. Are there any?  RGTraynor  19:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Why do you think a search in the Latin alphabet would give a sensible result for a Bulgarian? There are plenty of potentially reliable sources to read through here before you can claim that this should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Seems to me that the 2003 Sign of Honour-thing is listed twice accidentally. It's got to be the same award. But it reads like an important national honour -- presented by the President and all -- and if so would meet the WP:BIO criteria for an important national honour. However, all of this is unreferenced, so... I don't know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Major award from a national academy is prima facie evidence of notability. Need for references is handled with templates asking for people to produce references; it's not a reason for deletion. --Lquilter (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Knowledge (XXG) is not a collection of resumes, or a Who's Who. The only even apparent claim to notability is the subject's chestful of national medals, which could be rivaled by any moderately successful Stalinist apparatchik. What's he done? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • If the record of the team he coached is real, it may be entitled to an article, into which this could be merged; but notability is not contagious.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep the notability as a coach of the world-leading math team is substantial. DGG (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Seemingly non-notable musician. Provided sources are self-reflexive or trivial (myspace etc.), or trivial media mentions (a picture caption). Creator declined prod. Quite possibly some WP:COI involved too. tomasz. 12:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep He's a local NJ musician who's been featured in several local papers. WP:BAND criterion #1 does not specify if local newspapers are trivial. Playing at The Stone Pony (and at Starland Ballroom) is a measure of success for NJ musicians (yes, I'm born-and-bred, so consider my participation with WP:COI or WP:POV if you must). Yngvarr 12:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete – just not there yet but getting close. As Yngvarr pointed out some local coverage, but nothing to make it notable. Shoessss |  Chat  13:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Maybe in a few years they will be notable, but not now. STORMTRACKER 94 15:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, coverage appears not to be substantial.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 19:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Any obscure garage band can get a one paragraph review in the local civic paper; I've done it myself. (Certainly the intent of the criterion is clear when it specifically discounts school or college newspapers, however much the college paper at a land grant university has to have many times the readership of the Aquarian.) Any other elements of WP:BAND seem to be missed by a country mile.  Ravenswing  19:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Gaelscoil Bhaile Brigín (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Speedy tag for lack of notability declined by User:Jerry, deferred to AfD. The article does not indicate any notability whatsoever, unless all schools teaching children from the age of 4 to 11 are inherently notable. Another recent AfD for what I assume was a similar article is at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Gaelscoil Chill Dara. Dreaded Walrus 12:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete – Has not established WP:Notability. Shoessss |  Chat  13:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability. --Alfadog (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No notability whatsoever, fails WP:BIO. STORMTRACKER 94 15:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Near to no content and no assertion of notability. Thats a delete in my book. Narson (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: no assertion of notability per WP:N and no sources per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge & redirect to dithering. Keilana_(recall) 00:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

I have found no serious reference to Riemersma dithering in the litterature. The article was making claims about Riemersma performing better than both ordered dither and classic error diffusion, which is trivially shown to be false (see the Riemersma results compared to more classical methods). The article still makes this claim about performing well on delta-encoded animations, which I only read about in the author’s original article, and which I do not believe to be true either (proving it would be original research, but the burden of proof should not rest on me). I'm close to calling this method a hoax. Sam Hocevar (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge – To ditheringwill fit well into the article. Shoessss |  Chat  13:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Shoessss. STORMTRACKER 94 15:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless the algorithm appears somewhere else than in DDJ (original article is ) - e.g. in some actually used data format. Deleting it won't make much of harm to WP - the text more-less says "something exists". I see nothing to merge - my bad perhaps. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Shoesss. Master of Puppets 23:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep, consensus is that enough notability can be established. Davewild (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Contested prod. Non-notable local event. Ridernyc (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment also a conflict of interest since the name used by the editor that created thae article is "RRCoord" Ridernyc (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep minimally notable local event. , , ("8th annual award-winning"). Article certainly needs work but in view of the fact that WP is not running out of paper it does seem to achieve annual coverage of the event. JJL (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hut 8.5 11:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep Same assessment as User:JJL above. I found several quick sources, pretty much the same as the direct above. Yngvarr 11:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep – Does have some coverage from Toronto newspapers as shown here and here Shoessss |  Chat  13:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I've been wondering at what point the threshold for "too innocuous to care" gets crossed. This seems to be below it. If not, doesn't every annual community event go in? (Sorry, a bit of reverse WP:WAX, but I really am curious.) Ψν_nu 19:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Threshold is: Can a verifiable, neutral point-of-view article that does not depend on original research be created. This one has significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and that seems to demonstrate that it can. DoubleBlue (Talk) 08:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • (shrug) OK, thanks for the answer at any rate. I'm still not able to convince myself that this is encyclopedic (or that it doesn't keep the door opened for more wax in the future than the whole Johnson clan has produced to date for every hot-dog boil out there), but I guess I just won't read 'em then so I won't get bothered. Change mine to Neutral since they appear to be playing by the rules. Ψν_nu 23:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It looks like it has some minor notability and if so we can write about it. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Cursory search through Google and Google News shows some significant independent coverage. DoubleBlue (Talk) 08:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Psi. GJ (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Return to Castle Wolfenstein for now. Sandstein (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Return to Castle Wolfenstein 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Uncertain future game, WP:CRYSTAL -- Dougie WII (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect and merge I'd redirect this to Return to Castle Wolfenstein and add mention of a possible sequel; other than that, there's no real information in the nominated article. Yngvarr 11:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball. STORMTRACKER 94 15:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not crystal ball, not a board for future products announcements. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect to Return to Castle Wolfenstein#Sequels, wait for reliable sources regarding its development to give it its own article. --Stormie (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Return to Castle Wolfenstein per Yngvarr. It has been confirmed, but hardly anything is known about the sequel so it doesn't need it's own article. Master of Puppets 23:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. slakr 19:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

