Knowledge

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

The result was speedy keep, effectively a withdrawn nomination. Remaining article content issues may be addressed through normal processes. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 07:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Jobing.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am proposing a Delete & Redirect to Jobing.com Arena. This page was a redirect to Jobing.com Arena, but that was removed today, and content was added to the page. Reading through the article, it seems like a big advertisement for the company. I think the redirect should be reapplied. I would have just done it, but I think we should do this formally to prevent any more situations in the future. Rjd0060 22:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• It should be noted that there have been substantial (positive) edits to this article since I opened this AfD. - Rjd0060 23:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• As the nom, I am surprised and impressed of the number of changes and references added to this article. I believe that it may be suitable to keep now. - Rjd0060 23:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• I am a student at ASU, creating this article as part of a project for a class. There are a number of similar entries, such as articles on employment website Monster.com, so if you delete this one, please delete those other entries as well. User:Phanavan 22:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Please refer to WP:WAX in reference to your comment. - Rjd0060 23:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have used published stories, in addition to company information, to write what I feel is an objective article- including one front-page story from the New York Times; Rather than simply deleting information about a company, can you help me change? User:Phanavan —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU!! --Phanavan 23:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Needs rewritten in places, and better cites, but the indications are that notability can be established. It seems a bit perverse to suggest that the Arena is notable, but the organisation that named it isn't. So perhaps this AfD is a bit quick off the mark. The problem with the NY Times references are you need to register to read them. Links like that are discouraged. Cites that are links through the company's own website also don't really count as reliable third party cites, even if they in turn refer to other websites. --Escape Orbit 00:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

We certainly permit references to articles requiring registration--or even payment--we encourage the use of free sources, certainly--& the NYT is free now-- but we even more encourage the use of the best and most appropriate source for the subject. (though not for external links--see WP:EL) Material from a company's web site can be used for routine facts, like where their branch offices are. All of this can and should be discussed on the article talk page in any case. (as can the real problem, excessive detail about internal corporate affairs and the merger with other small companies.)--but:

• Keep as the company seems important enough for notability.DGG (talk) 03:11, 6 October 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. for failing to satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. --Aarktica 20:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Apparently unsalvageably non-neutral puff-piece for a record label. (Strip out the advertorial and all that's left is "Indytronic Records is a record label".) While I can find catalogues etc to show that the label exists, I can find no reliable sources at all for any information about the label. If anyone can find some reliable sources, consider this nomination withdrawn, as I think in general record labels larger than the "guy in a basement with a CD burner" level should have their own Knowledge pages, but I really can't find anything with which to expand this. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. In the 82 distinct hits I found for the company, I found a couple of press releases, but nothing that would stand as a reliable source to verify notability per WP:CORP. WP:MUSIC is helpful here, too, in telling us that an indie label is considered major if it has "a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable". This does not seem to be the case. --Moonriddengirl 23:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Moonriddengirl. Notability doesn't seem to be there yet. Bfigura 05:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete. Indytronic Records has been around for 3 years and it is still going strong. This is an informative article about the label. As far as there not being any sources, I am the CEO of the company and I am the source. I can confirm that everything on the page is true and accurate. Please do not delete it. Thank you. Soundboyx 20:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no reliable resources. -- Whpq 20:24, 7 October 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. W.marsh 22:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed Hirolovesswords 22:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete: looks to be a hoax and no verifiable assertion of notability. --Mkativerata 23:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep- for now... I see nothing on the talk page, and no explanation of how this 18 month or so old article is fake, and how it has existed within a music community without notice... can someone provide a better argument that it is "fake", ghits for eg, a discussion of it somewhere, anything? If no attempt has been made, this is premature.JJJ999 00:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Lubricated Goat. Comment:It took me less than five minutes to find a site on a group called the Dubrovniks, which the subject played for. In that article was this:"Brett Ford (drums; ex-Kryptonics, Lubricated Goat)". Let's do some research before we brand something a hoax.--Sethacus 01:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Understood, but the second paragraph of the article needs to be referenced or deleted. --203.129.46.76 01:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment If it's redirected, sourcing won't matter. There won't be an article. Only if it's merged or kept will that be a concern.--Sethacus 01:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I deleted the second paragraph, as per WP:BLP. Cogswobbletalk 04:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Euryalus 07:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete More musiccruft. Twenty Years 13:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The subject does not appear to be notable apart from the bands he has played in. Being part of a notable group does not in itself make you notable. (I'm not necessarily passing judgment on the notability of the bands, that's another discussion.) Brianlucas 23:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into one of the related articles as the subject indeed has had connections with notable subjects of articles - outright delete is not that useful on such a issue - adequate research and appropriate connection with one of the bands he was associated with would make sense SatuSuro 05:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable musician. Keb25 00:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Brett Ford is an influential figure in the 1980s Sydney music scene; the article might not reflect the level of his influence but he is nevertheless a key figure in this scene and as such is deserving of his own separate article.--ollee 15:01, 14 October 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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Michal Heiman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I don't know arts, but this seems not notable and like an ad. Xiner (talk, email) 19:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - non notable per WP:BIO, and I can't find anything really noteworthy through Google or Google News. Jayden54 21:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not everyone in the world is notable enough to be in an encyclopedia, and certainly not this gal.TruthGal 22:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Just H 22:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - well known israli photographer. Everyone in the art scene knows her. 1300 google Shmila 08:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? Hard to imagine everyone in the art scene has even had a chance to know her, since her first and only New York solo art exhibition took place... this week.. Say... this Wiki entry was created just a week or so before that... What a delightful coincidence! Here's a test I use to see if a person is notable - rather than just Google the name, I do a Google search to try to find a basic biography to see where or when the subject was born (it's often the first line of a bio) "Ansel Adams was born in" gets 88 hits. "Michal Heiman was born in" gets zero hits. TruthGal 16:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

She Was the most known photographer in Israel while the 80s, before the internet. Shmila 18:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:BIO, had only 1,300 Google hits. Davidpdx 11:05, 26 December 2006 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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

this article uses self refs, and although it is not a speedy candidate, it does not seem notable enough and thus i send it to Afd. It is, I believe contested by the creator, and may have been created before, as the editor says "notable again, check HE wikipedia" in the edit summary. Phgao 22:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment:I'm not sure now, as although it does have a HE article, that article seems short to me, and I could not find any newspaper articles through a Google News search, but of course that only searches English news; and therefore can not be representative of all news on her. I add that I just checked and the article was deleted in 2006, but that does not set a precedent for this Afd. Phgao 23:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the last revision before my nom. Phgao 23:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep this woman is a renowned artist, her Hebrew and English wiki articles are verified and notable, she presented in Galleries all over the world, much more unlikely persons have articles in this encyclopedia. Marina T. 22:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep A quick google search shows plenty of sites and articles to prove notabilty.Ridernyc 22:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep one of the more famous artists in Israel. Took part in the "documenta". It's crazy to delete her. Shmila 22:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Definitely meets WP:BIO, just needs sources. I'll tag it. NASCAR Fan24 00:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 07:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. "one of the more famous artists in Israel" -name another... "It's crazy to delete her" --Call me crazy. "just needs sources" ---Meaningless comment which could be made for any nn subject. Tiptopper 11:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Official participation in Documenta is, I think, sufficient to establish notability. The article now has references to books discussing her work.--Ethicoaestheticist 11:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Needs to be heavily edited for formatting, POV and WP:PEACOCK, but a Documenta showing satisfies notability. Freshacconci | Talk 19:52, 8 October 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. Nihiltres 18:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion deletion because the article violates Knowledge:Conflict of interest and fails WP:BIO as a one-hit wonder with no lasting notability. It also appears that the author of this article is simultaneously trying to vandalize it, I gathered from the talk page that this person has registered numerous accounts for mixed purposes of self-promotion and vandalism. Case in point, I just removed an inappropriate link to PENIS SHEATHS that went unnoticed for over 6 months. Put this one out of its misery already. Burntsauce 22:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Meets WP:MUSIC by having a charted single. DCEdwards1966 02:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Ditto with DCEdwards, also please note that people's personal opinions whether they like a certain performer or not is not a valid reason for article deletion. Besides, we've got protection policies to block this page from vandals and sock puppetry. --Andrewlp1991 05:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:MUSIC. The one hit managed to peak in the top 20. Not to break OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but we do have articles on other one-hit wonders with questionable lasting notability. Deleting for the sake of controlling vandalism isn't a feasible alternative. Not that it needs it, but I'll be adding a Tufts University feature story on him to the refs.--Sethacus 15:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject passes WP:MUSIC with a charted single, like it or not. RFerreira 19:31, 6 October 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hilb, Rogal & Hobbs Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

hardly any context Shawnpoo 22:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Lack of content is not a criteria for deletion. This company is publicly traded with a market capitalization over 1 billion dollars, and plenty of reliable coverage as per WP:CORP (). For icing on the cake, they are even listed in two S&P indexes: S&P 600 SmallCap and S&P 1500 Super Comp. In short, meets WP:CORP completely. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 23:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per CosmicPenguin. Sure, it's two sentences long, but that's not a good argument in AfD. NASCAR Fan24 00:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep seems to be the definition of a notable company. May need some cleanup, but that's hardly a reason to nominate for AfD, much less to delete. Bfigura 05:11, 6 October 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 (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

This article is almost entirely original research; with two exceptions, it draws connections between different sci-fi military groups and ORingly calls them "space marines." Imperial Stormtroopers = space marines? Riiight. Additionally, there is no assertion of notability -- the article is essentially, "Books and game have marines in space", and does not attempt to answer the "So what?" question. --EEMeltonIV 04:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep', well known science fiction motif, I'm preety sure I've seen the term used in some Science fiction reference books. --Eldarone 23:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Question - If it's so well-known (and I suppose you're implying notable), why doesn't this 3.5-year-old article have a citation to any reliable sources discussing this motif? --EEMeltonIV 03:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Unless you have access to a copy of the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, the Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, or similar reference readily available, then it's hard to cite. SF References are hard to come by, and the only ones I know of are in University libraries. --Eldarone 22:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per above. JJL 00:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article might need cleaning up, but "space marines" are a pretty substantial part of sci-fi. Cogswobbletalk 04:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, not so much OR as just unreferenced. As sf is not without its share of critical commentary, it is likely any problem statements can be sourced (including connecting the stormtrooper/marine concept). --Dhartung | Talk 08:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. — RJH (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete space marine as spaceshipborne troops is too vague... the Starship Toopers Mobile Infantry, Star Wars Stormtroopers, , or whatever could be covered. 132.205.44.5 03:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but expandBlindsnyper 21:50, 10 October 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 → AA — 15:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Delete fails WP:BAND Carlossuarez46 21:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Gakusha 21:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BAND STORMTRACKER 94 21:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete (A7) Doesn't claim notability per WP:Music. A1octopus 21:35, 10 October 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 unanimous keep. Nihiltres 18:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

List of conservation areas in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It is with a heavy heart that I nominate this article for deletion. Simply, the scope of the article is so huge that I do not think it is ever going to be completed; the original author got as far as listing 256 conservation areas in four counties - out of at least 8000 in the whole country. Simply, I think the list is too long and unmaintainable to ever amount to a complete and useful article. DWaterson 21:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep its easy to be daunted by the enormity of the task, however I think that the topic is important enough to make an attempt. KTo288 23:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Everything in Knowledge is an ongoing project. It's hard to imagine any article being "completed." It's certainly an encyclopedic topic. --Oakshade 02:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I understand the nominator's concern, but I feel that this is a question of article organisation which is better suited to the talk page than an AfD debate. There isn't really a reason for deletion here. The list has a very specific, objective, and verifiable criteria for inclusion. Yes, it is a work in progress - but so is Knowledge as a whole. If the list becomes unmanageably large, it can be separated into lists by region. Actually, since all the counties listed thus far are in England, it could be moved to List of conservation areas in England, but this is an editing issue. Again, I sympathise with the nominator but deletion is inappropriate in this instance. --TreeKittens 05:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, it is common procedure in Knowledge to split huge lists into smaller ones, either geogrpahically, or time-wise, or alphabetically. CG 07:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Knowledge is an ongoing project and won't be perfect. Tbo (talk) (review) 19:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per all above. If this list gets unwieldy, as is suggested by the title and the number of conservation areas, then it can be split. Actually, it could be split right now into lists for just those four counties, and then it could mention that the list is incomplete. Either way, deletion is overkill for addressing the intended scope of this article. --Elkman 01:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per all above. Rgds, --Trident13 13:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - size is not a factor. (Look at Knowledge as a whole - it's a huge undertaking, but we took it on anyways). The Transhumanist 21:57, 7 October 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 --Aarktica 20:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

This was an effort to create an article with minimal significance. I appreciate the effort, but with so few editors jumping in to help here, the article will remain very limited. E_dog95' 20:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. You're not really giving a valid reason for deletion. There is no deadline for this project, there's plenty of time for it to grow. Do you have a concern of notability, verifiability, etc. that would be a reason to delete? --UsaSatsui 20:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Yes Sir. What I mean when I say "minimal significance" IS "lack of notability". This is a valid reason. It's not an encyclopedic article. E_dog95' 21:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know. A google search for 'BYOA' gets 50,000 ghits while the more restrictive 'BYOA access' gets 18,000 ghits, which suggests that the term has wide name recognition. --Malcolmxl5 21:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Yep. I see that BYOA even has two sites that use the term in the context of the article. The rest are varied. They range from "Bring Your Own Advil" to "Bavaria Yacht Owners Association". So I do concede that the term, as it's described in the article, is marginally valid. I hadn't googled it before, so now I'm on the fence. E_dog95' 22:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but rewrite to show that this is more typically a term referring to connecting to online services like AOL and Compuserve using a local broadband provider, per the "BYOA access" search above.--SarekOfVulcan 15:22, 8 October 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 by WP:SNOW as notable and fixable. Bearian 23:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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

