Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 1 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedily deleted by RHaworth as nonsense. --Elkman 14:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Stinky mcweasel teats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nonsense Mseliw 11:08, 1 May 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 and redirect to East Gosford, New South Wales as there is no information to merge. --Coredesat 08:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

St Patrick's Primary School East Gosford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 08:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Gorokan High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 15:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Foamhenge (Stockton Down) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable prop made for a TV show. Googling Foamhenge + "Stockton Down" confirms the lack of notability. Saikokira 01:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:10, 30 April 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, you've got your citations now. — CharlotteWebb 00:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Does not assert any notability. Statements are more like an advertisement unless citations are produced

Weak keep - "The school ranks as one of the state's top private schools" sounds like an assertion of notability to me. However, it is an assertion that definitely needs to be sourced if the article is to be a clear keeper. Essentially, what we have is a stub article that needs a lot of clean up... I agree that it does read like an advertisement at the moment. Re-nominate in a few months time if no work is done to improve the article. Blueboar 17:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Reads like self promotion article. Being one of the states top private schools is an assertion of notability that is not supported. Maybe they are the last on a list of 25 schools and I'm not sure that would be notable. The other option is to merge into the town article. The current lack of references says it should not be kept at this time. Vegaswikian 21:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
apologies if I wasn't clear, but I meant: if people do a thorough and careful job of looking for sources, rather than treat sourcing n a casual and cavalier manner as unfortunately is the case with many articles on schools. DGG 01:52, 2 May 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Walter Sickert and The Army of Broken Toys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • CommentI feel you need to give them more time to edit - I have found several of the sources inclousing ther NPR coverage and golbe and phoenix - ifr I was a better user I woulod actually add them, but WIkipedia confuses me in how to edit so I only use it for research and almost never update - give them a chance

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.88.222.237 (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC). A band. Looks like self-promotion with a ridiculous link to Walter Sickert. Are they notable? -- RHaworth 16:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • CommentOk added the NPR thing but as a new user I am not sure I did it correctly - I have lost of other info to add, but let me practice a bit on other pages - please leave this here please!!!! THese guys are really important and introducing an important genre of music - differnt form so many. If you look at history the link to Walter Sickert (the leader of the band is named after him and is an artist in his own right - will find MoMa link with his art)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.116.222.46 (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:11, 30 April 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 14:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Article has been tagged with a notability tag since January, so clearly no-one has attempted to establish notability. I have no position on the article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't get why the "notability" tag was added in the first place. Looking at her list of publications, I see that one of her essays chosen at random appeared alongside popular feminist writers such as Dworkin and Steinem, in an anthology that was reviewed in both Publishers' Weekly and Kirkus Reviews. Notability is one of those funny words, indefinable, really, but this author's works do seem to have had a very broad exposure. I'd say this article has probably been listed for deletion in error. --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:11, 30 April 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. --Coredesat 07:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

NN label, spam, advert, etc Lugnuts 18:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:12, 30 April 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. --Coredesat 07:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Nonnotable media company, article reads like PR. One independent source which also appears to be a PR puff piece. NawlinWiki 18:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason this isn't a nonnotable media company is the attention it's gotten online. They use the success of their company to help artists in improvement by the community they've established at ConceptArt.org and by opening a real life school. They are a new company, which explains the lack of proper third party sources at the moment. I didn't mean to make it sound like PR - I'm not actually a part of the community or any efforts involved, maybe it's just English being my second language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Necrisque (talk • contribs).

So what about all the articles on Knowledge (XXG) that state no sources at all, or are simple oneliners? What reasoning seperates those articles from this one in a sense that makes the article on Massive Black so bad it shouldn't exist at all? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Necrisque (talk • contribs).

Also, the article on CGSociety is an independent source - it has no affiliation with Massive Black. Unless writing an article on someone and interviewing them automatically makes you affiliated with their agenda?

That would be WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete it then. I still don't agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Necrisque (talk • contribs).

Wouldn't it just be possible to tag it as an article in need of sources? Is there an immediate need to delete the information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Necrisque (talk • contribs).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - this has now had the full five days for someone to add sources and no-one - not even the creator & sole editor who's arguing that it can be sourced, has managed to dig any legitimate sources out. While I don't mean to be rude about this company, this is a PR company and their entire job is getting things mentioned in the press - the lack of sources really isn't a great advert. Necrisque, do feel free to nominate all those other articles you don't approve of as long as you've got a reason — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
comment I think of it more as a producer of material for others to use--it therefore ought not to be getting its name in the press, but rathe those of the clients. It will be very hard in the nature of things for a ghostwriter to establish N. DGG 03:00, 1 May 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. --Coredesat 07:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

A listing of the puzzles in the book Secrets of the Alchemist Dar. But Knowledge (XXG) is not a game guide. NawlinWiki 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - Alchemist Dar is not a 'game'. This wiki has provided useful neutral information to hundreds of people. Move it if you must to somewhere more appropriate. WikiOAF 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The information on this sub-page existed in the main article and is clearer by being moved to a sub-page. The main article is about both a notable book and a notable treasure hunt. The sub-page is about the puzzles which are a significant feature of this notable book. --AnotherDoth 20:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete looks like original research to me. Where are the reliable secondary sources for this material? JulesH 11:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: fails WP:OR, WP:NOT. "A game is a structured or semi-structured activity, usually undertaken for enjoyment and sometimes also used as an educational tool." This qualifies as one. The Keep proponents have stated why they think this article is important, but not how it satisfies Knowledge (XXG)'s requirements for an article.  RGTraynor  14:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and RGTraynor. Arbustoo 01:51, 2 May 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. --Coredesat 07:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Uncle Henry (commentator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced & unverifiable article (WP:ATT), non-notable fictional personality (WP:N), unresolved POV issues (WP:NPOV) /Blaxthos 21:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:12, 30 April 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. --Coredesat 07:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Cast and crew of A Canterbury Tale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT - the important cast and crew should be mentioned in the main A Canterbury Tale article (as they already are). No need for a seperate article listing every extra, bit-part actor, and minor crew member. This list is already available on IMDb for anyone that would want to read it. Masaruemoto 00:08, 1 May 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. --Coredesat 07:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Net satisfaction index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A bit of a funny one this - everyone's familiar with the idea, and it may be a perfectly valid term for the concept (although I've a degree in economics & have never come across the term), and if it is it probably is more than a dicdef and just needs sourcing, but I'm having such trouble finding valid sources for it, taking the extreme option of bringing it here for a second opinion. Untouched for well over two months, so we can assume the creator's not going to improve it. Also, it seems the kind of thing that's probably already lurking here under another name, if anyone can think of something suitable to redirect it to - Market research maybe? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep, tag, and wait a bit http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Net+Satisfaction+Index%22+site%3A.edu&btnG=Google+Search. --Remi 00:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It's had two and a half months already — how long do you propose to give it? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Once it is properly tagged then 2, perhaps, 3 more months, then maybe delete. Citation + expert needed templates have been added. --Remi 05:34, 1 May 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