A series of flash animations with no indication of meeting web notability criteria. No sources in article and almost all of the first 100 hits are videos or website usernames. Prod by another editor removed by an IP editor. Kateshortforbob 11:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per CSD AG 7. STORMTRACKER 94 15:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete tag will be placed on article.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 19:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Probable hoax. I can't find anything on this guy other than rip offs from this bio, and "Sirhc Ohlavrac" is 'Chris Carvalho' written backwards. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I'd tend to agree with the hoax assessment. Even if he is real, he's just not notable. The only real reference I could dig up was at , which merely mentions the name, once, about 25% into the article. Every other reference is just wiki mirrors and the like. Yngvarr 11:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete – No hits at all other than Knowledge (XXG) and mirror sites of Knowledge (XXG) Shoessss |  Chat  13:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like a hoax. TGreenburgPR (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone, unsourced since mid-2006 amazingly, although wouldn't the name be different in the Cyrillic alphabet?--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 19:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the likely hoax assessment. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Seems like a hoax, 0 hits on google for news presenter called Chris Crawlover. Sunderland06  12:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Adding Shoesss' references might help avoid another AfD.--Kubigula (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

There are apparently no google references (news or web) to this gang. Now, normally Google hits aren't alone enough reason to nom something for AfD. But none at all, for a gang that supposedly has been around for decades? So, delete as no evidence of its actual existence in reality. Avruchtalk 22:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, did not realize it had been nominated twice before. Looking at those discussions, it appears that mentions of "Maravilla" in the books cited by Qworty refer to the neighborhood in LA generally, and small gangs that operate in that neighborhood. I would still say that these collection gangs fail to satisfy the notability guidelines, and that this page (despite having been recreated from deletion) is still unreferenced. If it fails AfD, I'd support moving it to Maravilla (Los Angeles) with the gangs as a subset. Avruchtalk 22:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BLACKKITE 11:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep – enough coverage to establish notability as shown here Shoessss |  Chat  13:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the search results there refer to different gangs (Juares, Lopez, Arizona Eastside) that aren't connected - unlike different groups of Bloods or Crips or MS13, these are completely separate gangs that have taken the name of an LA neighborhood where they usually live. Avruchtalk 17:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment – To be honest, that is how I read the article as a loose, but not totally disenfranchised, group of gangs. I also found 3 specific news articles from very reliable and verifiable papers that also seem to supstaintate the same as show here:

San Jose News, LA Times, Herald. Shoessss |  Chat  19:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Shoesss strong sources. Master of Puppets 23:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, but add in the cites. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Non notable: no assertion of notability except that he was the possible father of Bobby Fischer; but being the father of a famous person does not make one notable - see WP:BIO. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep – Could make a small claim to notoriety as shown here . In addition, a couple of hits in Google Scholar and Google News Shoessss |  Chat  13:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. No problem with sources: several mentions in issues of American Mathematical Monthly, 1942-1952, and obituaries in Science, 29 August 1952, Vol. 116. no. 3009, pp. 215 - 216; and Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 1953, 43, pp. 62-63 (I only have access to the bibliographical references, not to the obituaries themselves, so can someone with access check them and reference them as appropriate?). One odd thing, but perhaps a result of him being a "secret scientist", is that the positions ascribed to him in the WP article don't quite match those in the AMM: e.g. "Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Hanford, Washington" in the former, "Naval Ordnance Laboratory, White Oak, Maryland" in the latter. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Scientific career alone is sufficient to keep. Quale (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The fact that Science considered him notable enough to publish an obituary makes him notable enough for Knowledge (XXG). Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Hydrino theory. Sandstein (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

This article has a fundamental and I believe irremediable problem. Mills is known only for his hydrino theory, which by common consent is complete bollocks. This article addresses that, referring to the tiny number of people who have actually tested the theory, and all agree that it is bollocks. His company is an object of derision, being founded on the theory. So the principal thrust of the article is to describe, in some detail but from very few sources, why this man is considered a kook. If we were to tone that down, we'd have virtually nothing, because the guy gets under 5,000 Google hits, and the only reliable sources are the ones saying he's a kook. I think this is very unfair; the guy is terribly obscure and we seem to be the top source on him. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Hydrino theory. No biography is needed or wanted but this would serve as a sensible redirect to the theory which appears to be at least vaguely notable (perhaps an AfD on that article will be forthcoming but that would be separate to this). I'd support the deletion of this article and recreation as a redirect if the history is not worth keeping. violet/riga (t) 10:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Violet. MilesAgain (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect - while I personally would prefer that this entire business be purged from the collective memory, Mills has managed to get 50 million from his bollocks and enough press attention to be notable. Now, there used to be two separate articles (hydrino theory and Randell Mills). This is obviously too much, but I think one is necessary. The question is if it should be hydrino theory or Randell Mills. I think putting it under Mills' name is better, since Mills has facts associated with him (that is, he developed the bollocks). But if there is consensus, I won't oppose a move. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Per WP:BLP I'd say that it should be at hydrino theory. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Has Mills done something other than this hydrino theory that is notable? If so then there would be an argument to keep the article, but I don't see anything notable enough to warrant that. violet/riga (t) 22:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• There is his history of nonsensical claims (e.g. the hydrino business, a non-effective cancer therapy, etc.), and his actions outside of hydrino theory but related to it (the company, the getting money, the plagiarism). The question is does 'Randell Mills' capture his activities better than 'hydrino theory'. Re. BLP - I'm not sure how to handle the BlackLight Power, plagiarism, etc. material in an article titled 'hydrino theory'. It seems these are tangential to the hydrino nonsense, but relevant for Mills' notability. Michaelbusch (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)