An unreferenced article which is the top hit on Google for "roach clip". Reads as part original research, part slang dictionary definition and part howto. This was tagged as unreferenced in December 2006 and still lacks any sources. Cruftbane 20:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I'll add these to the article regardless of the outcome. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This needs cleanup, not deletion. --UsaSatsui 21:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the above comments. Seems a reasonable article to me. DWaterson 21:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If the best we can do for sourcing is a couple of on-line dictionaries then please do delete this and let Wiktionary have it. Burntsauce 22:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep probably hundreds of uses in literature of film to discuss. DGG (talk) 04:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article might need cleaning up, but that's no reason to delete. Cogswobbletalk 04:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. It seems this article has been quoted and attributed by a newspaper here (paragraph 3). Google books etc. is looking promising - I'm looking for something substantial... --TreeKittens 05:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There's no question that this article needs improvement, but this is not the improvement drive. I don't think anyone questions the encyclopedic merit of the subject itself. RFerreira 18:45, 6 October 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Air brake (road vehicle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Verbatim copy of chapter 5 of the California Commercial Driver Handbook, therefore violates WP:NOT#Knowledge is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook and possibly copyright DES 20:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The lead paragraph was the only part of the article that was not tainted from the beginning by copyright violation, so I left that, but removed the bulk of the article. I think it's a decent stub. --Dhartung | Talk 20:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Note that although an early edit by Interiot (talk · contribs) asserted that it was in the public domain, the PDF online clearly includes a copyright notice for the California DMV. --Dhartung | Talk 20:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep now that it's been reduced to a stub removing copyvio. DWaterson 21:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (if for no other reason that it'll explain what the roadsigns that say "Air Brakes Prohibited" are referring to), but someone needs to selectively delete the copyvio tainted revisions. humblefool® 02:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment See Knowledge:Copyright violations on history pages. Consensus seems to be that relegation to history is generally sufficient (especially in this sort of case, where there is no economic factor). The backlog at WP:CP is so great I'd rather someone spent time dealing with more pressing issues. --Dhartung | Talk 08:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject is notable enough to have its own article. The fact that it contained a copyvio (which has subsequently been removed along with corrections to it) does not make the subject undeserving of an article. --Athol Mullen 22:22, 9 October 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. W.marsh 22:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Learning change ringing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is entirely instructional. TheOtherSiguy 20:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Change ringing or delete. Too much of an instructional guide. DWaterson 21:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per DWaterson. There is some useful information that could be included in a paragraph in Change ringing, but lines like "The ringer will now learn..." make this step-by-step seem like something borrowed from elsewhere. The concept of alternating a pattern 6 bells by ringing them 6! different ways (1x2x3x4x5x6 or 720) is interesting, with its variation of 123456, 132465, 312456, 321465, etc, and well covered in the main article. Some of the info here about the practice might be useful there. Mandsford 12:38, 6 October 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 23:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

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

I don’t know if this is about some backyard wrestlers or E-fed wrestlers, but I do know it’s not about Pelle Primeau (a real wrestler who performs for Ring of Honor). Instead of just making the article about Primeau, I am nominating for deletion because Primeau himself hasn’t really done anything notable yet to warrant an article. Nenog 20:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This seems to be a compilation of something...but the article doesn't give any indication of what that would be. No sources. No notability. GaryColemanFan 20:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Seems like total nonsense to me. I don't watch ROH (since it's only on DVD, and now PPV in the US), but it's obvious that this article is not about Pelle. TJ Spyke 20:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and shouldn't it have been speedied? Patent nonsense if ever I've seen it. Nosleep1234 22:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - This is just nonsense. - Eggy49er 00:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. Nikki311 02:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - nonsense. Davnel03 11:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. Davnel03 11:46, 6 October 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. Fails WP:V and WP:N. → AA — 15:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Seems to be an advertisement Anarchia 20:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete definitely advertisement, non-notable company. Vaguely 20:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as this is spam. --Gavin Collins 08:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:13, 8 October 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note to the closing adminstrator: Profg has engaged in apparent canvassing in this AfD. See which includes a number of users who have called for keeping below such as RucasHost. JoshuaZ 17:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Note to the closing administrator: As evidenced by the fact that a number of users whom I requested in a neutral way (you can see that's true by clicking on the links above) to look at this article and the AfD have called for deleting the article, this is patently untrue, and is another example of stalking and harassment by JoshuaZ. --profg 19:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. Neutrality 20:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, just as notable as its counterpart, as noted here. Literally hundreds of article and links, and referenced in relevant online literature. In existence for 15 years. Recommend giving article more of a chance than 2 minutes (which is what happened here) to be edited and improved. --profg 20:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete it uses itself as the majority of it's references.Ridernyc 20:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

*Keep Great reference for silly Creationist arguments. It is notable, probably not as well-done as AnswersinGenesis, but it's a great location to find rebuttals to TalkOrigins. However, the article itself is poorly written, external links are kind of a repeat of itself, and it needs to somewhat resemble Answers in Genesis, which discusses that website better. OrangeMarlin 20:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Changed from above. I'm now unconvinced of notability. Points by MastCell and JoshuaZ are what convinced me. OrangeMarlin 16:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm starting to get somewhat uncomfortable being the only non-Creationist opposed to deletion. The points by MastCell and JoshuaZ are valid. Unless someone shows a better level of notability, namely at the level of AnswerinGenesis, I'm going to have to change my stand. OrangeMarlin 23:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, Google finds about 13,200 links and non-link references to TrueOrigin on other web sites. NCdave 15:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• It isn't obvious from his indentation, above, but if you look at the comment dates you'll see that Orangemarlin changed his recommendation from Keep to Strong Delete just one hour after, in answer to his question, I added the comment informing him that Google finds a whopping 13,200 references and links to TrueOrigin from other web sites. That seems odd to me. NCdave 18:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Whatever. I don't think google hits prove squat. I didn't even read what you wrote, because it wasn't relevant to my powerful and awesome ability to make up my own mind. OrangeMarlin 18:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• You didn't even read it? Then why did you ask for it? NCdave 19:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• delete This isn't notable. The "counterpart" the Talk Origins Archive has multiple, independent reliable sources that discuss it. The TrueOrigin Archive does not. It massively fails WP:WEB. If someone can find reliable sources that talk about it I will consider changing my position. JoshuaZ 20:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Here you go, JoshuaZ. These are some books which reference the TrueOrigin web site, or material found on it:

• "How Now Shall We Live?" by Charles Colson, Nancy Pearcey, p. 499
• "The Big Argument: Twenty-Four Scholars Explore How Science, Archaeology, and Philosophy Have Proven the Existence of God," by John F. Ashton, Michael Westacott, p. 129
• "Insect Evolutionary Ecology: Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society," by Mark Fellowes, Graham Holloway, Jens Rolff, p. 395
• "Science and Evolution," by Charles W. Colson, Nancy Pearcey, p.183
• "Intelligent Design Origin of Human Destiny," by Theodore A. Green,p. 212
• "Researching Anthropology On The Internet," by David Lee Carlson, Wadsworth, p. 58
• "Darwİnİzmİn İnsanliĞa GetİrdİĞİ Belalar," by Harun Yahya, p. 183
• "Natural Theology," by William Paley, p. 290
• "The Evolution Deceit," by Harun Yahya, p. 273
• "Darwİnİzmİn Kanli İdeolojİsİ FaŞİzm," by Harun Yahya, p. 235
• "Ara GeÇİŞ AÇmazi," by Harun Yahya, p.232
• "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism And Intelligent Design," by Jonathan Wells
• "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design," by Barbara Forrest, Paul R. Gross

NCdave 17:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

None of these are non-trivial independent reliable sources. Here we go in order.

• How Now Shall We Live? - the entire mention is that a certain essay has a copy there. In what is essentially an apologetic book. Appears to be more of a polemic than a reliable source.
• The Big Argument - same thing as above
• Now we get to an actual paper. Actual science paper referencing a page in TrueOrigin (actually the same essay by Jonathan Wells as mentioned by "ow Now Shall We Live? - simply using it as a note that certain types of creationist arguments exist and not for anything else.
• Next another reference by the same people (Nancy Pearcey and Charles W. Colson) to the same paper as from the first one.
• Intelligent Design Origin of Human Destiny again just a minor reference to a report, and the book in question appears to be published by a vanity press anyways (I could be wrong but it looks like that to me).
• Researching Anthropology On The Internet - uses it as an example of a creationist website along with many others, nothing more.
• Next is by Harun Yahya(Oktar) - another creationist citing them. Harun Yahya is not a reliable source as you can see from reading our article on him. He is a holocaust denier whose views can be summarized as something like "The Holocaust didn't happen and the Nazis did it because they believed in evolution". That might be actually more coherent than his description. In any event, not a reliable source and not used as more than a minor citation.
• Natural Theology I was a bit surprised to see this on the list since William Paley died in 1905. Apparently an updated version of his book includes a list of modern creationist websites at the end which includes TrueOrigins.
• Next are two more incidental mentions by Harun Yahya.
• The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism And Intelligent Design - the only mentions in that book if I recall is Wells citing his own essay on their.
• Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design Oh, wow. We've now hit something that might be a reliable source. That's a rarity in this list. Unfortunately, if I recall correctly ( the text isn't online and I read the book a few years ago) Forrest and Gross briefly mention True Origins as an example of how some proponents of Intelligent Design also put out essays on avowedly creationist websites. Wow, so we now have one minor factoid about the website from 13 books. That was a good use of my time. In the future could you please look at the sources before giving them to us to look at? JoshuaZ 19:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Seems as notable as Talk Origins. In fact, Talk Origins links to and has responses to True Origins. Jinxmchue 21:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Miserably fails WP:WEB, WP:ORG, or for that matter whichever set of notability criteria you choose to apply to it.A self-referential rehash of the website which provides no secondary sources, independent commentary, analysis, or anything that would make it encyclopedic. Delete unless non-trivial independent, reliable secondary source coverage can be produced. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in the first place, but even if it were, comparing this to TalkOrigins Archive is ludicrous - that site has been noted by the National Academy of Sciences, the Smithsonian, Scientific American, mentioned in college textbooks, etc. This one is not in the same league notability-wise. MastCell 21:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I think I've located a page that reveals compliance with WP:WEB, namely, this page concerning criticisms of trueOrigins. It seems like there's indeed been multiple, "reliable" published works criticizing various things on TrueOrigins. Why this isn't mentioned in the article, I don't know, because it probably should be. Homestarmy 22:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That's in reference to people criticizing Humphreys' views which were not published on the True Origins Archive anyways, just Humphrey's response. Even if Humphreys' original comments had been put on TrueOrigins, that would simply be a possible argument to note that at Russell Humphreys. JoshuaZ 23:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed; these are criticisms of Russell Humphreys which happen to be collected on TrueOrigins - not evidence that the site is independently notable. MastCell 23:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Further follow-up, none of those criticisms appear to be from reliable sources either anyways. So we really don't have a leg to stand on. JoshuaZ 00:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails notability criteria. Yilloslime (t) 23:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete (changed from "Delete.") Herculean efforts by profg, NCdave, OrangeMarlin and others have failed to find any sources establishing notability as defined by WP:N and WP:WEB.Yilloslime (t) 19:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Follow-up: See, this is what I'm talking about. Most of what is being discussed here are issues for improving the article, and should be discussed on the Talk page, not on an AfD page that was posted TWO MINUTES after this article was created. I've never seen even a stub AfD'd two minutes after it was created; in fact, most stubs are tagged asking for editors to help improve them. Seriously, why not KEEP this article for at least a week or two, try to help the WP project by improving it, and if it's hopelessly non-improveable and non-notable, toss it on Darwin's dustbin of history? --profg 02:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Lack of sources is a reason to delete, and I looked for additional sources before I made my comment. I can't speak for others. But the sourcing necessary simply doesn't exist. JoshuaZ 02:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• If true, that will be borne out in time. Putting this up for deletion 1-2 minutes after it was first created when it's obvious this isn't a disruptive article is ridiculous. It almost seems to me that some people are trying to get a quick delete even though the article doesn't meet the criteria for that (thus, they are using this to get around that fact). Jinxmchue 02:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • This isn't a speedy deletion by any stretch of the imagination. This discussion won't even be closed for another 5 days at least. And in the meantime, you are welcome to look for additional sources. And you can be assured that you will not be the only person looking for sources. I'm currently looking at their page to try to find a way to contact TrueOrigins to ask if their are any sources they are aware of (at present I'm having some difficulty finding anything other than the feedback button which appears to be only rarely payed attention to and isn't precisely appropriate for this given their feedback guidelines). But again, there appears to be very little to go on, even AIG's webpage only has a handful of mentions of TrueOrigins, and even then they are all of the it-exists form. JoshuaZ 03:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Looks likeyou can contact them here --profg 03:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Um, that appears to be the contact page for http://www.lonestarwebworks.com . How is that connected? JoshuaZ 19:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't say this was a speedy deletion. I said this seems to have been done to get around the speedy deletion criteria as the article doesn't fit any of them. I just can't think of any other reason for someone to have nominated this article so quickly after it was created. Within two minutes. Hardly enough time to thoroughly check for reliable sources. Jinxmchue 07:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The AfD nomination certainly was rapid. That said, the burden is generally on the creator of an article (or supporters of its existence) to be able to provide evidence of notability at the time the article is created. MastCell 20:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment I did in about two minutes. It eventually was rewritten and moved to a better article. I can't find anything to back this site's notability up (IE, Reliable Sources). Spryde 13:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Since we're apparently using this page instead of the talk page to discuss the article, here's some "multiple, independent reliable sources" that link to the True.Origin Archive:

• Professor David A. Plaisted, Dept. of Computer Science, UNC-Chapel Hill: "Links to Some Other Creation Sites"
• Sean DeVere Pitman, M.D., City of Hope National Medical Center: "Just a Few Links"
• Professor James R. Hofmann (and others), California State University Fullerton, "Philosophy/Liberal Studies 333: Evolution and Creation"
• Kevin Henke Ph.D., University of Kentucky - Geological Sciences, "Jonathan Sarfati's Support Of Flood Geology"
• Geoscience Research Institute, "Fundamentalist - Organizations"
• Professor David L. Carlson, Texas A&M Department of Anthropology, "Physical Anthropology"
• Professor James F. McGrath, Butler University Department of Philosophy & Religion, Religion & Science (RL 371): "Evolution, Creationism and Design"

I'm just throwing some out there that I hit with a quick search. There are criticisms there, supports, straight links, etc. But I believe there is at least notability, for it to be linked to by reliable sources. --profg 04:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment.Even with these links, it still fails WP:WEB. Yilloslime (t) 15:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agreeing with Yillo here. The first two links are merely lists that include TrueOrigins on lists of creationist pages (nor for that matter are either of those links reliable sources but rather private webpages). The third link appears to contain a link to TrueOrigins as one of many creationist sites noted in what appears to be a course syllabus. The fourth link is a criticism of an essay on the site and is hosted on a geocities website. Hardly reliable. The fifth link is again a page that simply includes TrueOrigins as a link on a list of creationist pages. The sixth link may arguably be a reliable source and is by a anthropology professor at Texas A&M. However, the only additional sentence of content there other than the existence of TrueOrigins is that the website "takes direct aim at Talk.Origins" which isn't a whole lot of content (hardly a non-trivial source). The final link again simply contains a link among a list of links. None of these are independent, non-trivial reliable sources. JoshuaZ 19:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep a notable creationist site. Widely referred to , as it ought to be , because it contains a collection of relative straightforward, intelligent, understandable documentation of that point of view--to the extent that it depends on their interpretations of science. DGG (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment:If it's widely referred to, I have no problem keeping it. I just haven't seen evidence thus far that it is widely referred to by reliable, notable sources. MastCell 20:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • comment It is not that widely referred to nor is it at all prominent in the creationist movement. For example, it gets a total about 10 mentions on AIG's webpage (see ) and none from the ICR . AIG is a notable creationist ministry, as is the ICR. Both have multiple independent, reliable sources. Similarly for Kent Hovind's ministry. True Origins is not notable. There's simply nothing we can write about it other than its existence that complies with WP:V. JoshuaZ 23:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Josh and MastCell. •Jim62sch• 15:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. See wikipedia's own definitions of notability for the purpose of the relevant criteria for keep or not: "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations....."