FL-802nd AFJROTC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to fit the notability guidelines; It's just an ROTC unit. mcr616 Speak! 00:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fl-802, an abortive attempt by the creator of the FL-802nd AFJROTC article about the same topic should be added. If the latter article is deleted, the former should be also. If kept, Fl-802 should be a redirect. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It's a Junior ROTC unit - that's a big difference. Would it have been too much to give the author a tiny bit of time to add some references and establish notability before jumping straight into an AfD? --ElKevbo 00:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this is a unit, not a program; I don't see any good reason to delete it. Hobby-horse time - this was nominated eleven minutes after creation, with the creator obviously still working on it (they'd already done five expansions prior to the AfD and are still working on it) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's tough to see how a JROTC unit can meet the notability guidelines, unless there's something that distinguishes it from other such units. Nevertheless, this was created by a new user and it may have been better to contact the user on his or her talk page and explained about notability, merger and such rather than just nominating it for deletion. If notability cannot be established, a merger of some of the content into West Orange High School, Winter Garden may be preferable to deleting. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:ORG, individual ROTC units are, unless otherwise sourceable, non-notable outside of the scope of the parent organization and/or the school at which they are based. I believe there's precedent here, so if anyone can find some of the other AfDs for these, that would help. --Kinu /c 02:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: I've amended my rationale above by adding "unless otherwise sourceable" to it; perhaps categorizing "all" ROTC units as non-notable is too much of a generalization and may be construed as too much of a WP:WAX-style argument. However, while there may be a couple that might meet notability standards, this topic and its article do not, so my ultimate recommendation remains unchanged. --Kinu /c 18:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete on the general grounds of non-notability--the only particular thing is that the were one of the 6 finalists among JROTCs in the state, and none of it is sourced. But it should run the full time. I agree with Iridescenti that it should not really have been nom. this early. We have no rule that articles must be written off-line. DGG 03:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Individual units would be rarely notable, if ever. --Auto 03:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory. I would have trouble seeing an individual ROTC program as notable enough for an article, let alone this, where we're verging on an article for a Boy Scout troop (a close analog to the program). --Dhartung | Talk 05:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's entirely unfair to leap on such an article so soon after its creation as it's clearly not a frivolous entry. If it hasn't established notability in a few days then fine, consider it for AdF, but let someone write the article first. Writing and sourcing articles is hard work, whereas nominating stuff for deletion is easy. It's new articles which make wikipedia grow though. Nick mallory 06:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: AfD runs for five days. That is more than enough time to demonstrate notability if those recommending to keep make the effort.... though for a JROTC unit, to reiterate my comments above, that might be difficult. --Kinu /c 06:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Agreed that individual groups are not, in themselves, notable (as per previous discussions about individual scout troops). Emeraude 12:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into West Orange High School, Winter Garden. Individual high school clubs are not notable, even if they register with the military and call themselves a "unit" instead of a club. -- Plutor  13:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Extremely Reluctant Delete/Merge: Like other editors, I'm deeply reluctant to give any credence whatsoever to an AfD filed eleven minutes after the article's creation, something I consider to be abusive and knee-jerk in any circumstance beyond CSD candidates. Nonetheless the Delete proponents are right; there's almost no circumstance conceivable where a high school club (and that's all junior high school ROTCs are, despite the bureaucratispeak) has notability distinct from the high school itself. While I'm itching to say Keep, it'd verge on WP:POINT to do so.  RGTraynor  15:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just believe -- and demonstrably am not alone -- bringing an AfD mere minutes after an article's creation is objectionable on that very basis; it doesn't give an creator a chance to complete and source the article before a fist to the face which deters many from continuing, and the majority of such quick-draw AfDs happen without noms taking time to gauge a subject's notability themselves. IMHO, the only grounds for not waiting a day or two at least are those which would warrant a Speedy.  RGTraynor  20:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: In my experience, editors start by stating what they think is the most notable or exceptional fact about whatever the subject of the article is. If it isnt up in the first five edits, it usually only meets WP:N on some technicality. Hornplease 20:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's more like a homepage for the group than an encyclopedia article. We could have an article on an ROTC unit, but this isn't looking like one. If some sources and content are added, then I might change my vote. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm disturbed by the blanket statements made by some in this discussion asserting that a particular group can never be notable outside of its parent organization. That is terribly shortsighted. Notability should be judged on a case-by-case basis instead of with unjustifiable crystal ball judgments. --ElKevbo 15:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Exactly. If you can get the reliable, nontrivial, independent sources to write about a topic, go ahead and do so. That's very unlikely to happen for a high school ROTC program, though. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: On that note, does anyone want to take a look at JROTC#Selected JROTC units? While blanket generalizations are bad, I'm willing to guess that few if any of these articles are sourced to show notability per WP:ORG (after all, at the end of the day, they are high school programs), and should be considered for inclusion or lack thereof (or merge to their respective high school articles) on their own merits. --Kinu /c 06:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • ElKevbo, what I see are implicit references to the proposed guideline WP:ORG and statements that individual clubs or units are not automatically notable. I doubt those same editors meant never, but the circumstances would need to be extraordinary. Say, the JROTC unit was on a training bivouac and rescued Kelly Clarkson from a bear attack. But just existing isn't notability, even getting awards within the organization ("JROTC unit of the year") isn't really notability. Context matters. --Dhartung | Talk 06:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree that it's unlikely. It's the explicit, outright, and blanket assertion that it can never happen to which I object. --ElKevbo 10:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I hadn't realised until I went to hunt for sources that this is a training programme rather than an actual military unit — the article doesn't actually mention that anywhere... — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: That's correct; I'm not sure what the Royal equivalent of the JROTC would be... my guess would be the Air Training Corps or something along those lines. Not an active military unit, but a voluntary cadet training group for secondary students (one step below and parallel to the university-level ROTC). --Kinu /c 06:51, 2 May 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. --Coredesat 07:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#LINK - The same reasons that the similar articles were deleted: Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of medieval reenactment groups and Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of modern reenactment groups. This is just a list of external links for these various groups. This was nominated for deletion in 2005, but it looked like this, so that doesn't have much relevance here. Masaruemoto 00:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I find it hard to imagine keeping it in 05, but such must have been the standards of the time. It is much better now. It is not just a collection of links, because it gives descriptions. DGG 03:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep.While the organizations listed may not be "notable", "notability" is not a criteria for content, but for articles.Nucleophilic 00:04, 3 May 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 deleted by Physicq210 (CSD G1). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD. Serpent's Choice 03:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Annual 5-a-side sponge football match. No context, no notability. -- RHaworth 00:33, 1 May 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 keep; apparent bad-faith nomination. Krimpet (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Playing for sports is non notable Zoom throgh 20:42, 30 April 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. --Coredesat 07:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Games and Users from ReBoot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#IINFO. Excessive minutiae. Masaruemoto 00:34, 1 May 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. --Coredesat 07:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln City In 1987/88 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Knowledge (XXG) is not a football results archive. -- RHaworth 00:46, 1 May 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. --Coredesat 07:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

This building is of no historical importance and does not meet the notability requirements. Also it is mostly original research by high school students who attend classes in the building. Any important information is already contained in the article Trinity School at River Ridge. Theredhouse7 03:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kungfu Adam 00:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Schools may be N because of being in a historic building, but it is a rare school building that will be notable separately. In any case, the school has apparently just moved out. DGG 03:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment - The school will be moving out at the end of the year. Theredhouse7 04:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Just wondering, what does the picture of the grass add to the article? Wouldn't a picture of the actual building be more appropriate? --Infrangible 02:51, 2 May 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 and redirect to Command & Conquer: Generals series. --Coredesat 07:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Descriptive account of game character (in actuality a game unit), would require a line in the relevent C&C articles delete as per WP:NOT Fredrick day 08:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kungfu Adam 00:57, 1 May 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Éire Nua Republican Flute Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable flute band. No references given. Stu 10:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete - No real assertion of notability. --Dweller 11:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete They have traveled internationally, but jeez, they're just a flute band. YechielMan 14:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment, to be fair they are a little bit more than "just a flute band" - but I will wait for someone to add external refs proving notability before I make my !vote.--Vintagekits 15:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Not voting yet. Sounds like they might be notable, so get out there and find multiple reliable independent references with nontrivial coverage of the group. Their own website is far from a reliable and independent reference. The special guideline for bands and music is set up for rock and pop commercial bands and not less commercial groups such as concert bands, a capella groups and such bands as this, who might meet WP:N and WP:A. "Just a flute band" is an irrelevant and invalid reason for deletion. Edison 16:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment, possibly merge to Éire Nua could be considered.--Vintagekits 11:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kungfu Adam 01:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't really think merging with Éire Nua would help. That page is about specific Sinn Fein policy proposals. The band may have named themselves after these but there's no evidence for it and it seems more likely to me that they're simply using the phrase for its literal meaning - in English: "New Ireland". As I said elsewhere, what's really needed here is a generic article on such bands in both the republican and loyalist traditions. BTLizard 09:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Still saying delete. I'll maybe start an article at Flute Band. I would intend this to be about the subject in general, not about individual bands unless they can be verified from reliable sources, which the Éire Nua Republican Flute Band and Vol. Sean Mcilvenná Republican Flute Band articles can't be. Stu 10:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless some evidence of notability is provided. Nuttah68 10:09, 5 May 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. --Coredesat 07:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Duplicates lists already included in Category:Lists of historical animals. Any additional articles will be added to the lists themselves, rather than this list, so there is little point having both a category and a list for these. Masaruemoto 01:07, 1 May 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 nomination withdrawn by JuJube. Sr13 (T|C) 06:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, there is always a first time for everything, and since the wikipedia is such a large encyclopedia, i am sure there is always room for things that can be especialized from region to region. Just because there is not an article on an specific town on earth it doesn't mean that the town doesn't exist. We needto discuss this article very seriously. Thanks