..And certainly I have seen that it is prominently notable among those who despise it. Those who so vehemently object here to its inclusion are testament to their own desire to reduce its visibility, because they have noted TrueOrigins.com most emphatically. So they are another evidence in favor of its inclusion. TruthTeller 15:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC) — TruthTeller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment The above !vote from "TruthTeller" was actually added by User:24.127.209.207. It's the first edit from that IP. TruthTeller has 3 edits. Yilloslime (t) 15:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Does not rise to the standards of WP:WEB. ScienceApologist 00:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Most of the sources in the article are from the website itself. The additional sources offered in this discussion don't appear to meet the reliable sources guideline, and my google searching didn't turn up any better sources. No prejudice against recreation if the site becomes more notable at a later time. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is a great website, and is certainly very notable. I was actually just there earlier today reading an essay by Dr. Jerry Bergman on the creation of pathogenic viruses. It's highly obvious that this AFD is POV motivated, I can't think of any good reason to delete. --RucasHost 03:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oh say, like the complete absence of reliable sources that might show it meets WP:WEB. A little AGF might be in order, just maybe? Especially given your editing history and user page. You know, glass houses, stone throwing and all that... Oh and while we're at it- a website being useful or "great" has nothing to do with notability. I visit a lot of websites daily that are great and useful, that doesn't mean they should have articles. JoshuaZ 03:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• In fact, there is a danger that liking something may lead one down the garden path. ScienceApologist 03:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, there is just as much danger that not liking something may lead one down a similar path. --profg 05:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• JoshuaZ, please be careful not to attack fellow editors, especially for something that has nothing to do with the present discussion. WP:NPA states, "some types of comments are never acceptable," including "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme... Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done... It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user." Please, always assume good faith. Thank you. --profg 05:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Sigh, I think Profg in this case you may want to a) reread my comment or b) reread NPA (including the section you just quoted). It might in fact be best to do both. JoshuaZ 14:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Sigh, I think JoshuaZ in this case you may want to a) reread your comment ("Especially given your editing history and user page") or b) reread NPA in light of that comment (especially the section I quoted). It might in fact be best to do both. --profg 16:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
      • This isn't that complicated. The user in question said "It's highly obvious that this AFD is POV motivated" which is a failure to assume AGF. My observation is that given the user's own statements if we start not assuming AGF it hits him pretty badly. Since I am, of course, assuming AGF, I haven't concluded the user, or any other user in this discussion is calling for keeping or deletion based on their POV. Now, if you are still convinced that I'm somehow magically engaging in personal attacks here, I suggest you continue the discussion on my talk page, since this is rapidly becoming irrelevant to the issue at hand- whether or not there are reliable sources that discuss the website in question. JoshuaZ 16:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this was a case of not AGF, rather it was drawing the obvious conclusion from the fact that the AfD was posted just two minutes after the article it proposed to delete. Two minutes is not enough time to have even carefully read the article, let along the subject of the article. Perhaps the editor who proposed the article for deletion was already thoroughly familiar with the subject of the article, but, if so, that, itself, is strong evidence of notability. NCdave 19:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not even close to as notable as ICR, AiG or AiC. Maybe if it lasts another fifteen years someone might be bothered to write an independent non-trivial review, but until then there's no good reason to keep this article around.  –  ornis⚙ 06:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A non-notable person gets into an argument with an un-named relative, posts his side of the argument online, and then makes it "a web page in hopes of reaching a few other readers." Nothing follows that establishes notability. No numbers. No sponsors. No references in any major publications? Randydeluxe 07:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep This is not notable? I thought it was. Lets find some references to show that it is.--Filll 17:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete completely inadequate references, the only non-self reference seems to be a self published post from a talk.origins newsgroup of Feb. 17, 1999 – that does not look credible as a reliable source. Better secondary sources needed. .. dave souza, talk 18:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Irony To all of you darwinists who hate creationism and would love nothing more than to delete this article. You might actually be helping the creationists at TrueOrigin Archive, you see when people search for "True Origins" in Google, the TrueOrigin Archive comes up as the first result; however, Knowledge gets very good search placement and if this article stays there's a good chance it could replace the actual website for the first spot in Google. So by deleting this article you're getting people to go to a site on creationism instead of a Knowledge article about a site on creationism. --RucasHost 19:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Huh? The deletion debate is about notability vs non-notability, and the availability of reliable sources, related to this one web site. It doesn't have anything to do with hating creationism. I hope it doesn't have anything to do with your liking creationism, either, and that your vote is related to your ability to find reliable sources that show notability for this one web site. If anyone is voting on this one web site based on how much they like or dislike the general field of study, then they're completely missing the point of the discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Now THAT is funny, considering most of the "votes" here. --profg 20:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Now I'm really confused. I looked at your vote, for instance, and it didn't even address the question of whether or not there are reliable sources. Are you accusing yourself of POV voting? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Profg and Rucas- this is precisely why I called for AGF earlier. Profg, you seem to be acting almost as bad a Rucas. As to accusations that there are "POV-warriors" here calling for deletion, note that Filll who is often accused of being some sort of evilutionist was in favor of considering keeping, as was Orangemarlin. This isn't a deletion being orchestrated by an evolutionist cabal. At minimum, if there is a cabal here, it is a damn incompetent one. JoshuaZ 20:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Evilutionist I'm not sure if you misspelled that intentionally or not, but I am not going to use it widely. OrangeMarlin 16:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Digression: Evil-ution is a charming coinage that dates back at least to Inherit the Wind. It probably goes back even further. Of course, history repeats itself. MastCell 16:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• No disagreement on that statement here. --profg 20:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There are no votes, it's a discussion, or at least it's supposed to be. --RucasHost 20:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Fisher's comment is just as valid without the use of some pretentious neologism like not-vote or ~vote or whatever is the current style du jour. In fact, the non-voting nature of the matter makes Fisher's point all the stronger. JoshuaZ 20:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, while I fully support Knowledge's model of consensus for discussion rather than majority voting, I find constructions like !vote to be confusing for users who aren't experienced Wikipedians, and I try to keep my comments simple enough that users who aren't members of the cabal can still understand and participate. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The "irony" in the leadoff statement here is predicated on the assumption that everyone's top priority is to advance a specific POV above all else. I'm fully aware of the power of Knowledge's search-engine ranking, but you'll notice that most of the comments have to do with notability, not hatred of creationism. The only irony here is that User:RucasHost's comment says far more about how s/he views Knowledge than it does about anything else. MastCell 00:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I have no dog in this fight, and I find young-earth creationist arguments unpersuasive, but there really is no question that the TrueOrigin website easily meets Knowledge's notability critera. Google finds over 8300 links to articles on the TrueOrgin.org web site from other web sites. NCdave 21:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment My google search only yielded 177 links, many of them from the same websites, and most of them from blogs. How did you do yours? Either way, google hits/links does not establish notability. Yilloslime (t) 21:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I did mine like this, which yielded about 1000 hits, but I didn't find reliable sources among the hits, either. I'd be interested in what reliable sources you found, and your methods, because I always like learning new tricks for uncovering sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, Google is acting weird today. As it did yesterday, my google search yields "Results 1 - 10 of about 8,330 for link:*.trueorigin.org -site:trueorigin.org" That would be 8300+ links to the TrueOrigin.org web site from other web sites. (But here's the weirdness: today it is only actually showing a few of them; I don't think it was doing that yesterday, or if it was I didn't notice it.) NCdave 14:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• When I searched for both links and non-link references to TrueOrigin from other web sites, Google said it found about 13,200 hits. Note that this does not include references on the TrueOrigin.org web site, itself, only references on other web sites. NCdave 15:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thnx for the clarification on search strategy. Still, google hits or links (or lack thereof) do not establish notability. See Knowledge:Search_engine_test#Notability and WP:GOOGLEHITS. Yilloslime (t) 16:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete - I was contacted on my talk page by profg for input. This article seems to be mainly sourced by primary self-published sources, afoul of the last criteria of WP:SELFPUB. If there were one or two secondary independent sources, such as a newspaper article which this website was the main subject of, or even a significant subject of, I could be convinced to switch to a keep. - Crockspot 22:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• By the way, I got three google news archive hits, but one is a LTTE, and the other two are blog posts. - Crockspot 22:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. A sorry little website, like many another feeble-minded blog. No notability established, or establishable. For a website that has allegedly been around since 1997, it has attracted remarkably little attention - almost no Google hits. I can think of many (many, many) really useful websites with far greater importance and influence that do not have their own wikipedia articles (yes, I know, I should go ahead and start articles on them). Snalwibma 07:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please, Snalwibma, refrain from personal attacks and gratuitous insults. "Feeble-minded?" Really, it is sufficient to say that you disagree with them, or (as I did) that you find their arguments unpersuasive. Also, calling it a "blog" site seems to be just another insult. I doubt that you really think that it is a blog. Also, I don't think 13,200 is "almost no Google hits." NCdave 15:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• • A few comments. First, note that NPA doesn't refer to insulting websites or such, but to other Knowledge users. I don't see a negative connotation to blog per se and am puzzled as to why you see one, but in any event, the website does bear a strong resemblance to a group blog. As to the google hit number, that isn't terribly relevant if we don't have reliable sources and in any event since it is a website the cruft multiple is of course going to be high. JoshuaZ 15:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment. (1) No personal attack in what I said! (2) If others are allowed to support their "keep" arguments with baseless comments that it's "a great website", surely I am equally entitled to express my contrary opinion. (3) In Google, "trueorigin archive" gets about 700. "trueorigin" gets 14,000, but it's nearly all cruft, consisting of self-references and mentions in blogs etc. (4) And, yes, it is blog-like. Or, if you prefer, a soapbox.Snalwibma 15:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

(1&2) Web sites do not have minds, feeble or otherwise. To refer to it as "feeble-minded" indicates that you think its authors and fans are feeble-minded. Even if you do, it is impolite to say so. I'm sure that you can find more civil ways to express your disagreements.

(3) You are mistaken, snalwibma. That 13,200 hits includes no self-references at all, because I explicitly excluded them from the search. That's why I wrote, "this does not include references on the TrueOrigin.org web site, itself, only references on other web sites." That's the purpose of the "-site:trueorigin.org" clause in the google search. If you leave out that clause, you get about 14,700 hits. The differences is 10.2% -- which doesn't seem like "nearly all" to me. As for how many of them are mentions in blogs, I don't know, because I don't have the time to look at 13,200 links (but Josuha sees no negative connotation to blogs, anyhow). But even if all of them were references on blogs, that would still be more than sufficient to establish notability. You called it "almost no Google hits," but, truly, I think 13,200 is a lot of references. NCdave 16:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I know I've asked this before, but since I couldn't find the reliable sources in the google search myself, and since you appear satisfied that you have found them, could you just post links to the three best articles about the web site that you found? I'd love to change my mind in this discussion; I always feel good about being able to save an article from deletion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: While blog doesn't have negative connotation by itself, blogs are not reliable sources. And no number of unreliable sources is sufficient if we have no reliable sources. We could have Graham's Number of google hits and if none of them we're reliable are hands would be tied becuase there'd be nothing we could write about it that was compliant with WP:V/WP:OR. JoshuaZ 16:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I was being a bit rude about the site (and, by implication, about its creators and contributors). If you are reading this, I apologise for any offence I may have caused. And I was indeed a bit offhand in my "no google hits" comment. But I really really cannot find any worthwhile things about trueorigin.org, other than cruft on blogs and discussion groups. Excluding wikipedia and trueorigin itself, the first ten items thrown up by a google search for "trueorigin archive" (which seems a fair enough search, given that it is precisely the name of the wikipedia article in question) are: , , , , , , , , . OK - not quite ten, but enough... I may have overstated it initially, but this little exercise confirms my first impression - it's a trivial website with no great influence or notability. Snalwibma 17:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• A post on a discussion list; not a reliable source.
• An exchange of emails, not a reliable source.
• A catalog form a bookstore; how is this a source at all?
• an archive from a discussion board; not a reliable source.
• an email, not a reliable source
• I only asked for three good sources; and frankly, I don't feel like reading any more of them. Please, reread the reliable sources guidelines and then post the three that are articles in reliable sources about this web site. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Note - those ten-or-so links were provided by me in support of my "non-notable" contention. I hope you didn't waste too much time on them! We are still waiting for NCdave to provide the three reliable sources to demonstrate notability... Snalwibma 17:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I missed the point you were making. No, I didn't have to do more than glance at them. Shall I delete my error, or let it stand to further make the point that the google hits are not reliable sources? Sorry for accusing you of insufficient comprehension of the policy; this discussion has gotten a bit complicated for me and I lost track of who was trying to prove what. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please let it stand. it's much more fun this way... Snalwibma —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the engineers' proof that all odd numbers are prime: 1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, yep, all odd numbers are prime. That's 9 down, 13,191 to go, but never mind, they're all cruft. NCdave 18:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean that you couldn't find the ones that were reliable sources, either? I'm sorry; you must be disappointed, after seeming so sure that there were some. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry if I was unclear. It means that the folks why say all the references to TrueOrigin.org are cruft are stating a conclusion which is unwarranted by the evidence. They obviously haven't looked at even 1% of the references. That is consistent with the pattern established at the very beginning of the AfD, with its creation just 2 minutes after the creation of the article in question: 2 minutes is obviously insufficient time for the article to have been carefully read, let along the subject of the article. NCdave 19:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did look at the google results. Not at all 1000 hits, of course, but certainly at the first five or six pages. And I didn't find any reliable sources among them. If you think they're there, I'm afraid the burden is on you to prove it. Without those reliable sources, no amount of google-hit-counting will help your argument, and I'd be glad to see the reliable sources discovered so we could save this article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I am obviously not going to look at 13,200 Google hits. But given the way that Google ranks hits, I reckon a sample of the FIRST NINE out of 13,200 is a reasonable way to gauge Google-notability. But please do tell us - which of the remaining 13,191 are reliable independent sources? Snalwibma 07:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I really wanted this to be kept (per OrangeMarlin's original thinking), so I tried hard to find a reliable source! And just as Snalwibma, I can't find anything satisfying "nontrivial coverage in a reliable source" In contrast to the books that mention talk.origins, I couldn't find a single mention of this web-site in a even a news search. So please, if there is any substantial coverage of this site in print, that is, anything in a reliable source that discusses this site (as opposed to just link to it), then please add it to the article. I think having a NPOV article on this site would be useful, but that is only possible if there is nontrivial independent coverage somewhere... --Merzul 17:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Merzul, your Google book search link finds 46 books that mention TalkOrigins. I just posted a list of 13 books that mention TrueOrigin. Now, granted, 46 is greater than 13, but the numbers are close enough that I wonder how many book references you think it takes to be evidence of notability? NCdave 18:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Only two or three, if they actually discuss the book rather than just mentioning it. Have you read any of these books? Do any of them discuss the book at length or in detail? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, it is really very simple. If any of those book discuss the web-site in any length, then please summarize what the book says, and add it as a source to the article. If you get two or three of such mentions, then I will change my votes. Even something as short as this, is something that can be used as a source. Do we have anything? But don't expect anyone to weed through this discussion here, if you find anything, add it to the article! --Merzul 19:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Boy, I don't envy the poor admin who has to read this mess and determine consensus. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, let's see, I've read a few of them that appear to be notable:
  • How Now Shall We Live? by Chuck Colson
  • Natural Theology by William Paley
  • The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism And Intelligent Design by Jonathan Wells
• Ones I haven't read, but look notable:
  • Insect Evolutionary Ecology: Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society by Mark Fellowes
  • Researching Anthropology On The Internet by David Lee Carlson
  • Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design by Barbara Forrest & Paul R. Gross --profg 20:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