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

The article looks well written, but I don't think the topic is notable. There is no article on Mexican comedy or even Spanish comedy, and the references don't look all that good to me. Prod removed by author. JuJube 01:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment And with all due respect, i just found an article called British comedy. So obviously I don't see why my article is unnotable whatsoever. I vehemently suggest to have the deletion box removed ipsofactus. Thanks
  • Comment I would like to withdraw the nomination, but I feel it is somewhat biased to have an article for Colombian comedy but not for other notable Latin American countries. JuJube 05:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If it's 'biased' to have an article on Columbian comedy but not Mexican or Peruvian comedy then why don't you start writing those articles JuJube? It's not up to someone else to do it if you feel so strongly such articles should exist. Nick mallory 06:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Because I don't know anything about those topics. I guess I'll withdraw this nomination, but despite the fact that I'm Colombian it kind of disheartens me to know that people took the time to make a Colombian article about comedy but no other Latin American country. JuJube 06:37, 1 May 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 user and user talk pages mentioned will also be deleted under WP:CSD#G4. --Coredesat 07:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

New technology in indonesia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Content not really related to the title. Identical content at: User talk:Ayudewikomunikasiui and User:Ayudewikomunikasiui --Infrangible 01:47, 1 May 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. --Coredesat 07:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Star wars empire at war tips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory. This article has little use in an encyclopedia. Captain panda 01:52, 1 May 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 since it's now been transwikied. --Coredesat 07:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary. Unencyclopedic. Captain panda 01:58, 1 May 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. --Coredesat 07:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Non-notable T-shirt salesman/musician. Only external links are MySpace site and official site. No sources whatsoever. Prod removed by author. JuJube 02:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Searched online and did find a fan/news blog here. I think the entry has a promotional tone but I vote that it be rewritten and not deleted. I think we should return to this in 2-3 months. *Post Script, a search on google for "DJ Will G" brings up 85 results.--Bushsandwiches 03:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete MySpace isn't a valid sources and the site itself isn't either. Article fails notability and is written terribly for Knowledge (XXG). Should have been candidate for speedy deletion. Xtreme racer 03:12, 1 May 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. Walton 16:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Article violates WP:NPOV and is for the most part unreferenced. The recently added reference is a book that is searchable on Google Books and the text does not contain the word "Ethnostate." It appears to have been added simply to allow the removal of the prod and unreferenced templates. Very questionable "facts" included in the article, such as the 2 Million German deaths in 1945 during their removal from Poland. Hatch68 02:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

On reading through it, this is mostly POV racist claptrap, with no supporting evidence. Change to Delete. Esseh 17:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You cannot claim this is about race as it is about ethnicity. Ethinicity is a combination of racial and cultural factors, both one or the other. It was not my intention to get into a debate over racial matters when I started it but you have pointed out that race and culture are often linked as it is easier to look at a persons skin colour and judge him based on that then what he is thinking. If anything there is a lack of reference links to information and I hope to rectify it soon when I have the time. --Delos 04:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article will be important in the coming years as ethnostates become more popular again. In the past nearly all countries were ethnostates as people who were not alike usually found themselves being driven out of town to the point that the country had a specific culture and heritage. Australia and U.S. have just said that multiculturalism does not work so we will soon see a shift back to this with cultural segregation (ghettos and gated communities) being the first step, then followed by separation of a state from the country as a whole as we are now seeing in Canada, Russia, and former Yugoslavian states like Montenegro. --Delos 22:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Good of you to vote on your own article, but racists portray racism as "ethnicity". Anyone not of your "ethnic group" is an outsider, and so liable to exclusion - or worse. Unfortunately, you are right - it is worse than racism, since even those of the same race may be excluded (Turks and Armenians are both "Caucasian", as were Jews and "Aryans" in Nazi Germany; Hutus and Tutsies are both African; Bosnians, Albanians, Serbs, Croats and Slovenians are all Caucasian). Hatch68 (below) was more PC than me in calling it "propaganda"; I still say it's ethnocentric racist claptrap bullshit (WP is not censored)! Still oppose! Esseh 05:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This appears to be nothing so far but a propaganda article. Two million Germans died in 1945 because of forced removal from Poland? You'll have to do better than an obscure book reference to back up those kind of statements. Hatch68 01:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's an important article in that it provides a counter balance to the multicultural articles. I have only started editing it over the last few hours. I did the top bit about caste creation. I think that the Supporting Arguments should be linked more to Kevin B. MacDonald due to the fact that the word ethnostate is used on the Kevin B. MacDonald article. It says that he accepted the Jack London Literary Prize from The Occidental Quarterly, using the award ceremony as an occasion to argue for the need for a "white ethnostate" to maintain high racial birthrates. In his acceptance speech, he stated, "The best way to preserve ethnic interests is to defend an ethnostate — a nation that is explicitly intended to preserve the ethnic interests of its citizens." According to MacDonald, one of the functions of such a state would be to exclude non-European immigrants who are attracted to the state by its wealth and prosperity. At the conclusion of his speech, he remarked, "The alternative faced by Europeans throughout the Western world is to place themselves in a position of enormous vulnerability in which their destinies will be determined by other peoples, many of whom hold deep historically conditioned hatreds toward them. Europeans’ promotion of their own displacement is the ultimate foolishness — an historical mistake of catastrophic proportions." --Twoheel 12:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - concept doesn't seem significant enough to merit its own article. I see no other sources on it other than the Robertson book. Moreover, significant portions of the text seem to be lifted almost identically from clearly POV sources such as this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Debivort (talk • contribs) 06:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment - I haven't made any claims of racism and I will continue to avoid that topic. Please keep the discussion focused on the reasons the article was nominated, which are the WP:NPOV conflicts and the lack of reliable references. The statement about 2 million Germans being killed is not even backed up by the Knowledge (XXG) articles that were referenced in this discussion. The articles say that at most 1.1 million Germans died, which means the numbers here are inflated by about 80%, which leads back to the WP:NPOV problems which prompted the prod template and then the AfD. Hatch68 14:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete (or possibly re-write) Racism here is irrelevant - just because a concept is racist doesn't mean it doesn't belong - after all we have articles on Nazi eugenics; however, this particular concept is fairly obscure and this article is poorly sourced to the point of indicating non-notability. Maybe a re-write that takes out apparently POV statements like

    Everyday we see new ethnic horrors, many of which the people of the world may never even hear about. Ethnostates may be "messy" to achieve but in the long run may be the only positive way to re-think the fundamentals of statecraft in the 21st Century with multiculturalism not living up to all of its expectations.

    and does a better job citing could make this salvagable. CredoFromStart 14:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete what is basically an essay about a non-notable concept. It also appears to be a POV fork of Nation-state. (It also contains some statements that are simply incorrect, which in and of itself is not a reason for deletion, but if the article as a whole does remain, a good portion of it has to go.) 6SJ7 04:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I must admit to being humbly chastised. Of course, being racist is not, in and of itself, reason for deletion - as has been pointed out. I offer my apologies to all for over-reacting. However, being unsubstantiated, very POV and overlapping with already existing articles (social Darwinism, eugenics, and (as suggested by 6SJ7) Nation-state, for example) is. So, on those grounds, I still vote delete, or move to a sub-section of one of the above. (Just as an afterthought - I hadn't known there was an article on Nazi eugenics. Are there ones on British eugenics, or American eugenics? If these are red, I guess not... why not?) Esseh 04:35, 4 May 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 deleted by Akhilleus (Speedy deleted per (CSD a1), was a very short article providing little or no context.). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD. Serpent's Choice 03:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