But, how are we to use them in the article? The notability guidelines are based on the real principles of verifiability and neutral point of view. The reason we need these sources is not to just count them, but to be able to write an encyclopaedic article. What are we to make of these sources? This sources can as far as I have looked at them, only be used to say that "The web-site has been listed in Paley's book in a list of evolution related web-sites together with the Discovery Institute"? In any case, I suggest trying to use these sources to write the article, then whether we have non-trivial coverage in independent sources is immediately obvious. --Merzul 19:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Merzul. See in any event my item by item discussion above. JoshuaZ 19:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Forrester & Gross reference could actually be useful, and would give a little balance to the article, not sure that is enough to then only rely on true.origins itself. I think your analysis is probably right, these sources will do little to help writing the article, but I did my best, and added the Paley ref :) --Merzul 19:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Added ref from Fellowes as well, will keep looking and adding. Thanks. --profg 20:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete: Article fails WP:N, in particular WP:WEB. Currently just seems to be a container used to transport cleaning products in and would fail WP:EL if used as such. Arguements to keep are not addressing the very basic failures in Knowledge policy that this article suffers from, notability as a start. Shot info 01:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: actually, the arguments to keep are specifically addressing notability. (Of course, all of that should have been addressed on the Talk page before an AfD was initiated, but hey, who can do that in less than two minutes?) --profg 01:41, 9 October 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 ˉˉ╦╩ 21:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Lt. Col. Apji Dalel Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, questionable notability. Had been speedied once, but speedy was declined this time. --Finngall 20:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep He was a member of Constituent Assembly of India that discussed and darfted Constitution of India.Shyamsunder 09:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyamsunder (talk • contribs)

• Strong keep He was a member of Constituent Assembly of India that discussed and darfted the Constitution of India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrathore (talk • contribs) 20:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as above; constitutional drafting bodies are at the notability level as a federal legislature. --Dhartung | Talk 20:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Withdraw nomination now that context and references have been provided. No question of notability now. --Finngall 21:01, 5 October 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. meets WP:CSD#A7 W.marsh 20:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

OohYa! Chat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

• Delete, non-notable. Neutrality 20:07, 5 October 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Dead black males (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable variant of Dead white males, delete per WP:NEO TeaDrinker 20:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 20:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if it were a notable expression it would be a dictionary not an encyclopedia item. Steve Dufour 20:24, 5 October
• Keep as Dead white males should be deleted if this is deleted. Erwin Morland 01:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:POINT-y leg-pulling. --Dhartung | Talk 21:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as this seems rather point-y. Despite the edit summary in this diff, a lack of symmetry is not necessarily racist. Bfigura 05:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm restoring my !vote and Dhartung's, which were deleted by Erwin Morland (see this diff). --Bfigura 04:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:N guidelines even if it does exist. The only things I can find seem to be related to, well, dead black men, as in dead bodies. Nothing to do with contributions of individuals to history as the article asserts. --BelovedFreak 17:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Per User:Bfigura, not having a equivalent article to Dead white males is not racist. This article seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the concept Dead white males. --BelovedFreak 17:19, 9 October 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. Fails WP:V and no assertions of notability. → AA — 15:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

• Delete, non-notable. Neutrality 19:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:SPAM. STORMTRACKER 94 20:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete Co-founded by notable actor Fred Willard; seems to have some notable members; would change to Keep if there were sources showing notability. NawlinWiki 20:14, 5 October 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. GRBerry 17:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Fairview Cemetery, Amsterdam, New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

• Delete, non-notable. Neutrality 19:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N and WP:RS. STORMTRACKER 94 20:02, 5 October 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 Malformed; not sure what user is driving at; will ask user directly. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 08:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate the work put into this article, I'm submitting it for deletion as this article fails WP:NOT#DIR just about to the letter. KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 19:32, 5 October 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. --Aarktica 20:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Violates WP:NEO. The term does not seem to be in widespread use, and Google returns primarily music-related (not software-related) links. Actually the term even seems to be a trademark rather than a commonly used term. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 19:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO and nom. STORMTRACKER 94 19:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a neogolism. Alternatively, Redirect to WYSIWYG. --UsaSatsui 21:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per UsaSatsui. Bfigura 05:20, 6 October 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. W.marsh 22:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

This article does not meet notability guidelines. She is a midlevel political staffer and any noteriaty she gained was on a U.S. Senate race. Empire2000 19:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 19:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - National Communications Director isn't a midlevel political staffer, it's a fairly high level. matt91486 22:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Jill Hazelbaker is a public figure. I recommend a Google News search for her name, which turns up 32 recent entries where reporters are quoting her directly and identifying her as the chief "spokesperson" or "press secretary" of presidential candidate John McCain. If she was at one time a "mid-level" staffer, she is no longer at that level now. Deleting this article will benefit Ms. Hazelbaker, but it won't benefit Knowledge or the people who rely on it for encyclopedia-quality and well-referenced information about the backgrounds of people in the news. betsythedevine 10:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment The AfD template clearly states that "Unregistered users should visit Talk:Jill Hazelbaker and leave a detailed rationale for deletion, otherwise this template will be removed." In fact, the unregistered user who nominated this article for deletion has not offered any rationale, so in accordance with Knowledge policy the Afd template should simply be removed. betsythedevine 20:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The AfD was nominated by User:Empire2000, not an unregistered user. -- Kesh 22:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that Empire2000 is the first person to comment on this thread, but the article's page history attributes the Afd template to an unregistered user. betsythedevine 06:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This person seems to have notability/notoriety beyond that conferred beyond her employment (the blogging incident), has been mentioned in the New York Times twice, and her name has been associated with two different politicians at the national level. Not the most notable biography I've ever seen but I suggest just enough to merit keeping this entry. Accounting4Taste 19:24, 6 October 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 withdrawn. Wizardman 15:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to really establish notability. May be able to do so if it were greatly improved. Wizardman 18:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks better now that I stubbed it down, I can see the notability. I'll withdraw it in a short while, just want to make sure it's inherently notable. Wizardman 20:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 18:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Aren't universities inherently notable? Having said that the article certainly needs some work on it. --Malcolmxl5 19:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The universities inherently notable. It is a recognised university.--Shyamsunder 08:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep they should be considered inherently notable, because they wlll always have enough material to support an article. I'm not sure this is an absolutely firm rule, but it would sen the best way of dealing with them. Correspondance schools or mr minute colleges that have no real existence may be another matter. There is nothing wrong with a stub such as this. It clearly needs expansion, but there is not reason to delete. DGG (talk) 05:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A university is inherently notable. I will try to add material to this so that we keep this!
  Ankur Jain 14:56, 6 October 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 on the consensus below. I further note that, so far as I can tell, neither of the teams for which he has played appears to have an article, and it is more likely that they are worthy of coverage than that any individual player is. GRBerry 17:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Shaun van Eeden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't get it. I typed this into Twinkle and it didn't make the page for some reason.

Anyway, per this edit on my talk page, an anon has asked me to put the page up for deletion. By my own judgment, I think that the anon is right on the money here -- there's nothing that claims any notability for this particular cricket player. Ten Pound Hammer • 18:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delere per WP:N and WP:RS. STORMTRACKER 94 19:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Newport Pagnell Town 1sts? You must be joking. NN. DWaterson 23:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I feel at this stage in his career Shaun lacks suitable notability! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! 10:47, 7 October 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Non-notable neologism. Prod removed by author. JuJube 18:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Ridernyc 19:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Why? Ten Pound Hammer • 19:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

not even sure why this was brought here and not speedily deleted. First it's nonsense, second even if it was for real or notable it's a dictionary definition.Ridernyc 19:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not patent nonsense, and unless one means to suggest that it is entirely a hoax and as such is pure vandalism, there is no speedy deletion criterion that applies here. Joe 03:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete, but not speedily, per WP:NEO. We should avoid neologisms. J-ſtan_Contribs 19:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Not a neologism, but still feels like a dicdef. From a 1987 article in a Dallas paper: "Any team good enough to get this far comes in fully aware that for several morning hours every day you will have to endure a media goat rope. ... "--Sethacus 19:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO and WP:RS. STORMTRACKER 94 19:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unless someone wants to write an article on the practice of literal goat roping. This one belongs in a dictionary not an encyclopedia. Steve Dufour 20:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - ridiculous. DWaterson 23:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable dicdef that's pure OR. Bfigura 05:21, 6 October 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 23:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

List of catchphrases used in Grey's Anatomy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Basically a collection of trivia; separation from the main article only makes it worse, not better. Also an example of WP:RECENTISM; fails the ten-year test badly. GregorB 18:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong McDelete per nom, pure trivia/fancruft or whatever. No, seriously, this fails WP:RS by a long shot, as well as WP:RECENTISM. Ten Pound Hammer • 18:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom, WP:RS, WP:TRIVIA, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 20:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete notability is not inherited. The show is notable, the actors are, and maybe the episodes/seasons. However, unless someone's gone and put out a book of catchphrases from the show, this needs to go for a complete lack of notability and reliable sources. Bfigura 05:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Über Delete worthless triva that only somone who watches the show would know ForeverDEAD 14:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic fancruft. Noroton 19:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, should've been done in the first place anyways. Domthedude001 04:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Not even Wiktionary would want this, oh my. RFerreira 20:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete Was ever there a better example of fancruft? •97198 talk 04:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• BALCO delete. The strongest delete possible. Burntsauce 15:35, 8 October 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 But I will consider undeletion if sources are found. W.marsh 22:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ramsey Youth Centre Old Boys F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This football club fails WP:ORG. No independent sources are cited. This seems to be an amateur team of only local importance. While this is probably true for all football teams on the Isle of Man, that still does not make them pass the notability standard. PROD was contested in January 2007. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and WP:RS. STORMTRACKER 94 20:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 19:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - were formerly members of the top division on the Isle of Man. It's difficult to definitely state how that equates to the system in Mainland England for example, and I know the article needs serious clean-up, but I think this passes the bar of notability. - fchd 20:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's certainly hard to compare in terms of the league system. But let me just try the following comparison: They are one out of 2 football clubs in a city with 7000 inhabitants. The article doesn't state how many members they have, but I should be surprised if they have more a few hundreds. Any local amateur sports club of that size would certainly be considered non-notable, unless there are very exceptional circumstances. --B. Wolterding 20:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - it's not rare that there are two football clubs in a small town, each deserving of their own article - Tiverton, Newton Abbot (3!), Ossett, Atherton, Totton, etc. - fchd 20:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Maybe, but then there should be a good reason why - i.e. substantial coverage in reliable sources, more than the local newspaper. These teams are certainly not notable by default. --B. Wolterding 20:50, 5 October 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 to delete. However, an effort should really be made to add citations... in lists like this, it helps to weed out vandalism and other inaccurate entries. W.marsh 22:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