This term does not appear in any Dune text, and article does not link to any articles. TAnthony 02:20, 1 May 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As the Apple Turns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

it's not sourced. i tried to find an independent article on the subject, but could only come up with a blog. doesn't satisfy WP:WEB. the_undertow 02:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Well... yeah, the problem about finding press sources for AtAT is that it died a long time ago. I know there were storied about in in MacAddict (now MacLife) and MacWorld, as well as MacWEEK (now MacCentral... even later MacWorld). The MacObserver questions about it here... wired asks about it here, the unoffical mac weblog (a real content provider, I'm not even sure it qualifies as a blog itself) here also referencing the wired. While not the article i was looking for (it was much older than this one) but MacWorld (print) has a small blurb here. I dunno. MrMacMan 05:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm gonna go with delete. It closed long ago, and the article is a stub? I doubt it's gonna get better, it's much more likely to go downhill. Hence my vote; just get rid of it now. Doesn't seem overly notable either. ~ G1ggy! ...chatterbox... 10:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you asking for the article to be deleted because it's going to 'go downhill' or because you don't think its notable? I don't think speculation about the future quality of an article is a deletion criteria. MrMacMan 20:28, 1 May 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. Sr13 (T|C) 19:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Author will not (or cannot) supply the requested evidence of notability. Dicklyon 02:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages, other family members of the author, with same WP:BIO problem:

Maria Hart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
George L. McGhee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- late addition after a few of the comments below were entered (shortly after User:Mjmcghee removed the prod tag from it) Dicklyon 21:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • delete James William McGhee. claim to notability is as the inventor of the "non-sew-on drapery hook". Now while I do know what those things are, I don't find their inventor notable. FWIW: google: non-sew-on + drapery + hook = 0 hits; google: no-sew-on + drapery + hook = 0 hits; google "pin-in drapery hook" = 0 hits. Pete.Hurd 03:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • delete Maria Hart. Minor actress, mails WP:BIO#Special_cases:Entertainers by wide margin. Pete.Hurd 03:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Hart had a small role in a Nicholas Ray film, but that's a thin claim to notability. Without third-party sources evaluating the notability of McGhee is nigh impossible. --Dhartung | Talk 05:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the article on Maria Hart. Per IMDB and the other movie databases, after 9 years as a contract player for MGM in minor roles, she co-starred in 4 pictures and starred in one in 1950-1952. She can be seen featured in the movie posters from her starring role in "Cattle Queen (1951)" at The New York Times review describes her portrayal of a "rather glamorous bleached blond" who "bests Drake in a climactic shootout." Undecided as to keeping the article on James William McGhee pending the patent and invention claims being better documented. Edison 18:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Google patent found them in a nanosecond. I would love to get a copy of his obituary as a source but can't find yet. I also found a court battle over the patent which describes him and his company. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the existence of the patents or the starring roles were ever in question. The issue is evidence of notability, per the guidelines in wp:bio. Shouldn't any suggestion to keep be accompanied by some kind of answer or source relative to these guidelines? Dicklyon 21:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep James William and Maria Hart - neither famous but both have claims to notability. Delete George L. - unreferenced. Authorship by user:Mjmcghee suggests COI. Knowledge (XXG) is not a genealogy site. Comments in User_talk:Mjmcghee (including replying to a bot!) indicate an unwillingness to take an objective view or to enter into the Knowledge (XXG) spirit. -- RHaworth 21:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Why not help us out by pointing out what are the claims to notability, so that the evidence can be put into the article and the article saved? I don't think a patent counts for this, does it? Or a listing in a movie database? Don't we need significant secondary sources? Dicklyon 04:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It says "With significant roles in notable films." Can we presume then that you judge several of her films to be "notable," even though none have wikipedia articles and therefore have not themselves been evaluated along that dimension? Dicklyon 04:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all. (I'm the nominator) So far, none of the keep votes have pointed to the evidence of notability that is required to rescue these articles. One mention of an actress name in a NYT article about the film, with text only about the character portrayed, is really not a secondary source about the subject, is it? Dicklyon 04:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all personal promotion, insufficient evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep allI wrote all three articles. I am a visually impaired person and I have attempted to upload as much of the supporting evidence as possible through my scanner reading machine, please tell me if the supporting documentation hasn’t arrived. For Paul Ashley Chase I uploaded an obit from Warner Brothers, For Maria Hart I provided three internet sources, a copy of a Los Angeles Times article and reference to Hollywood Reporter and Varity articles. For James W. McGhee I gave you 5 patent numbers and a reference to the Canadian patent office and reference to a LA Times article dated March 17, 1942. I also uploaded the original copies. For George L. McGhee I provided a copy of an e-mail from the 30,000 member professional organization he founded.

I am not doing this for “personal promotion” as far as I know all of the people above are dead, And most of them died over 40 years ago. Please tell me how this could possibly be for personal promotion. I am engaged in a much larger research project; when I come across interesting and notable facts that I am not going to use I try to give them to someone that can. This is the case with these different articles. I didn’t know your vetting process was so time consuming, If I did I wouldn’t have started this process.Mjmcghee

  • Keep both James William McGhee and Maria Hart, which are sourced and make strong claims to notability. Delete George L. McGhee, which doesn't rise to that level of notability, claimed or supp0rted. Alansohn 17:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Really? Is filing an (invalid due to obviousness) patent a "strong claim to notability"? Pete.Hurd 03:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    The only thing sourced for JW is his inventions; no evidence of notability; why do so many people who comment here seem to be unaware of wp:bio? Similarly with Maria, her roles are sourced, but where's the evidence of notability? There's a section on entertainers at wp:bio; has anyone read it? The author/descendent pretty much states he is doing original research; his uploaded docs are in no case the kind of evidence of notability that's needed to make these articles acceptable according to policy, as I read it. Please correct me if I should be reading the policy differently. Dicklyon 04:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

James William McGhee's claim was upheld the following year in a lawsuit he bought against Kirsch Manufacturing Company and his Canadian patent number 246361 (drapery hook) was always upheld. It was common in those days for large corporations to “slap suite” and infringe on small inventors until their legal/financial resources had been depleted. Also jury tampering and payoffs to judges were par for the course in the 1920s, the days of Al Capone. The stakes have always been high in the manufacturing business, Edison tried to keep a lid on his cameras and projectors with no success yet we don’t question his veracity. The ad that I uploaded two days ago was from a 1932 trade magazine so we know he was still publicized as the manufacturer and inventor three years after the lawsuit you reference. In addition we also know that his Canadian patent didn’t run out until 1942. The United States has/had full faith and credit with Canada during that time. Another thing that may or may not have crossed your mind is that brass, steal, and aluminum wire is used to create these hooks and rings. In order for a business to be profitable this wire must pass through bending and sharpening machines that spits the hooks out into groups of 25 or 50. These machines are highly complicated and have many moving parts. James William McGhee also invented these machines, so there are probably other patents out there.Mjmcghee 05:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference to wp:bio I think James William McGhee fits the criteria nicely.Mjmcghee 05:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


I think that in general James William McGhee has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record (found in the US and Canadian Patent Office) in his specific field (drapery hardware). Even some of the people that want this article deleted have admitted they have used his invention. James William McGhee was a wp:bio creative professional that we can see through his patents wp:bio originated a significantly new concept and technique for hanging draperies. Mjmcghee 05:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Maria Hart is an entertainer with a huge “cult” following wp:bio of people that like campy westerns and offbeat movies with a strong female leads instead of the typical male lead. The melodramatic plots are so melodramatic they are very humorous. I saw Cattle Queen on the Western channel recently. In the Lusty Men she plays the second female lead she co-stars in the movie, this is hardly a small role.Mjmcghee 06:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. If this guy is notable, so would millions of others be. DaveApter 16:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all I have found many secondary references to George L. McGhee founder of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists – this organization has 30,000 members and is over 40 years old, it continues to lobby for laws and ethics in the field and has an extensive web-sight. Maria Hart is all over the web and Wiki has an article on the movie The Lusty Men. James William McGhee has many secondary and primary references on genealogy sights as well as the United States patent office, which I was able to cross reference on-line, and the Canadian patent office, which will only take a second for anyone to cross-reference. I think the people that want these articles deleted should start all over again and reexamine the information out there. The original author may not be as technologically adept as the rest of us and it looks like she/he is visually impaired, so I’m going to give her/him a lot of slack. 69.231.56.34 21:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all I found many primary and secondary sources on the web; I also reviewed the Wiki notability section and found that all three people fit the parameters for Wiki notability. It seems like there’s some kind of personal animosity or argument going on here. I’ve used the drapery hook and it is obvious that J.W. McGhee contributed greatly to his field. George L. McGhee helped get the first laws in the United States passed in his field and started a professional organization with over 28,000 members. Maria Hart is mentioned on many web-sights and her movies can still be seen. RachelRayHoward 02:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC) — RachelRayHoward (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User's 1st edit, Pete.Hurd 03:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no personal problem with Mr. McGhee adding articles on his family members, but I do wonder why people keep saying that they meet the notability criteria but will not just go ahead and add the supporting references to the articles. If I could find them I would add them myself and save these articles, but since nobody will point out the references I'm inclined to believe that they don't exist, in which case the articles should go. It would be helpful if you could point out, for each individual, what notability criteria they satisfy, and where the evidence is. I would change my vote to keep if you could do that. Dicklyon 06:44, 6 May 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. --Coredesat 07:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

HHE Night Of The Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This subject lacks notability and is either satirical or is uncyclopedic content... fits Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  — 6etonyourfeet 03:19, 1 May 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. --Coredesat 07:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Article about a video game character appearing in one mid-90s video game. Mystache 03:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Per user comments, I'm also attaching articles of characters exclusively in this game to the discussion
Mystache 02:18, 2 May 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.

Result was Keep and rename to List of tallest buildings in Tokyo. — Caknuck 01:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Tallest buildings in Tokyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate source of information. The Tallest Buildings in Tokyo is definitively not encyclopedic. What next, the tallest buildings in Harrisonburg, VA? WP:NOT#DIR - SVRTVDude 03:39, 1 May 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 keep per WP:SNOW and withdrawal of nomination by User:Coren, below. NawlinWiki 19:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Archbishop Blenk High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – Editor deleted {{prod}} without adding claims of notability, but article about a school that doesn't appear to meet WP:SCHOOL. Google returns no relevant sources outside the high school itself. Coren 03:48, 1 May 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. Walton 18:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

This is one of the most confusing pages I've ever seen on Knowledge (XXG). This guy is supposedly connected in some nebulous way to various high-profile basketball players, though the nature of those connections is not really clear nor explained by whoever wrote the article. For example, he was "very visible" before Lebron James's signing...how? Google didn't seem to be very high on relevant hits, and the two sources listed with the article have been deleted. Thunderbunny 04:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep although those two sources are now paywalled they are reliable sources. The article needs cleanup, but the subject is notable as a behind-the-scenes fixer/consigliere in the NBA. Most of the ghits on him are sports blogs, which are mostly unusable (either what they say is verifiable elsewhere, or it's pointless speculation), e.g.. Here are some more sources we can use: A couple of iffier ones are . --Dhartung | Talk 04:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Surreal. The article in its current state is a mess, but I'm honestly uncertain if this article can be written. Wesley is apparently real. ESPN mentions him. He's evidently even quoted in this subscription-required New York Times article. Otherwise, the TrueHoop blog, now owned by ESPN, apparently investigated him, producing a large amount of text with very little actual information (although someone noticed felt it warranted metareporting). At the end of it all, he is apparently someone who knows a lot of people, and might make a living by helping to arrange contracts and contacts via these connections. Maybe. And I just do not know if that's enough to be notable even with reliable sources saying it. Serpent's Choice 05:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree with Serpent's Choice. Needs to be worked on, not removed. ~ G1ggy! ...chatterbox... 10:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Players at the top level of sport are notable, guys who kinda sorta hang out with them in some nebulous way are not. Nick mallory 12:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment See, that's where the article fails. It makes him sound like a hanger-on. But we have a guy who top basketball reporter Scoop Jackson (writer) calls "the most powerful guy in the NBA". He's a fixer, a consultant, a personal manager, an agent, a negotiator, a recruiter, a man who could be in a suit in the VIP section or in a warm-up jacket sitting on the bench, a man on the rolodex of everyone who matters in the league, a man whose rolodex you want to get on and if you aren't you probably don't matter. It's probably precisely because he isn't any of those things officially that gives him the anywhere-everywhere access and influence that he has. Find a video of the Pacers-Pistons brawl, if you can (active takedown policy), and he's the guy in the gray suit who gets out onto the court and protects Ron Artest from getting pepper-sprayed by a Detroit cop. You can think of this in one way, protecting a friend/client, or you can think of it as preventing the only thing that could have made the incident worse -- an NBA player getting himself arrested on the court. He's a fascinating character. I first heard of him in connection with Jordan a few years back, but he seems to have only become more enigmatic and powerful since then. Anyway, I don't have the Detroit News text at this point, but I think I can improve the article without it for now. --Dhartung | Talk 19:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The current article needs improvement, but I think that's achieveable. A LexisNexis search makes it clear that multiple media sources have written significant articles about this man, so he does meet the primary notability criterion, and reliable sources are available. In fact, and he may qualify as notable for being the subject of media speculation even apart from anything he's actually done. EALacey 19:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment on sources Sources that require payment are still sources. Obviously we don;'t want to use them if we can find equivalent free sources, but we should use the best sources there are. Many people will be able to obtain them, and can post a fair use excerpt here is there is doubt about what they say. DGG 01:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - although currently requiring payment, there are indpendent reliable sources for articles where this person is the subject of the article.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 19:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Socialist Party of Great Britain debates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:Notability. These debates are campaigning activities of a minscule political party in the UK. 67 "references" from the in-house Socialist Standard, pamphlets and "Socialist Party Tapes" do nothing whatsoever to convince me that this is a notable topic for an encyclopaedia! It is a classic example of WP:Listcruft. Mais oui! 04:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, unencyclopedic regurgitation of internal documents. Illuminates little about the history of the party. --Dhartung | Talk 07:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, a list of debates is utterly unencyclopedic. Punkmorten 09:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Despite its dry and off-putting appearance, this documents the development of significant strands of UK political thought in the twentieth century. It's not about the history of the SPGB per se; note that speakers include David Steel of the Liberal Democrats, Virginia Bottomley of the Conservatives, Bruce Kent of CND and Stan Newens of the Labour Party. That's a pretty broad range of positions - the appearance of characters like Roger Scruton and organisations such as the Militant Tendency, the Communist Party of Great Britain and the National Front make it even broader. So, definitely worth keeping in my view, despite its unprepossessing appearance. BTLizard 10:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Very strong keep - I believe the nominator & delete voters are (forgiveably, due to the confusing name to people without a knowledge of the movement) misunderstanding what this is an article about. These aren't internal debates within a political party, or 'propaganda'; they're a series of major lectures, by people with no connnection to (and generally in direct opposition to) the organisers, organised by a campaigning organisation which occasionally doubles up as a political party. They're the UK political equivalent of the Reith Lectures and Dimbleby Lectures on social topics or the Bakerian Lecture in the sciences, not the British equivalent of List of Republican Party campaign speeches — iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Iridescenti, I take your counterargument seriously, but I still miss the notability of this information. What we have is a list of participants and venues ("John Smith vs. Jack Jones, 78 Veddy British Lane, Hedges") that communicates exactly nothing about the events' importance. They don't even give the topic of any individual debate, let alone show how it was covered or noticed, or remembered historically. The introduction does mention a couple of these, but still doesn't communicate the notability of the subject matter very well. As an article, it's {{primary sources}} and {{importance}} taggable, and as a list it's just obscure. The lecture series you mention I've heard of. So, where are the independent and reliable sources to persuade me? --Dhartung | Talk 19:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • "Debate" in the sense used here wouldn't be Oxford Union-style debates, in the sense of both sides giving a speech on a topic and the audience then voting on who "won"; rather, they're be "Question Time" style debates, generally with one socialist speaker and one leading member of an opposing group (ranging from the hard left to the neo-Nazis of the National Front), asking questions of each other and answering questions from the audience about how they'd deal with the issues of the day. As such, the debates might have a general theme but wouldn't have a title as such. Sourcing's a problem for this type of thing because it means consulting print archives - the SPGB website doesn't have transcripts of the debates. In my opinion, the sheer volume of WP:N speakers is enough to convince me, but I concede that someone who isn't used to the minutiae of British political history would have to take my word on that. There are 359 unique Ghits on the matter, but they're generally either socialist sites or blogs/forums (including, bizarrely, one on PCImprovements.com) so probably wouldn't satisfy the Non-Trivial Police. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Categorized under "society topics" JulesH 11:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per BTLizard and Iridescenti. Certain people here have a knack for nominating scholarly relevant articles, although it takes some effort to find them in the sea of crap. Stammer 16:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Iridescenti nailed it, though it'd be nice to see some expansion of some of the more notable debates such as the most recent one, and the Teddy Taylor one. EliminatorJR 18:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Don't have to agree with a particular political point of view.Jackfirst 23:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree that this is WP:Listcruft. I am not convinced the arguments show any reason this list is notable. If the individual debates were covered, with historical context, that would be an entirely different story. This article doesn't provide any useful information about why we should care. Ibanix 21:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep In many cases the individual debates are in fact sourced. There are projects to digitize 20th century left-wing periodicals and other material, so it should soon be possible to link to on-line accounts. If further information on a particular debate becomes sufficient for a separate article, all the better. DGG 02:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Indeed; many of these debates have sources other than the Socialist Standard, having been reported in the journals of the opposing parties, or in some cases in the mainstream press. However, very few of these journals have been digitized yet, which makes it difficult to compile multiple sources. The current article was written by a professional archivist who went through early printed issues of the Standard, but did not have access to other contemporary journals. —Psychonaut 16:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This list of debates is actually something that even a professional historian may find useful and stimulating, since it provides information indicating significant historical patterns. Stammer 12:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Socialist Party of Great Britain is at most a minor left wing group (one of many). The article does not indicate what the debates were about, merely date, place, opponent and their affiliation. The party may just be sufficinetly notable to appear, but I find it hard to believe that their debates are. Can the creator improve it? Peterkingiron 22:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it self-evident that a series of debates stretching back more than one century, featuring speakers ranging from Ernest John Bartlett Allen, to Teddy Taylor , to the British Union of Fascists (in 1935 and 1936!), to name but a few, is inherently notable? Stammer 08:37, 4 May 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 deleted by Andrwsc (notability not asserted). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD. Serpent's Choice 05:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