This is a list of notable people who allegedly died intentionally by their own hand. However, this list fails to cite reliable sources by which to verify that the named people died intentionally by their own hand. Moreover, there is no requirement that the suicides themselves be important/significant. Notability is not inherited and this list attempts to import the notability of the people on the list into their act of suicide. Both the people and their suicide separately needs to meet the general notability guidelines. Not one of the entries in this list even has a Knowledge article such as 'Suicide of XXXX". The only such Knowledge article I could find was the Suicide of Miss Melancholy, which is about a musical group, not a notable suicide. In addition, the entries in this list are covered adaquately through Category:Suicides and the 38 subcategories listed there.. -- Jreferee t/c 17:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't believe there is a general requirement for lists to be referenced. Suicides should be (and usually are) referenced in the corresponding bio articles. The list is only moderately useful, though. GregorB 18:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Granted, there have been a few (in)famous suicides (George Reeves, Hitler, etc.), but other than that, I don't see a need to take all these people and group them together indiscriminately. Keep, if verifiable. J-ſtan_Contribs 18:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. A list of unsourced redundant info that is better severed somewhere else.Ridernyc 19:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as indiscriminate info. There are plenty of people who commit suicides in this world, hence the inclusion criterion is far too wide for the list.--Alasdair 19:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but major re-work needed The subject list is notable, since the suicide of a notable person inherently receives press coverage. This is a list of Knowledge articles who share an attribute which is studied and covered by many secondary sources. In my view, it meets the the first two purposes of lists in Knowledge, which are that the list serves as a valuable information source, and that it aids in navigation of a certain topic, in this case, suicides. The argument that the reason an article is included in a list should be notable in and of itself is not enough to delete a list. If you wish, take a look at List of HIV-positive people for an example, which includes notable persons who share a common, widely-studied attribute, HIV. Most sources provided are not published works on their specific HIV infection, per se, only evidence that the person shares the common attribute for inclusion in the list. - Mtmelendez 19:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That said, there are certain problems with the list, which should be corrected during this discussion: (1) Move the lead section where it belongs, on top. (2) Create sub-lists of fictional characters and attempted suicides in fiction. Whether these lists meet the notability guidelines by themselves is another AfD debate. (3) Remove outright Possible suicides section. It NEEDS to be sourced otherwise it doesn't belong in any article, let alone this list. Entries under this section who "officially" committed suicide but are disputed (with sources) should be incorporated into the main list with the additional comment. (4) All entries must include a description of the method of suicide, otherwise they should be removed. I know this is not the responsibility of the closing admin, but I hope users reading this discussion will take the time to improve the list and avoid future AfDs. - Mtmelendez 19:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This is yet another list of loosely associated trivia and fails our WP:FIVE pillars immensely. Burntsauce 22:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The five pillars? How exactly? I'm curious to know. - Mtmelendez 02:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep loosely associated can be and has been been asserted about almost anything-- we need a proper formulation that would among other things make it clear according to common sense that , for example, having the similar essential characteristic of dying in a particular way that is generally considered as noteworthy is not a loose association. List of suicides in March would be a loose association. List of suicides is not. As usual, all lists need maintenance. DGG (talk) 05:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The sources can be found on the individual's article. Lugnuts 08:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep How is a list of suicides a 'loose association'? How is it 'trivial'? Obviously all the entries should be sourced over time and only 'notable' suicides should be included but 'I don't like it' or 'I don't think it's useful' are hardly an adequate arguments for deletion. Like many articles here it's unduly weighted to the present but it will only improve as it evolves. Nick mallory 10:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above but edit out major portions. The list of real suicides is voluminous enough without adding fictional suicides, suicide attempts, etc. I recognize that an article called "List of fictional suicides" will probably have trouble suriviving, but its dragging this article down rather than anchoring it. Mandsford 12:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because it's convenient and useful. Horia 20:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete better served as a category. --Sc straker 01:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete use a category. This is bad idea just like List of chefs was a bad idea. MarsRover 03:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, because it passed a discussion from just a few months ago and because organized lists of facts are exactly what reference guides do best. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I can see this being useful for research into celebrity suicides or something. One of Knowledge's attractions is cataloging this kind of obscure information. Leaving sourcing to the articles about individuals is generally fine, but if this ends keep, I'm going to source all the attempted suicides. Having that kind of unsourced info about living people worries me.--chaser - t 19:49, 8 October 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. GRBerry 17:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

This is said to be a "top secret project." As such it never attracted the attention of any secondary sources. Steve Dufour 17:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Super-secret covert operations are pretty much by definition non-notable. Unfortunately, the Men in Black and suchlike don't seem to be particularly chatty types or motivated to supply verifiable information. John Carter 17:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: If it is so secret, than it isn't notable, and does not belong on Knowledge. - Rjd0060 18:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: I do think this is notable, however there simply is to little information to warrant an article. It is very interesting though. Maybe this could be incorporated into an already existing article on Scientology Controversies or something. Elhector 18:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I've decided to change my vote as I've found a lot more information the subject. I'm working on rewriting the article now to include some more of the info and sources that I'm finding. Elhector 23:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

But it can not be a "controversy" until someone else finds out about it. Steve Dufour 18:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless reliable sources can be found. With little verifiable info available for this secret project, even if it's true, it could still be considered original research.--Alasdair 19:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

My gut feeling, knowing something about the anti-Scientology movement, is that the typewritten document presented as a source is genuine. However the project is non-notable since it didn't make the newspapers. Also the statement that its goal is to take over the city of Clearwater, Florida seems to be original research. Steve Dufour 20:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was a news story a long long long time ago, and it was pretty much a flash in the pan. My uncle told me about. The newspaper that covered the story went out of business a year or two afterwards, it was a little independent paper for the area. I'd say let's just get rid of the article. I think Steve is right, we're not going to be able to dig up any more info on this and there simply isn't enough info existing to keep it around. Elhector 21:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that a report that won a Pulitzer Prize in 1980 for national reporting is flash in the pan. AndroidCat 03:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks AndroidCat, I was ignorant to the Pulitzer Prize thing. I'll go back and check out the updated article to see what I think about it with the updated info. I have a feeling my opnion on this article might change now. Is it ok for me to change my vote here if after I finish reading the updated article I feel like it is in fact notable?Elhector 18:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the reference to the article AC. That improves its situation a lot. It is still not clear to me, even after reading the newspaper story, if the project really took place and if its goal was really to "take over" the city. Steve Dufour 06:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but only if the Pulitzer prize is added and documented. That would be unquestionable notability--and if so, other accounts could be found., I dont assume that it can not be documented when nobody reports even trying DGG (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The article sat there for a year without anyone trying to provide any sources. WP has over 400 Scientology articles so I guess sometimes one falls through the cracks. Steve Dufour 06:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• DeleteLooking at the page just now, I didn't find any added reference to a 1980 Pulitzer prize winning article. Weak keep I voted to delete, then found this AP article was in this morning's paper . It's not so top secret anymore, although this article needs to be better sourced. Please note that the "St. Petersburg times article" is actually a link to an sptimes.com "web report", rather than something that was printed in that paper. Worse yet, clicking on to that web report froze my computer... perhaps long enough for conspirators to access all information inside. Mandsford 12:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It was originally published as an 18 page special report in the St. Petersburg Times on real dead trees. If you clicked on the original PDF sptimes.com link, it is 18 megabytes and takes a while. I've increased the warning. (I'd prefer not to include that link, but it is the source for the compressed version 904K version.) As you can see from that recent AP article, because of the byzantine and confusing "Operations" and "Projects" that Scientology used, few stories refer to Project Normandy by name. AndroidCat 14:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. For a stub, that cite should be notable enough. (The link is to a PDF containing a series of several connected print articles, rather just a single story.) If the article is ever expanded, it could include the many articles that discuss and detail Project Normandy, but don't use Scientology's code name for it. AndroidCat 15:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. If the second source had been in the article I would not have nominated it for deletion. However, there is still some information that the article needs, it seems to me. Like, when did the project start? How long did it last? How many people took part? And, most important, was it successful? Steve Dufour 19:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I rewrote the article a little bit, added some more info that I though was useful from the Gabe Cazares article. Let me know what you guys think. It's just a rough draft so far. I'm going to work on it a some more tonight.

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.

References

1. ^ http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVuTyWnIohP1X3d3rhDd3YEAqEJg)

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

The result was keep. John254 01:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ohio's 5th congressional district special election, 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article seems to have been set up in anticipation of reporting the news about an upcoming election. This news event and those anticipated by the article lack historical significance and are not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia as an independent article. This content fork could be covered adequately in Ohio's 5th congressional district. -- Jreferee t/c 16:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Congressional elections are notable and of national significance, even special elections and elections in progress. The date is set, the candidates are declared, and it all can be verified. • Gene93k 17:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I am not aware of WP's exact standard on the notability of elections. However this seems far more notable than many other topics covered. Steve Dufour 17:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Comment: This article (if kept) should probably be renamed. Who is going to search for "Ohio's 5th congressional district special election, 2007"? There must be some way to simplify the title. - Rjd0060 18:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Of course a congressional election is notable and has historical significance, even if it is at the time news. Labeling this a content fork is certainly original. In any case, the name style is consistent with other articles, and imperfect, but here to stay. --Dhartung | Talk 18:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Special congressional elections are notable and historially significant. Knowledge has articles for every special U.S. congressional election in recent years, to delete them would harm Wikipeida's significance as a source for historical information.--Tdl1060 19:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Elections, especially up to congress (parliamentary) level are inherently notable, since the post up for grabs is important. After all, it influence the state of the gov't.--Alasdair 20:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep an historian of XXII will appreciate it.For me that I live outside US that is an interesting article that follow the guidelines of wilipedia User:Lucifero4

• Keep This is a special election after all. Thoughtman 19:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Special elections are significant. Also if we delete this, we would have to delete all other special election pages. Comedy240 23:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The above discussion about importance/significance seems pointless. Had I thought the topic lacked importance/significance, I would have speedy deleted the article under CSD A7. Merely because the topic survived CSD A7 is not a basis to keep the article at AfD. Please focus the discussion on the comments I made in the nomination. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 04:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep seeing as there are three other pages like this that no one else has objected to I see no reason as to get rid of this one Gang14 05:35, 8 October 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). Non-admin closure. Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

• deleteAbsolutely nonnotable neologism `'Míkka 16:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Changed my vote after being convinced that the article is salvageable in the form of book review. `'Míkka 21:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. —`'Míkka 22:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Not notable. --BlindEagle 16:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Appears to have significance and verifiable sources. --BlindEagle 12:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Keep. Instead write an article on the book from which this expression comes and also mention it in the article on Siberia. My suggestion has been taken by the article's creator. Steve Dufour 17:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. As the creator of the page, I refrain from voting. Nevertheless, the term "Siberian curse" is a widely known and used concept in Russian studies. The creation was made from that impression. On demand, I will write an article about the book. Sijo Ripa 11:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Rewrote the article to a book article. Still any objections? Sijo Ripa 11:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I changed my vote to keep. Steve Dufour 16:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I was asked about my opinion after the refocusing the article. I agree this was a right thing to do, but regretfully I am staying with my opinion. There are more books written in the world then wikipedia articles yet. I failed to see that book made a sufficient influence. Of course it was reviewed. All printed books are reviewed. The question is whether the book was influential enough to be spoken about among experts. I also doubt that the concept "is a widely known and used concept in Russian studies": the evidence is not presented. What is more, in my uneducated opinion, the concept is sensionalist and false, and I am quite sure that many dwellers of, say Novosibirsk or Tomsk or Vladivostok will spit in the eyes of the book authors. Many Siberian towns have been built and thriving way before Russian Revolution. The authors have one of this stupid stereotypes that Siberia is all snow and bears. Chinese and Koreans and Japanese don't think so and trying hard to squeeze their nose into Russian Far East and Siberia. `'Míkka 21:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that most books get reviewed. However not all books get a review in Foreign Affairs , International Herald Tribune , are often cited in the Financial Times , or are written by Brookings Institution fellows. Almost all google links refer to academic journals/articles/reviews, university/think tank sites (Columbia university, American Enterprise institute, Berkeley, University of Maryland, etc.), and university course readings. I think this means that there is some influence and knowledge about the book. Also, the book is included on another encyclopedic website: www.encyclopedia.com For the second half of your comment: I don't think that any Wikipedian's opinion about the validity of any book's content is in any way relevant. I can imagine that their thesis is debatable, but an article cannot be rejected on that ground, rather a criticism section can be added. Sijo Ripa 22:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I started from what is relevant for voting: reviews are insufficient. Discussion/importance is sufficient. Yes the second half of my comments is my opinion. The book canot be ejected on this ground, but this is a ground to inspect the notability of the book more thoroughly. From what I see book is not a historical text which adds a e knowledge about facts: it is a text to promote a certain pet theory of authors, which is pushed by them in numerous articles. The question is whether this theory is notable enough to be discussed by other researchers in places other than book reviews. I will have nothing bad if you prove me wrong, but this must be done in the article text, not in this chat. `'Míkka 22:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

At least there seem to be some people who care about it. :-) Steve Dufour 00:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of non-reviewing academic articles that discuss or refer to the article can be found here: . If required, I will add other database results. Sijo Ripa 08:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Colleague, what we need in wikipedia is not a list of casual citations of the book, but an evaluaiton of its contents by a notable expert in politology, kremlinology, etc. I have no doubts that the book with a catchy title have made sume splash. Regardless the outcome of the vote, a wikipedia article needs reliable, independent sources that judge the book. Now the article haws none: "International Herald Tribune summary" is written by an author; "google books" is a bibliographic rather than encyclopedic. ref, and "foreign affairs" ref is written by a Robert Legvold (who probably deserves a wikipedia article), but is is just a quick summary of the book, lacking any evaluation of its quality or significance, i.e., it is not a critical review. Another approach to prove notability of the book would be to prove that Fiona Hill or Clifford Gaddy are notable enough to have a wikipedia article. Then automatically their opinion (expresed in their book and numerous articles) becomes notable. Colleague, please understand I am not at all an enemy of Fiona Hill. It is just wikipedia has no other means to maintain its quality of information: opinions of wikipedians don't matter; only published opinions of recognized experts do. We have to require this referncing, otherwise wikpipedia will be flooded with articles about books or other products of nonnotable kooks and crackpots and other useless and even misleading nonsense. `'Míkka 17:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I never assumed anything else than good faith, Mikka, so I don't think you are an enemy of Fiona Hill or the book. I have to convince you that the article is notable enough to be included in this encyclopedia. Plain and simple. However, in general I do disagree that a book needs a positive critical review by a notable expert to be notable. There are many reasons why something can be notable, including that a book made a splash. -- Finding reviews about the book was fairly easy, accessing them is another thing as most require (purchased) login rights. I still have found some: Harley Balzer, Victoria Levin, Hiroki Nogami - please let me know whether you think the reviewers are notable enough. To be honest, I think that many negative reviews can be found as well. Sijo Ripa 21:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say "positive". I meant a "real" review, i.e., not just a summary of content. Anyway, your efforts convinced me. Now you have to make a real article using these reviews. `'Míkka 21:33, 8 October 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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

A google search returns less 300 hits most of which are simple links to various myspace and IMDB pages. Can not find any idependant articles writen about him. Ridernyc 16:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per CSD A7. --BlindEagle 16:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Speedily - (NN) - Rjd0060 18:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD A7. See also: Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Joshuah michael. --Alksub 19:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Delete Makes extensive claims none of which are verified. Non-notable or fictitious. --Alksub 20:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for being a non-notable person under WP:BIO. Bfigura 05:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Bringing the article to Knowledge standards

I am currently working with B1atv and he is helping me to bring this article to the standards this site requires for inclusion. Please bare with us through this process until we are complete. Thank you for your time and consideration! Cleanzed 22:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable per WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC. tomasz. 13:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. It appears that he auditioned for So You Think You Can Dance, but never made it out of the audition round. He's using this Knowledge page for self-promotion, see http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2776528/resume. He has one entry in ibdb, where he was a member of the ensemble in All Shook Up, but didn't even have a name, apparently. His imdb credits don't show notability. JAM Records doesn't list him as one of their artists - http://www.jamrecordings.com/jamartists.php. Nothing notable in the first several pages of Google search. Note that I have deleted several interwiki links which went to non-existant pages. Corvus cornix 20:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I had offered to do a rewrite but I can't find any reliable sources for this at all. Some of the limited sources in the article don't mention him at all. Opening for major artists may be notable if you are a singer or a band; but not if you are a member of a dance ensemble. A lot of album releases are listed but I can't find any sources to confirm this. B1atv 06:25, 8 October 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Non notable game. Knowledge is not for things a group of friends made up one day. Any reviews from what would be considered a reliable source appear to be fabricated. Prod removed by original author. Onorem♠Dil 16:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete At best, it's a very elaborate hoax with a supporting website filled with emptiness. Beyond that, there's no verifiable references, ripe with highly POV statements ("second most popular tennis court activity") amongst other issues... Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article is amusing and the game, if real, sounds like a great source of fun for the players. However it needs to attract the attention of secondary sources before it's ready for WP. Steve Dufour 17:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 18:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Uncyclopedic --Lenticel 22:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Take out the trash. Burntsauce 22:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Manly, new delete. humblefool® 02:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I enjoyed the website mansquare.com, with its authentic-sounding quotes from GQ, the New Yorker and the well-known Tennis Court Activities Magazine. Soon to be featured on ESPN 8, The Ocho. Mandsford 12:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. I am not amused. RFerreira 19:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Neither are we. Queen Victoria 14:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Why can't this have a site and things like world of warcraft have one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.229.147 (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Although the comparison to World of Warcraft is laughable, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Onorem♠Dil 11:29, 8 October 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Non-notable football (soccer) player. Only reference is a website which doesn't even mention him. Hut 8.5 15:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I'm not a footballer (or any kind of baller at all), but seeing as how his page has so little content, I'm guessing he is of little note and is just clutter. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Nowhere near notable enough. A 16 year old who has played 12 games at the tenth level of the English football league system. This is A7 material to me. --Dreaded Walrus 18:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 19:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - a long way from being notable. - fchd 20:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else. ArtVandelay13 20:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Has not played in a fully professional league etc. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Liss Athletic F.C.? Uh, not notable. DWaterson 23:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Person is not, as of yet, notable. RFerreira 20:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above. Possible vanity article? robwingfield  23:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Quite possibly. See also for some other edits by this IP: , and (which actually was quite a good set of edits, bar the unencyclopedic content introduced). --Dreaded Walrus 23:50, 9 October 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--JForget 23:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

A number of articles were previously taken to AFD. I was the closing admin on all of them (it was logical for only one person to close the all). The overwhelming consensus on all the songs was to merge and redirect to the article Kill 'Em All. The articles were:

• Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Hit the Lights
• Knowledge:Articles for deletion/The Four Horsemen (song)
• Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Motorbreath
• Knowledge:Articles for deletion/(Anesthesia) Pulling Teeth
• Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Phantom Lord
• Knowledge:Articles for deletion/No Remorse (song)
• Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Seek & Destroy

I believe that the song Whiplash (same with Jump in the Fire, which is also now on AFD) is also not notable enough in it's own right for an article on Knowledge, and would be much better being in the main article Kill 'Em All. I actually merged it and redirected it, but this was reversed by User:Tikiwont, who believe that there was no consensus or discussion over this move. I personally think that my action was no different to what was decided on AFD, but as there is a dispute over this I am formally bringing this article to AFD. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Well, each mentioned Metallica song was discussed separately, and the consensus on all of them was indeed merging. The two singles "Jump in the Fire" and "Whiplash", however, had not been nominated nor even mentioned in the discussions. Additionally, singles are in general more notable than songs, so my understanding of the resulting consensus was to keep the singles and the one cover song as separate articles, and merge all other songs. (Actually I merged the remaining song "Metal Militia" from PROD myself). Moreover, since above is no delete request and there was already an ongoing discussion at Talk:Kill_'Em_All#Redirected_pages, I'd say a simple merge tag would have done the trick. Now that we're here, I have no definite recommendation yet, but tend to assume that all Metallica singles should be considered notable. --Tikiwont 17:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect: All - Not really that notable and it will do just fine as a redirect. Your Merge and Redirect shouldn't have been undone IMO. - Rjd0060 18:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This song has been covered several times, one version by Motorhead winning a Grammy. It thus meets WP:MUSIC#Songs. --Tikiwont 21:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the actual subject of this AfD (the related ones look like they've been bundled in together, which isn't correct), as it won a Grammy. You can't do much more than that as a song. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Grammy-winning song. Maxamegalon2000 05:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- won a grammy, and was released as a single, which the related AfDs were not. J Milburn 10:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Just so I understand what is happening here, there was a dispute... so... we're nominating the article about a grammy winning single for deletion? Right. RFerreira 20:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Uh, no. I didn't believe that the song was notable, therefore I took it to AFD. Please assume good faith. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Won a grammy. Period. Suggest the nom withdraw now. Burntsauce 15:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't see why I should, not sure if I can. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Released as a single, and I believe that therefore it deserves it's own page. Otherwise, you might as well go about deleting every song page with the same reasoning.

--Rock Soldier 19:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a bit of hyperbole there... I don't advocate deleting every article about a song. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Then what is this article missing that advocates it to be deleted that other song articles have?

--Rock Soldier 21:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Released as a single. Well written page. --TheDoober 23:45, 9 October 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

lets face it, this article seems to be an original research essay of unsourced, useless information. Many of the claims and sources in it cannot be found on the internet or anywhere else, theories shouldn't be trusted without references. I am suggesting deletion or merging the more reliable facts into The Smurfs. The sunder king 15:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless reliable sources can be found. This has been floating around the net for years, may have been a Rush Limbaugh bit at one time, but ... --Dhartung | Talk 15:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Weakest of keeps Sources exist. Look at this one, from The Stanford Daily: . In its current state, the article is OR; but I think there's a chance it can be salvaged. Could we at least merge it to Smurfs? Ichormosquito 16:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note- I've mentioned that in the nomination, but much of the content is original research. The sunder king 16:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - That's fair, I suppose. The OR is pretty glaring: "A true Marxist is an atheist. There is no mention of God in Smurf comics, and there is no Priest Smurf." Ichormosquito 16:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete interesting article but definitely WP:OR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlindEagle (talk • contribs) 16:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is original research. But mention the ideas, cited of course, in The Smurfs. Steve Dufour 17:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What bothers me is that, using this "methodology", one could find references to communism in everything, from Macbeth to American Pie. GregorB 18:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Uh, see Marxist literary criticism. Too many years ago I wrote a B- paper deconstructing Falstaff using a Marxist approach. --Dhartung | Talk 08:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into The Smurfs. We can get a nice, meaty section out of this, it's been discussed enough. Not quite significant enough for it's own article, though. --UsaSatsui 21:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the nomination, totally ridiculous. Burntsauce 23:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above, plus Knowledge:Fringe theories. The Hybrid 23:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - completely ridiculous OR. DWaterson 23:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it's times like this I was there was an option to transwiki to Uncyclopedia. Still, since it seems to be largely a POV piece of original research, we'd better send all the little blue (unless red blue=purple) men and women to the big bit-bucket in the sky. Bfigura 05:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge (assuming that a published source can be found) a much abridged version of this to The Smurfs. After the generation that watched the Smurfs in the 80s grew up and went to college, there has been much analysis of whether there was a deeper meaning to Peyo's creation. I've seen the controversies over the fact that there is only one Smurfette among the many male Smurfs, or whether "Jokey Smurf" was a terrorist. The theory of The Smurfs as an allegory about Communism appears, at this time, to be original research, but could probably be sourced. Anyone looking for an idea for a masters or doctoral thesis? Mandsford 13:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Smurf per nom. (delete) RFerreira 20:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Procedural comment: This discussion has been held twice before, here Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Smurf Communism and here Knowledge:Articles for deletion/The Smurfs and communism (1): this last one was originally titled Knowledge:Articles for deletion/The Smurfs and communism, but moved by the creator of this AfD. Please don't do this, as it makes it very hard to find previous AfD's, and invalidates all links. This AfD now turns up in the middle of Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 6... I'll try to clean up this mess, and I hope everyone will at least check the arguments from the previous two keep AfD's. Fram 09:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This has now been cleaned up, if you find any redirects or other references still pointing the wrong way, please do correct them as well. Fram 09:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry- but still original research reguardless of the quality, the AFD warrants the criteria for closing now anyway. The sunder king 13:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - it's original research, no references whatsoever. I do like the fact that Brainy Smurf looks like Trotsky on the basis that he wears glasses. Sorry, but this is a delete all the way. Irishjp 11:26, 9 October 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. ELIMINATORJR 19:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

List of characters in the Destroy All Humans! series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Knowledge is not a warehouse to store lists of every character in every video game. This article is entirely unreferenced and composed of original research. It's never going to be anything more than gamecruft -- the notable characters (which maybe questionable in and of itself) have their own articles; we need not have a list of all the rest. Additionally, the article is full of fair-use images that don't meet our requirements for fair use.

• Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos 15:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I really think it's getting to point we need some new guidelines about lists.Ridernyc 17:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nom (WP:OR and WP:NOT. Agree with User:Ridernyc that the lists guidelines need major revamping. - Rjd0060 18:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's more effective and efficent then putting ALL these characters on the DAH! and DAH!2 pages. BassxForte 18:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Who says there needs to be a list of characters at all. Ridernyc 18:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. /Blaxthos 18:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per the nomination, we seriously need some policy enforcement to contain all these lists, this is way out of control. Burntsauce 23:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

coment not really the place to discuss this but I figured I'd mention it since it's been bothering me for awhile now. The growing bloatedness of wikipedia really needs to be dealt with. For example Knowledge:Article_size needs to put more of emphasis on copy editing and less on just splitting articles. If your article is too long it's probably because theres to much information.Ridernyc 01:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I must comment that there's really no such thing as "too much information", as long as said information is dealt with in an encyclopedic manner. This on the other hand is pointless trivia. RFerreira 20:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, because Knowledge has more opportunites for inclusion than a paper encyclopedia and this list is really masterfully done in terms of its comprehensive nature, use of images, organization, etc. No need to delete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - the images are illegal, and the aesthetics of an article have nothing to do with the reasons for considering deletion. /Blaxthos 22:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Keeping an article over images seems like an "I LIKE IT" argument to me. RobJ1981 17:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Seconded. Article is entirely fancruft, no references... Delete  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:35, 10 October 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. GRBerry 17:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Hill (actor/producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable actor; only source comes from a non-notable publication. GlassCobra (Review) 14:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nothing notable about him.Ridernyc 17:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe one day he'll achieve notability, but he hasn't yet.--Michig 17:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Notability to come.--Sethacus 20:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, even less notable than your average Usenet personality. Burntsauce 23:09, 5 October 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. W.marsh 22:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

California's 4th congressional district election, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article seems to have been set up in anticipation of reporting the news about an upcoming election. This news event lacks historical significance and is not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Moreover, this content fork could be adequately covered in California's 4th congressional district. -- Jreferee t/c 16:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It seems to me that a congressional election is far more notable than lots of stuff that gets WP coverage. I don't understand the reason it should be nominated for deletion. Steve Dufour 17:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, true, but no case is made that this election is notable, beyond the fact that the Sacramento Bee newspaper wrote a couple of articles on the subject. Sheffield Steel_stalk 20:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A congressional election, even for one district, will affect the balance of power in American politics and may be an important event in someone's political career. Steve Dufour 20:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Without a specific WP:ELECTION guideline to base deletion decisions on, all we have is the general principle that an article ought to assert the notability of the subject. This one does not, last time I looked. Sheffield Steel_stalk 21:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Elections to national legislatures have historical significance.--Cube lurker 22:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As long as this page is updated regularly, it would be an important resource for an election that will have significance for the balance of the US House of Representatives. Does an election need to be over before it enters wikipedia? --Mkativerata 22:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - elections to legislatures are notable enough for me. DWaterson 23:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep In 2006 Col. Brown almost won in a district that every political scientist said he would loose in a land slide. This time around he's got twice as much money and his opponant's home has been raided by the FBI. This is going to be a showdown district. Thoughtman 20:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Chris Cilizza of the Washington Post now lists it the most likely US congressional district to switch parties in 2008 - here.

• Comment The above discussion about importance/significance seems pointless. Had I thought the topic lacked importance/significance, I would have speedy deleted the article under CSD A7. Merely because the topic survived CSD A7 is not a basis to keep the article at AfD. Please focus the discussion on the comments I made in the nomination. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 04:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment OK, I don't think it could be covered adequately in California's 4th congressional district - see the lengthy separate page for the 2006 4th district race. As this is likely to be a very significant race in the 2008 year, another separate page is warranted. The article is not mere news - it is a description and tracking of an ongoing event that is and is likely to continue to be of significance. --Mkativerata 08:25, 7 October 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. W.marsh 22:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Jump in the Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A number of articles were previously taken to AFD. I was the closing admin on all of them (it was logical for only one person to close the all). The overwhelming consensus on all the songs was to merge and redirect to the article Kill 'Em All. The articles were:

• Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Hit the Lights
• Knowledge:Articles for deletion/The Four Horsemen (song)
• Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Motorbreath
• Knowledge:Articles for deletion/(Anesthesia) Pulling Teeth
• Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Phantom Lord
• Knowledge:Articles for deletion/No Remorse (song)
• Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Seek & Destroy

I believe that the song Jump in the Fire is also not notable enough in it's own right for an article on Knowledge, and would be much better being in the main article Kill 'Em All. I actually merged it and redirected it, but this was reversed by User:Tikiwont, who believe that there was no consensus or discussion over this move. I personally think that my action was no different to what was decided on AFD, but as there is a dispute over this I am formally bringing this article to AFD. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Well, each mentioned Metallica song was discussed separately, and the consensus on all of them was indeed merging. The two singles "Jump in the Fire" and "Whiplash", however, had not been nominated nor even mentioned in the discussions. Additionally, singles are in general more notable than songs, so my understanding of the resulting consensus was to keep the singles and the one cover song as separate articles, and merge all other songs. (Actually I merged the remaining song "Metal Militia" from PROD myself). Moreover, since above is no delete request and there was already an ongoing discussion at Talk:Kill_'Em_All#Redirected_pages, I'd say a simple merge tag would have done the trick. Now that we're here, I have no definite recommendation yet, but tend to assume that all Metallica singles should be considered notable. --Tikiwont 17:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: From an aesthetic point of view, it might be a good idea to change the way the other (closed and not under discussion) AfDs are listed here. Before my brain kicked into gear, I thought they'd been bundled together into this particular one, which is not the case. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep (and tagged for sources) - There are a quite a few Google hits, but they would need to be combed through for some good sources. Still it is the second Metallica single and seems to be also a collectors item, so I'd say keep it as separate article. --Tikiwont 08:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Released as a single, and I believe that therefore it deserves it's own page. Otherwise, you might as well go about deleting every song page with the same reasoning.