calling yourself a role model just may be a bit of vanity ;) wikipedia isnt myspace the_undertow 05:04, 1 May 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. WjBscribe 19:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Vol. Sean Mcilvenná Republican Flute Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable flute band. No references given. Can be adequately covered by a sentence in the Sean McIlvenna article. Stu 14:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge, No significant evidence of notability in itself shown - should be merged to Sean McIlvenna.--Vintagekits 14:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment, Bands like this are long-standing parts of both the republican and loyalist traditions - see Éire Nua Republican Flute Band and Portadown defenders - so I think merging to Sean McIlvenna would be to miss the point somewhat. What would best would be to merge into a generic article on the bands as a phenomenon, but I haven't been able to find one so for now I'm saying keep. BTLizard 15:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment, maybe needs new articles such as Republican or Loyalist FB's.--Vintagekits 15:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I hadn't seen those articles before or I would have included them in this AFD. Merging them all to one article is a good suggestion. But, as with the existing individual articles, referencing a merged article from reliable source will prove very hard. Stu 15:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I have added a speedy tag to the Portadown one, and AfD'd the Éire Nua one. See Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Éire Nua Republican Flute Band. Stu 11:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Maybe contact the creators of the articles to let them know about the AfD, I dont think they are active but is what I would do it I AfDed an article.--Vintagekits 11:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Will do, cheers. Stu 11:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 (T|C) 05:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The tradition may be longstanding, and may require an article, but this band has existed no more than 10 years and the article offers no indication of notability. There is no merge needed as there is nothing of note here, that would be like deciding every jazz band should at least be in the jazz article. Nuttah68 10:07, 5 May 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 and protect from recreation. --Coredesat 07:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Biblical Prophecy Fulfilled (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

According to the records for Biblical Prophecy Fulfilled:-

  • 20:38, 30 April 2007: JLMarais created it.
  • 20:40, 30 April 2007: Fang Aili deleted it "Proselyzation; WP:NOT a soapbox"
  • 21:46, 30 April 2007: JLMarais re-created it.
  • 21:52, 30 April 2007: ArchStanton69 noticed that it had been re-created and tagged it for speedy delete "re-created article".
  • 21:53, 30 April 2007: Anthony Appleyard saw it in the speedy-deletion list and deleted it.
  • 22:30, 30 April 2007: JLMarais objected to the redeletion.