--Rock Soldier 19:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Released as a single. This alone makes the page noteworthy. Could be expanded, however.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDoober (talk • contribs)

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 not even particularly funny. DS 13:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hoax. To quote the article "Horton was believed to be in a cult in 1801 consisting of 4 people named The Funky Crew". Riiiiiiiiight. Pascal.Tesson 14:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete This was funny !!! Without any sources is even harder to believe :D Elmao 15:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll vote Strong delete as hoax as soon as I stop laughing! The "Funky Crew"? Gimme a break.--Sethacus 20:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - obviously. DWaterson 23:30, 5 October 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. See the categories X year births--JForget 23:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

List of actresses by year of birth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A pointless list. Much better in categories. We aren't "Wikilists". – Aillema 14:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We already have actor/actresses birth/deaths in Years in films e.g 1980 in film at the bottom. Far too generic -there are millions of "actresses". It should have been speedily deleted not afd ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 14:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I said on my talk page - I got some others' opinions, and I was told to AfD it. – Aillema 15:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Pointless list that is probably going to be very difficult to keep current. --BlindEagle 16:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete another endless list.Ridernyc 17:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete this pointless crap. Burntsauce 22:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it would be unmaintainable if it had any more content than Dakota Fanning... DWaterson 23:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete a bad idea for a list. Unencyclopedic. It would be extremely difficult to maintain, and what's the point to it anyway? Noroton 19:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. In this case, categories are going to do a better job of handling this information. Every time. RFerreira 20:32, 7 October 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 merge discussion provides little reason for merge. The delete discussion is clear, grounded in policy, and is the consensus. -- Jreferee t/c 06:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• The Woz (Code Monkeys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
• E.T. (Code Monkeys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Stonervision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Super Prison Breakout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Just One Of The Gamers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Take Over (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Larrity's Got Back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• IPO (Code Monkeys) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Todd Loses His Mind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Third Reich's the Charm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Revenge of Matsui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While I personally love the tv show Code Monkeys on G4, I must nominate these for deletion. While the tv show itself is notable, each individual episode is not (i.e., notability is not inhereted). Knowledge is not in the business of plot summaries. These articles are entirely unreferenced, full of trivia, and are wholly original research.

• Delete all as nominator. /Blaxthos 14:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all: Per nom on every point (WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:FICTION). - Rjd0060 14:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all for all the above reasons.Ridernyc 17:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Merge all episodes into a "List of Code Monkey episodes". BassxForte 18:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Merge all episodes into a "List of Code Monkey episodes". Frenchbreadpizza 20:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per above and nom. STORMTRACKER 94 21:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Merge all episodes into a "List of Code Monkey episodes". - Dravecky 03:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into a "List of Code Monkeys episodes" with a short summery of the ep. (perhaps also with a mention of guest stars) Scaper8 05:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into a "List of Code Monkeys episodes" with a short summary of the episode. 75.45.140.237 07:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into a "List of Code Monkeys episodes". There isn't enough material per episode for a good, detailed article on each - but a list with a brief summary would be fine. We might look at the List of Smallville episodes, which is a Featured List - though obviously the shows differ somewhat. ZZ ~ Evidence 20:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• This probably isn't going to get closed until someone actually does the merge... --W.marsh 22:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Though there's no article called List of Code Monkeys Episodes, the article for the show itself has a servicable list Here. The list features the episode name and number, original airdate, and a brief summary with mentions of any notable guest stars. Unless there is additional information which should be kept, I think the merge is already complete. ZZ ~ Evidence 03:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't feel right with just one or two sentences about an episode. BassxForte 04:36, 13 October 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. GRBerry 17:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Little claim of notability in article; first several pages of non-wiki ghits don't show notability. WP:COI issues. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 14:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. --Sc straker 15:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to have worked on advertising campaign(s) that have won awards, but lots of people have won awards in their field without really being notable. No direct coverage of this individual was found. Article as it stands appears purely self-promotional.--Michig 17:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Sc straker. -- Magioladitis 00:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unreferenced. If awards were notable & covered in mainstream press, references would be enough to establish notability. --Alvestrand 03:22, 8 October 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. GRBerry 17:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Another one of Dr. Augustine Fou's articles that seems like pure self promotion.. Ridernyc 14:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Seems NN, & per nom (self promo). - Rjd0060 18:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Would just like to point out that I nominated this article at the same time but for some reason they did not list properly. This was all prompted by User:AcFou creating self promotion articles that end up being speedily deleted.Ridernyc 18:46, 5 October 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. --Aarktica 20:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Explosive Pro Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails notability and no third party sources have been provided to support statements made on the page !! Justa Punk !! 23:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, per WP:V & WP:N. This was the only reliable source I could find on the topic, and it doesn't do anything to verify the contents of the article other than saying it exists. Considering the lack of multiple independent sources, fails on the notability front too. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 05:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep all this stuff is from 2007 and there are heaps of reliable source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.129.6 (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2015 (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. Reviewing the two articles history's it is likely that a merge did occur in the past. Accordingly, we must redirect to preserve history. GRBerry 17:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

• Delete it. As Amroha has Already an Article Which also nees improvement and this is Confusing and ambigous.NotClear .Shabiha 23:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabiha (talk • contribs) 2007/10/04 23:02:35

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Sc straker 15:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nom (no need for a separate article). - Rjd0060 18:14, 5 October 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. --Aarktica 20:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

No notability in the Wiki sense is even asserted in the article, far less verifiably sourced. I will nominate the associated articles and link to this discussion. Springnuts 13:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail the Wiki notability guidelines:

Where Angels Dwell No More (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Blood Will Follow Blood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Weak delete. Notability needs to be established through reliable sources. It seems that notability should be out there. A google search of Faerghail + "Where Angels Dwell" meets 9,600 hits. The problem I'm encountering is that on page 20 of that, I still haven't come across something usable. I've run the band through every review site listed at WikiProject Album without encountering it anywhere, even at more promising sites like Blender or Alternative Press. I tagged the article for notability concerns on September 22, but the question has not been thoroughly addressed. Since the band is from Finland, I recognize that it is quite possible that notability can be established through sources which I don't usually frequent and will be watching in case somebody meets more success than I have at supporting the notability of this band. (And, of course, if the band goes, the albums should.) --Moonriddengirl 14:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete They don't appear to pass WP:MUSIC. The problem here is, you've got multiple albums on multiple labels, none of which appear to be notable. Also, the band's AMG entry lists only the "Where Angels Dwell" album and lists the label as "Not Known".--Sethacus 20:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Inadequate evidence of passing WP:Music. A1octopus 01:28, 8 October 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. W.marsh 22:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

No assertion of notability or sources. It had been tagged for both, but tags taken down immediately by the article's creator without any meaningful further editing. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 13:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Avruch 13:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This article has extensive counterparts in German and Austro-Bavarian languages, in addition to the word "Kastenlauf," which has no other meanings, returning over 10000 hits on Google. Thus, it should be kept, and I will endeavor to improve it in the future (as my German improves). In addition, I would also like to see the article in some way protected from future nominations for deletion, as the taggers seem never to first look at the explanation on the talk page. -Oreo Priest 14:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw it. I still think the article should be deleted. Google isn't the end all be all of notability, the article is unsourced... if there is an analog in a German wikipedia, ask someone to translate it across? Avruch 14:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I never removed the sources tag. Second, to say the (stub) article will be deleted if it has no sources is a ridiculous policy; there wouldn't be a single one left.

More importantly, however, I found a reference, so everything should be settled now. -Oreo Priest 14:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Which Google are you using, or this a deception tactic? I searched for both Kastenlauf and Kistenlauf and got less than 900 ghits for each. And in those ghits I saw only blogs and mirrors - nothing resembling a reliable source. This is very close to CSD A7, and we haven't yet had that explanation of notability. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 09:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I just checked both myself and am confused. I recall kastenlauf returning over 10000, though this is clearly not the case. I apologize. Regardless, several references to reliable sources have been found, and I believe this puts the matter to rest.-Oreo Priest 21:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep A power of wikipedia is that, unlike, say Encyclopedia Britannica, it also keeps record of people's silliness, if it is notable, widespread and well documented. Enjoy: Kastenlauf 2004; my favorite `'Míkka 00:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I dunno much about deletion policy, but I support the argument of Oreo Priest, and certainly feel that this article should be retained and not deleted, although I feel a reference must be immediately found. K a r n a 01:12, 6 October 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. W.marsh 22:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Meerkat Manor 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is another of a large number of forks of Meerkat Manor that have come to light recently. Anything that is here, verifiable, and not in Meerkat Manor should be merged, and then this redirect should be deleted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is a huge wall of text with no context, no sources, no verification. Are any/many of these even real? Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Per above (no real context or sources). - Rjd0060 18:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

*Merge anything verifiable to Meerkat Manor. Delete the rest. This is just a huge meaningless list outside of the parent article.--Sethacus 20:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as a hoax. None of the listed "groups" after the first section are mentioned in either Meerkat Manor or the Kalahari Meerkat Project site. Clarityfiend 19:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Changing to deleteper Clarityfiend and per my own research. I took a look at the original version of the article, which had two meerkat families: The "main" family, which contains some of the names of the meerkats in the series. The other, Salmoni, only seems to exist on fanboards. It's my feeling that the members of these fanboards created and maintained this article, through IPs and such, adding more families as their fanboard added them. One of them was blocked for conducting a MySpace-like environment on their talk page. The author of the article blanked the Meerkat Manor page and, I guess, tried to create another page for it under an alternate title. Call it a hoax, call it bored schoolkids making junk up, it doesn't belong here.--Sethacus 21:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'd also like to point out that this appears to be a breeding ground for creating made-up mobs . I haven't looked at the entire history, but this doesn't really appear to be an isolated incident. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:19, 7 October 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 San Jose Earthquakes (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Earthquakes Soccer, LLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company. Notability is not inherited. Sufficient mention of the ownership and history of the club is included in the San Jose Earthquakes article. SkerHawx 12:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to San Jose Earthquakes seems like the obvious answer. In fact, I've already done it. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert. I was gonna merge, but there wasn't any new info to add. --UsaSatsui 13:34, 5 October 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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

procedural nomination Article proposed for deletion despite a previous trip to Articles for Discussion. PROD nominator states: "original research, unsourced, nn". Previous discussion ended with no consensus. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - No sources, original research, not notable, per nom. Avruch 13:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it either fails WP:DICT or WP:OR. Either way, it should be nuked. --BlindEagle 16:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If this is notable among dog breeders as something other than a chat-room topic, it will get sourced. If not, goodbye. SchmuckyTheCat
• Delete. Just get rid of this already, my goodness. Burntsauce 23:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bfigura 05:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira 19:29, 6 October 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. There are suggestions below for starting with a sub-section on the college's page, which if there are independent sources available on the topic would be an excellent idea. GRBerry 17:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sustainability at Berea College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reads like a press release from the college's Department of Public Affairs; no external sources; no reason why we should have articles on particular organizations' efforts at "greening". NawlinWiki 12:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, we are a group of 4 Berea College Students uploading a wikipedia page for a class project. While being unfamiliar with how Knowledge works, we accidentally uploaded the page before it was ready. When we saw the save the page button at the bottom of the page, we thought it would save our work and we could upload it at another time. Our assignment is do on October 10, 2007, which is now the day our page is marked for deletion. We didnt mean to post it yet, and now we are lost and could use some help. We are still in the process of fine tuning our information and work, and dont know where to go from here. Please help us!!! Thanks for anything you can do. Jsahrrdc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsahrrdc (talk • contribs) 14:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Knowledge is NOT a free web host. Geocities is that-a-way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Copy to talk for the interim, or a subpage there, in the interim then. I am not convinced yet that a college's mission statement on environmental policies is noteworthy enough for a full article, even if it rates a paragraph or two in Berea College. But until the initial editor gets something worthy of final release, it should be preserved for future work. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Help I guess we still dont quite understand, is there a way we can take our page down finalize it and post it again? Is that what you were refering to when you said copy it to talk? Do we just copy the entire page and post it in the talk section? We appreciate all of your feedback. It will only help us make our page better and Knowledge worthy. Thanks Jsahrrdc —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WTF? It's a college mission statement in regards to enviornmental practices. Why in the blue hell does it have a page? At best this could be put into the main article on the college. --Cyrus Andiron 17:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Comment Assuming good faith and don't bite the newbies, I created a User Talk sub-page and copied the article there. It shouldn't be on Wiki at all, but there's no point trashing these guys work if they'll be removing it within a week or two. If I've violated any policies by making the copy onto the talk sub-page, please let me know and feel free to revert it. Franamax 18:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not going to be "safe" there. A talk page without an article is speediable. It needs to be put under someone's user page. -- Ben 19:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Well there's some learning for me too, I was following Smerdis above. Not gonna do anymore, if Jsahrrdc resurfaces, they can create their user page for extra credit. If they had an email contact, I would have just told them what to do. I sent a non-snarky email to Berea PR asking if their prof's are in the habit of assigning wiki-projects without knowing what they are about. Franamax 03:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the nomination. If biting the newbies means getting rid of this article then bite away. Burntsauce 22:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Or at the very least userfy. Honestly, people should do some more research on our policies before sending these kids off to create articles for homework. Bfigura 05:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The first part of a college class Wikiproject should be finding something notable to write about. this will require a certain about of preliminary research about wikipedia, such as reading WP:N and some of the other introductory pages. (Just like term papers or class projects of any sort--you need to have a topic). There are many possibilities: Berea has many notable alumni--some have article, but there are probably many more who could probably justify articles, as could probably a number of the faculty-- and perhaps some of the buildings. And Berea has an very interesting history and a dramatic social role in American education--though its founder has an article, there were other prominent people involved. (and all of the surrounding towns and countries , though they may have articles, could probably use some expansion) A little more imagination is needed. I'll be glad to help if the instructor wants to contact me. DGG (talk) 06:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm guessing that its an early-year media or communications class (if it's IT-related they will surely fail - I hope :) and WP is a perfectly valid topic. A good skill to have as long as they teach how to evaluate what they read and develop the necessary skills like checking history and discussion. One could also argue that it's perfectly valid for a prof' to just throw them out there - getting a kick in the head is always a valuable, if brutal form of learning :) Possibly the instructor is aware of WP's self-healing capacity and is teaching a lesson and a meta-lesson at once. In any case, if I get a response I will pass it along. Franamax 10:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge some of this back into Berea College. The college, located at Berea, KY, has always marched to a different drummer, with work-service alternatives to tuition and a historically diverse student body (a court order was taken in 1904 to enjoin it from disregarding segregation laws). However, no matter how well-intentioned, the separate article as a class project isn't encyclopedic. Nothing to stop the students from contributing to the larger page. Mandsford 13:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • We actually did research wikipedia and what it is all about. Our prof gave us a 20 page history of how and why the founder of wikipedia did what he did and what wikipedia is all about. It is for a general education course on critical thinking, part of the whole process that we are supposed to be going through is figuring out what knowledge is to us and what others feel knowledge is. Obviously from above reponses the topic we chose is not what others feel knowledge is. We are currently in the process of revamping our whole page and would take this one down if it wasnt against the rules of deletion. Your comments have been really helpful, and eye opening to this whole wikipedia experience. Some alot nicer than others, but the world isnt always a friendly place, especially when you are a "newbie". All of them will hopefully make our next upload a more successful one. Since this is only a two week long assignment it is hard to understand the whole wikipedia concept. There is so much info out there, trial and error though sometimes teaches the best lessons.So again thank you, and we may be contacting some of you again for for help, others for future scrutiny.Jsahrrdc 13:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - re-voting per Jsahrrdc comments. Seems the issue is settled? Jsahrrdc, create your user page now, you have contracted the wiki-virus and it can't be stopped. Try searching for Knowledge:xxxx, xxxx being new user, edit page, policies, whatever - keep hacking and follow the links. Critical thinking is good, remember any or all of us could be lying at any given time, check the sources. Good luck! :) Franamax 14:09, 6 October 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 and rename to New Zealand national football team results (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand fixtures and results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I can't find any other country-specific results article like this, and it looks suspiciously like a case of WP:NOT. Ambiguous title, too - fixtures and results in what? Given current sporting events, I doubt soccer would be on most New Zealanders' minds as a first choice. Grutness...wha? 11:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. —Grutness...wha? 11:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 11:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep England national football team results seems to have survived for more than a year without being deleted, so I guess this one should stay too. If it can be enlarged to cover every game the All Whites have ever played, it would be a useful addition. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah - the name fooled me - I couldn't find England fixtures and results or England football fixtures and results (nor similar for several other countries I tried). Grutness...wha? 23:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I looked at England national football team results as well and it seems like a valuable resource. I think it should be renamed though, New Zealand national football team results. The fact that it has an ambiguous name should not be a reason for deletion. Just change the title. Woodym555 11:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Has to be renamed. Other than that it does no harm. --Helenalex 14:16, 5 October 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 by Bearcat. W.marsh 22:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Per precedent, candidates are not inherently notable. Given references appear to be rather niche, absent of more impressive external verification per WP:BIO, subject would happear to have done little except run for elected office. Deiz talk 11:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