Anthony Appleyard 06:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete again. This article is written with a significant biblical inerrancy POV, and treats a lot of its content as fact rather than religious belief. A NPOV and more complete treatment already exists at Bible prophecy. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and, given the recreation history, salt. This is nothing more than a POV fork of Bible prophecy. Serpent's Choice 06:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as blatant OR. Someguy1221 06:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment by Author: If this was OR citations would not be possible this is most definitely based on huge amounts of prior research. In terms of 'proselyzation' this would not be a relevant complaint if each item in the article is biblically quotable and historically or scientifically verifiable with acceptable citations. If bias is shown, please highlight it to me to allow me to correct it. In this article a critically important balance is to be introduced to other WikiPedia content that suggests that prophecy is largely a fallacy and superstition. I have done significant research on this topic and I can present an informed view that many people are not aware of. If any of the prophetic fulfilments covered are mentioned elsewhere on another article I would gladly remove it. It seems that there is some intolerance over this subject, but I sincerely hope that is not the case. Note that the recreation of the article was not malicious but just due not being fully informed about how article deletions work. I hope to develop this article to its full potential with your cooperation and that of the community. Regards. JLMarais 09:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not attributed, POV, OR. It is not "intolerance" to expect any article on Knowledge (XXG) to be written with a neutral point of view. It is not "intolerance" to expect attribution from non-trivial third parties. It is not "intolerance" to reject original research. --Charlene 09:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and Salt Due to it being original research and a POV fork. Salt due to history of recreates. --RaiderAspect 10:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Whilst I personally agree with the current content of this article - this is not the place for coverage of this issue in these terms. I also find myself agreeing with the other editors here that this is intrinsically POV - that is from the perspective of this community. Whether something is biblically provable will never be sufficient grounds for remaining here. :: Kevinalewis : /(Desk) 10:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment by Author: What would you prefer should be listed under the link Israelology — Prophecies concerning Israel, the nation, the people, and the man? Do you prefer it being empty, as it was before I added this content? What would be valid content for that prophecy classification? ...anything without proof so that the reader would at all cost not be inclined to change his/her mind about prophecy? Why is the presentation of proof the problem? Is that the problem? Should I provide more credible proof? Why was Evidence of prophecy allowed in a different article? You may want to roll back my changes there as well to see how negatively portrayed the content was. I'm surprised (and originally impressed) that the changes even remained there for a while. Please explain since I'm trying to maintain my view of how this is a well maintained collection of information and how I'm breaching the code (please refer me to the editorial rule in question). "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." - consider that this is not even a presentation of future events, but predicted, verifiable, historic events.
  • Delete and salt - this is hopelessly non-neutral OR and will never be anything but. Who says these "prophecies are beyond reproach"? Knowledge (XXG) is not a soapbox for fundamentalist POV-pushing; if the creator wants to save the work they've put into this article, I'm sure Aschlafly would manage to find a home for it — iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Bible isnt factual by any means and wiki shouldnt be a place to interpret religious predictions made in various works. None of the "proof citations" can be directly traced to the prophecies Corpx 12:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 13:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete because Knowledge (XXG) is not Sunday school. Let's avoid this kind of pseudo-scholarship that is basically a sermon. Such "prophecies" often end with Christians "proving" Jesus' arrival and Jews "proving" that Christianity is false. Guilty of WP:NEO and WP:OR. IZAK 13:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete & Salt This is definitely a textbook example of POV pushing and original research. The entire article is open to interpretation, which is clearly what the editor has done. He has taken passages from the Bible that supposedly foreshadow present day events and shown, in his opinion, how those prophecies have been fulfilled. How can any of the information in this article be atrributed to any reliable secondary sources? It can't. I wholeheartedly disagree with everything in the article and believe it should be deleted and protected so that it will never be recreated. --Cyrus Andiron 13:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, weakly, as written. There is a vast literature on this subject, and I am certain that a worthwhile article could be written on the topic. It should not present controversial issues of exegesis or historical interpretation (e.g. that the Zionist regime in Palestine represents fulfilment of Biblical prophecy) as accepted facts. But any worthwhile article ought to be recreated from scratch, and appear under a NPOV title. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment The 'Zionist regime in Palestine'? If we're talking NPOV that'd be 'Israel' then would it? Nick mallory 14:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment. In the current context, "Israel" would be ambiguous. The unanimous teaching of the Christian churches for 1800 years was that the body of Christian believers is the new Israel of God, and that it has replaced the Jewish faith. In the 19th century, this traditional tenet was challenged, and the new doctrine became standard among end times prophecy buffs. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not pointing out anything but a fact of geography. The country has a name and that name is Israel. Nick mallory 16:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete speculative original research. --MPerel 05:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Even if sourcing and WP:OR issues could be addressed, this list-type approach is inherently POV. The issues are too complex to be legitimately presentable in a list. There are different POVs on what the various prophecies meant, or whether particular historical events corresponded to them. An article-type format is necessary for any serious, legitimate, WP:NPOV article on such an issue. A more neutral title is needed as well. --Shirahadasha 04:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - While an article is under construction it is difficult to determine what the end result will look like. This is an entirely different article from Bible Prophecy. Yes, it is a POV article, but that events relating to the formation of the modern state of Israel are a fulfilment of prophecy is a widely held view in certain Christian circles. I would like to see the creator being allowed to develop his article. I suspect that the addition of a brief sceptical statement to the introduction such as 'Certain Christians claim that the following are examples of prohecy fulfilled in modern times' would be sufficient to redeem it. It is not original research, as I have seen views of this kind in works such as Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth, a book with whose views I profoundly disagree - but it exists. However, a great deal of theological speculation has been undertaken into escatology, and biblical prophecy of the end of the world and the prophesied Second Coming of Christ. There is no reason why such material should not be reflected in WP. I would further add that it is extremely bad form for admins to delete new articles before their authors have had a chance to complete writing them. I speak as one who has suffered from that, before I descovered the {{in use}} and {{Underconstruction}} tags. Peterkingiron 23:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The more I look at what there is out there already, the more I think this is an article dealing with serious issues, which some Christians believe. I have looked at Christian eschatology, Unfulfilled Historical Predictions by Christians, Summary of Christian eschatological differences, and End times. I can find nothing else that deals with the subject matter of the article, I therefore upgrade my view to Strong Keep. In passing, I would mention that End times is an incomplete article that appears to he paralleling eschatology: that might well be a candidate for AFD. This one should not be. Perhaps the response to the immediate deletion should have been to ask for a deletion review, or to contact the admin responsible to ask him to reverse his actions and give the author time to complete the article. However it should not be an admin's job to delete new articles that (except obvious spam), just because they disagree with them. The PROD and AFD procedures are a much better way of resolving these disputes. Perhaps the admin responsible should be disciplined (or have admin rights removed). Peterkingiron 11:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • delete.--רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 21:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment by Author: Note POV improvements to page as well as declaring it as 'under construction'. Added a TODO list which should address OR concerns: Get citations about the historic & prophetic value of the Bible - possibly from "Bible Evidences Authority Etc" section at `The World's Largest Online Library`, Questia. There are 8 books listed and 28 journal articles. JLMarais 01:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment by Author: Added more contextual backround through mention & linking in 'Christian Zionism' which futher establishes some of the ideas presented in a non-OR way.
  • Delete as pov and OR. -- Chabuk 02:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment / request by Author: Request to postpone deletion decision to provide time to cite according to requirements where needed & make other corrections if any are suggested.
    • Comment The new version is still totally unsourced, and contains at least one flat-out lie in "The United Nations has never condemned Arabs countries for any military act" (checkable in all of 10 seconds on the list of resolutions — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment by Author: I responded on Iridescenti's talk page. Inserted here for convenience: I don't understand by what you mean by totally unsourced. "Embedded HTML links" is an acceptable way to cite according to policy as far as I could tell. I restructured the article as per recommendations from other editors & adapted the 'lie' you mentioned (it wasn't 100% correct, but not far off) and added a book citation for it.
  • delete I recognize that the article is under construction, but it is just a new version of an old article and it seems to be hopelessly OR and POV. Not to mention that adding an 'under construction' tag to an article doesn't make it immune to deletion. Makerowner 00:31, 6 May 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. --Coredesat 07:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Stolen Mix Tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The way this is described, it's kind of a precursor to itunes for the independent musician. This is good, but what I see out there in a quick google test is that there's a lot of usage - but no notability. Article seems a bit on the spammy side. Created a month and a half ago, no recent changes to bring it up to standard have been taken on. Shall we discuss? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Reading this article, I find little evidence that it's actually notable. Being primarily a music download site, it should fall under the same notability guidelines as websites and companies, and I see no evidence of this. The contributors to this page have listed some features of this site they claim are unique (not independently sourced, though), but fancy features do not a notable entity make. Further, I'm suspicious of any article in which an editor actually wrote "The Stolen Mix Tape download store is notable because..." Further, carrying music from notable artists and bands does not make one notable. I wouldn't consider notable every store that ever sold a Beatles album, nor would I consider notable even those stores that an actual Beatle walked into. It's not terribly hard to establish notability for a company that is actually notable, so without independent claims of such I must endorse deletion. Someguy1221 06:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:NOT and it reads like an advertisement. No claims of notability. Ibanix 21:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Could easily be sthg taken off a commercial website. Delete per WP:SPAM. Ohconfucius 08:52, 3 May 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. --Coredesat 07:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

George Dewey Moore Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable soldier. Also, major facts such as date of birth were withdrawn at the request of family by creator. +Hexagon1 06:33, 1 May 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 a7, no assertion of notability (asserting that you're a self-published author on Lulu isn't an assertion of notability). NawlinWiki 17:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

An unencyclopedic article on a self-published author who fails WP:BIO. The creation by a single purpose account. Victoriagirl 06:39, 1 May 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. --Coredesat 07:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

James E. F. Riley, Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An unencyclopedic article about a self-published author who fails WP:BIO. The creation of Jrileysrie, a single purpose account. Victoriagirl 07:25, 1 May 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. Renaming or merging the article can be discussed on the talk page. --Coredesat 07:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The purpose of this AfD is to give the community a chance, for the first time since the controversy erupted, to (try to) have a cool-headed discussion about whether or not the subject of this article meets our standards for inclusion. This is a good-faith nomination, that needs a full conversation.

The first AfD, at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Essjay, was closed as no consensus: the article was nominated for deletion at the height of the controversy, on the day the article was created. The AfD seemed to go off the rails, with much heated debate about Essjay and the whole situation, rather than merits of the article, which itself was in extreme flux, renamed several times over the course of the AfD with more than 500 edits on the article and a ton of discussion all over the place. The closing admin, A Man In Black, noted that the AfD was quite "messy," and his decision was without prejudice to the article's renomination.