He's currently a candidate in the provincial election, which is only five days away, and he's considered a serious contender to win it. Nominate this after the election if he loses, sure, but in the meantime there's not much point in debating an article that may potentially snowball before the discussion even closes. And even if he does lose, the actual precedent indisputably entitles him to inclusion in a merged list of party candidates. Suspend until October 11. Bearcat 10:30, 6 October 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. John254 01:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Not Notable. Only one significant source is listed (bbc) and it's a minor local radio write-up, the last fm page is copied from here, myspace and youtube are not viable sources for notability, announcements of tours do not confer notability, repossession records has two bands on it's books. The only possibly notable fact about one band member is that he was a head chorister at St Johns, Cambridge, but whilst that may confer notability on him, it does not make the band he sings in notable, nor does it confer notability on fellow band members. I have also AfD'd all the band members except Ed Minton for NN. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• DeleteWeak Keep Initially I believed NN, but 2 singles have both charted in the UK top 40, which appears to meet notability criteria for bands. However, the article is in desperate need of some reliable cites, unfortunately the chart website I found only appears to make archives visible for the current year, so is not citeable as at some future date the archive will not be visible. Perhaps someone could cite NME issues or similar? cites don't have to be web.DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC) modified DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep article states The single entered at number 31 on the UK Singles Charts thereby passing criterion #2 of WP:MUSIC (a nationally charting release). In fact a quick check on everyhit.com reveals that the band has had two charting singles, as the follow-up reached #19 in August of this year ChrisTheDude 10:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Just noticed the #19 position for the second single was actually already in the article as well..... ChrisTheDude 10:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. In addition to ChrisTheDude's point, the article clearly shows that they fall under criterion #11 (placed in rotation) of WP:MUSIC and probably under #4 (national tour) too. That's not to say that the article doesn't need a fair amount of clean-up, more NPOV and more RS. Bondegezou 10:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Definitely meets WP:MUSIC per ChrisTheDude. I do think it needs some cleanup, I'll tag that. NASCAR Fan24 10:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Sufficiently notable for inclusion.--Michig 12:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note The AfD template was removed from the article by 90.242.54.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I have reinstated it. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Question for nom. Why did you skip Ed Minton? -- Ben 17:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Head Chorister of St John's may confer some notability on EM, but I don't believe that carries over to other band members. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 16:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as they do meet WP:Band but possible block of 90.242.54.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for disrupting the process, and vandalism. --Brian_{(view my history)}/ 18:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep.they are notable enough for inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.166.50 (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Band as a whole meet WP:Music. Block 90.242.54.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as recommended above. A1octopus 16:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:MUSIC as mentioned more than once above. RFerreira 20:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I saw the band on a commercial music channel, and they have a charted single - meets WP:MUSIC. --AndyKali 21:47, 8 October 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Simple Plan's third studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

unsourced crystalgazing articler Will 16:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pablo Talk | Contributions 09:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as very crystally. No release date, a rumored title and track listings make for a very nonspecific article. No objection to recreation later when actual facts are available. --Cyrus Andiron 11:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Unsourced crystal-ball article. - Rjd0060 18:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Balls. A1octopus 01:15, 8 October 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. --Aarktica 20:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Not notable, member of a non notable band. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above, NN. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable, He is a member of a band that's notablity is currently questioned as an article for deletion.~No references. Iamchrisryan 10:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - While the band is notable, an article for each band member is not currently warranted.--Michig 17:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Have voted keep for the band as a whole as they do meet WP:MUSIC but the invidual band members are not notable for anything other than being part of the band so they do not (as individuals) qualify as notable under WP:Bio. A1octopus 16:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Has some relevant information on the member of a band, the page does give information on him whereas the main band page doesn't as much. 16:27 10 October 2007

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

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

The result was delete. --Aarktica 20:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Not Notable, member of a not notable band. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete NN DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable, He is a member of a band that's notability is currently questioned as an article for deletion. Iamchrisryan 10:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - While the band is notable, an article for each band member is not currently warranted.--Michig 17:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Have voted keep for the band as a whole as they do meet WP:MUSIC but the invidual band members are not notable for anything other than being part of the band so they do not (as individuals) qualify as notable under WP:Bio. A1octopus 16:30, 6 October 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. --Aarktica 20:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Pungent Stench's sixth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

only one source (albeit to the official forum) saying the album is being recorded. No release date, etc. Will 16:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unsourced crystal-ballery. Nominator encouraged to combine similar listings like this in the future. Stifle (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pablo Talk | Contributions 09:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Sc straker 15:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Per above (crystal). - Rjd0060 18:22, 5 October 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. --Aarktica 20:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Not Notable, the band is not notable either. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete NN DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable, He is a member of a band that's notability is currently questioned as an article for deletion. Iamchrisryan 10:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - While the band is notable, an article for each band member is not currently warranted.--Michig 17:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Have voted keep for the band as a whole as they do meet WP:MUSIC but the invidual band members are not notable for anything other than being part of the band so they do not (as individuals) qualify as notable under WP:Bio. A1octopus 16:31, 6 October 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 deletion Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Greek-American organized crime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:OR, no sources specified for months. I suppose the Greek mafia executed all material witnesses. NikoSilver 09:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• speedy eliminated deleted. Article was full of unsourced allegations of mafia activities against named living individuals. Even alleged mafia members are protected by WP:BLP. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:35, 5 October 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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

No assertion of notablity, no suggestion or hint of anything notable about this musician. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 09:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable, He is a member of a band that's notability is currently questioned as an article for deletion. Iamchrisryan 10:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - While the band is notable, an article for each band member is not currently warranted.--Michig 17:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Have voted keep for the band as a whole as they do meet WP:MUSIC but the invidual band members are not notable for anything other than being part of the band so they do not (as individuals) qualify as notable under WP:Bio. A1octopus 16:31, 6 October 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. GRBerry 18:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Filipino pride is more than a Youtube video. Delete due to notability issues. I hope someone would re-create a better article than this one Lenticel 08:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Just a pointer to a YouTube video. --Sc straker 15:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: NN - Rjd0060 18:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no indication of any sort of notability. Hut 8.5 19:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete' NN video --- Tito Pao 22:15, 7 October 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. W.marsh 22:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. Not a holder or past-holder of political office nor the subject of reliable, independent coverage -- Lincolnite 07:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• delete - vanity, NN. Iamchrisryan 10:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. --Sc straker 15:50, 5 October 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Beer Can Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Private collection. Owner claims that the Wiki entry has brought him 30 visitors in one year: . No credible sources. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 07:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I see no assertion of notability. Possible CSD. Pablo Talk | Contributions 09:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There are several assertions of noteability - the collection is large and has been featured in international media. The fact that the collection is private does not mean it is non-noteable - private collections form an important part of preservation and display for many art and craft media. Sourcing is an issue for better editing, not deletion. Bacchiad 12:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. On Lexis-Nexis I found discussion of the "museum" in the New York Times and Boston Globe, plus the entry claims it has been written about in a number of other publications. The sourcing obviously needs to be improved, but clearly notability has been asserted. I'm not entirely convinced this is in fact notable, but I'm going to err on the side of keep on this one. Also I would note that the owner did not say the Wiki article brought him 30 visitors in one year, he posted one comment about 30 visitors coming to his "museumfest"--i.e. it was 30 visitors in one day--and he posted another entry saying the Wiki article probably led to him getting more e-mails about his collection.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 13:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes - I see that. "30 guests this year" relates to the one day only "Museumfest". However, it is still something that has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and is one of many such private beer can collections which would also have been given a cursory mention in a newspaper which would be doing an article on the Brewery Collectibles Club of America . I think an article on collecting brewerania might stand up, and as such the Brewery Collectibles Club of America would get a mention and one or two of the more notable of the private collections. Would this one be among the most notable? 3,000 cans is not a lot. As far as beer collecting goes, that's not a huge number. Coming from a beer collecting fraternity and where respect is only given to those who collect 5K or more,. I can say that 3K is not notable. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You could be right about the notability thing, I just don't even know how to determine it other than by coverage in secondary sources. There's been at least some, and the article asserts there is more though I did not find it, so I still hold to a weak keep on this one. Your links seemed to primarily about scooping, which I take it is the consumption of different beers rather than collecting beer cans or bottles, or is it both? In any case it sounds like fun!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

People collect various beer related things. Scoopers mainly collect beers, but many will also collect the bottle or caps or labels or pump clips - Dale has over 13,000 pump clips, and his site is extensively used by the beer collecting community in the UK. He'll have numerous links on Wiki. Some beer collectors will build special cellars to hold their collections. It's an interesting hobby. Personally I just drink the beer - though I have kept a few special bottles that I have drunk. My bottle of Bass King's Ale from 1902 I kept after I drunk the contents! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It seems to have abundant mentions to make it notable, and the verifiability comes from their own website. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the work you have done. However, I am still not convinced that sentences like "the Mustard Museum or The Beer Can Museum or the nut museum" quite fulfill "Significant coverage" which means that "sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." The sources appear to prove the place exists, but don't quite prove the notability. Look again at WP:N and at sentences such as "Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable. However, many subjects with such coverage may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Knowledge is not, or the coverage does not actually speak to notability when examined." My point is that mere mentions of a place does not signify notability, and that Wiki editors over time and through consensus have drawn up guidelines for situations like this. I don't see convincing arguments for Beer Can Museum's notability. What I see is assumptions that if a place has been briefly mentioned in several newspapers it will confer nobility by default, which is not what our guidelines are saying! Where does the article or the sources assert notability? The number of cans is not large in itself, nor is the number in itself considered significant: WP:BIG. The act of collecting brewerania is not by itself significant or notable. The collection has few visitors. What we have is a description of someone's private (and average) beer collection which has been mentioned, along with other such collections, in a handful of newspapers. Where exactly is the notability? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Notability isn't the biggest, or the best. Thats for Guinness World Records. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• keep. Verifiable. Sufficently expanded/cleaned. A side note: the nominator seem to have, like, a fit of beerphobia, judging from his recent edit history :-) no big deal, but sorta funny for a confessed beerdrinker. `'Míkka 02:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

:-) I know what you're saying. But I have a triviaphobia rather than a beer phobia! I'd prefer to merge minor material into more significant articles than to delete, but when there is no reasonable article into which to merge, or when the material is particularly trivial, then I will suggest or support a deletion. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 07:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The references so carefully quoted, are merely mentions, listing it among a number of other curiosities. WP covers notable local museums, certainly, notable because they are considered important in some way--not listed in articles giving a list of what is not important, as the NYTimes, or mentioned in an exhaustive list of everything to see in a particular village. Thee are many uses of the word "trivia" one is the peripheral aspects of important things that help in understanding them and their influence--that's encyclopedic. Another is things that have no importance but are just part of the world--they are not encyclopedic. The guidelines just express common sense. Let's put it this way--if the most expansive article here imaginable can get it only a handful of visitors , and the manager quotes this as notable success, then even in WP was for advertising, it wouldn't be worth it. There's a limit to rational inclusionism, and this is beyond it. If we want remarkable collections of beer, there are some very notable stores in my part of Brooklyn. DGG (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The museum is notable as evidenced by the multiple non-trivial sources about the subject, far surpassing our standards for verifiability. RFerreira 20:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. passed notability standards for me... maybe i should head down and take some CC-by photos to illustrate some of our articles from WikiProject:Beer.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)