Unfortunately the article was renommed the same day as MIB's close. Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Essjay controversy was procedurally speedy-closed, as was Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Essjay controversy (3rd nomination) which appeared four days later.

There has been time for the article to find its balance, and there has been time for the community to breathe a bit and calm down, although this issue is still quite contentious, no doubt. No matter what, the focus needs to be on the article and if it fits our standards for inclusion, not the subject of the article.

Now this isn't a procedural nomination with no opinion about whether or not it should stay - I do have an opinion on the matter, and I feel the article should be deleted. The media coverage that surrounded the controversy is undeniable. But two months on, one must question the significance of the events. Yes, it is significant to us, but after the initial media brouhaha, the outside world could care less. The (main) space is not for self references, I don't feel the issue is universally notable, and the issue of credentials on Knowledge (XXG) can succinctly be discussed at Criticism of Knowledge (XXG). Thank you. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. I agree with Jeffrey. This was significant at the time, but more for Knowledge (XXG) than beyond it. Ultimately it was news for a while. But we are not here to report news- that is what Wikinews is for. We cannot dedicate entire articles everytime someone does something newsworthy. Image how many "George Bush controversy" articles we would need to do that... The problem is all the more acute where the person concerned is not in themselves notable. A valiant attempt has been made to write an article here, but it remains a lenghty discussion of an incident that hard short-term media attention. No doubt some reference to this incident (or more importantly to the issue of credential verification) can be made at Criticisms of Knowledge (XXG), but I see no future for this as a stand alone article. The fact that it concerns Knowledge (XXG) is to my mind a red hering- we should neither delete because it concerns us or keep for fear of comment should we delete. Its simply a matter of news vs. encyclopedic content. This was the former and keeping it sets a bad precedent for our willingess to cover events of short-term newsworthiness (as opposed to true notability). The number of sources are not the issue here, but their nature and the short timespace they cover are. Fundamentally I don't think this is an encyclopedic subject. WjBscribe 07:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or (if we must) redirect to Criticism of Knowledge (XXG). This is not an event deserving of its own article. Yes it seemed/seems like a big event to us, but lets step out of our little wikibubble for a moment... delete per nom Glen 07:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - And let me make it clear, in case anyone was wondering (as there is bound to be some), this is not an attempt to save Essjay from having a negative article on him (I was never a big fan of him) nor an attempt at sparing the Foundation or certain higher-ups from criticism (I'm not too fond of the Foundation, either). This is here because I feel the subject does not meet notability guidelines. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:ASR specifically allows for "Articles about prominent people involved in Knowledge (XXG) and 'Essjay' was the subject of articles in the New Yorker, the New York Times etc etc because of his involvement with Knowledge (XXG). How is this not notable? Nick mallory 09:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It was the subject of discussion in lots of independent, non trivial, reliable sources and I was under the impression that that was the criteria for notability. Just because it reflects poorly on Knowledge (XXG) is no reason to delete it, that indeed would smack of censorship and would leapt upon anew by Knowledge (XXG)'s detractors. Just because the media attention was 'short term' doesn't mean it's not notable. Nearly every news story is 'short term' because that's the nature of news. Nick mallory 07:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Again, the deletion rationale has nothing to do with the article giving Knowledge (XXG) a bad name. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Our notability standards are clearly different to our requirement of multiple verifiable sources. You are conflating WP:N with WP:V. Every item that makes the news each day is usually reported by a number of TV stations, newspapers and there will be a few editorials. In other words, if our only requirement is sources, people would be free to write articles about each item in the day's news. But Knowledge (XXG) does not as an encyclopedia carry such articles. We have a separate Wiki for that, Wikinews. Its coverage of this controversy is very good (and is where such coverage belongs). WjBscribe 07:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Question: What makes a news story notable enough for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) rather than Wikinews? Sancho (Review me) 08:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Good question. I would expect there to be (a) ongoing reliable coverage sometime after the event, (b) some sort of wider effect/ change caused by the incident in question and (c) to have an impact on more than small community (ie. not be too local). Things like natural disasters or (for a recent example) the Virginia Tech massacre have a clear longevity that makes them worthy of encyclopedic coverage. A lot has been written about George W Bush choking on a pretzel. We don't have an article on "Bush and pretzels", but we do have one for the massacre. It seems to me a matter of commons sense. WjBscribe 08:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
So there's no article on A Million Little Pieces or other 'here today, gone tomorrow' fabrication flaps then? If, for example, exactly the same amount of coverage had been given to an otherwise unnotable Government official fabricating their qualifications, would we be having this discussion about deleting an article upon them? Nick mallory 08:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I hope so. If a non-notable person is involved in scandal that gets some press coverage for a while and then passes, but no great change results from it- we as an encyclopedia would have no reason to cover it. And every reason not to - ie. WP:BLP. WjBscribe 08:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Where's the Knowledge (XXG) policy that says all that exactly? It sounds like you're making that up as you go along to be honest. This incident has multiple etc sources - it got a LOT of press attention - and that's the criteria for inclusion. It is important in how it affected Knowledge (XXG)'s credibility at the time and, who knows, in the future. If this had affected any other organisation and got a similar amount of coverage it would be covered here, no question. Nick mallory 08:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment WP:N says "Note 3: Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute independent works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works." A former proposed guideline which is now an essay, WP:NOTNEWS, has further thoughts on this issue which express the views of several editors, that something can be highly newsworthy, a veritable "water cooler story" or "must see video clip" without belonging in an encyclopedia. Edison 16:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Is the subject of mulitple non-trivial published works by very reliable sources. A very WP:POINT AfD. --Oakshade 08:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I beg your pardon? I see no reason to suggest that Jeffrey is "trying to disrupt Knowledge (XXG) to make a point", which is the policy you link to. Please reconsider so casually making a serious accusation against an editor in good standing. It was throughout the previous processes made clear that it would be a good idea to reconsider the status of this article once the dust had settled and tempers had calmed- the nomination should come as a surprise to no one. WjBscribe 08:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Knowledge (XXG) is not a news service. An item like this blew up on the internet because it took place on the internet, and events there tend to explode out of all proportions. At the end of the day it is a simple case of a person misrepresenting himself on the internet, without really damaging anything except perhaps the credibility of Knowledge (XXG) (which is very dented anyway), a very common occurrence and without any long-lasting significant implications. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment Lots of things blow up on the internet. The point is this was covered by a host of major newspapers and broadcasters. The New York Times , BBC News and The Daily Telegraph for example. What exactly are Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair notable for again? Nick mallory 08:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
But they are notable. Coverage in each case lasted for years afterwards and Glass was even the subject of a film. If someone decides to make a film about this a year down the line (or if those publications are discussing this by then), I will concede notability. Though it would be one hell of a dull film. WjBscribe 08:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid I have not heard about the Glass incident, but regarding Jayson Blair, we are talking about a whole different perspective. Blair damaged the credibility and itegrity of a well-respected, generally reliable newspaper by printing fake stories. Essjay damaged the perceived credibility of a already somewhat tarnished website by misrepresenting himself, not by writing fake articles or hoaxes. Indeed, there are no reports of Essjay's contributions being bad. The Essjay story is less notable because the damage caused was much much much smaller, and because I cannot believe that creating a false persona on a website where people can edit anonymously is as big as a journalist getting employed in a company where there should be some serious controls going far beyond a wiki-like all volunteer "RC patrol". Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
So Knowledge (XXG) doesn't want to be "well-respected" or "generally reliable" then? If Knowledge (XXG) doesn't matter then what are we all doing wasting our time writing articles for it? Nick mallory 09:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The nature of anonymous contributions without peer or editor review means that Knowledge (XXG) is not regarded as a reliable editor-reviewed and publication the same way the NY Times is. It is for this reason Knowledge (XXG) is not regarded as a reliable source. I am not saying Knowledge (XXG) is useless, because as a starting point for research, it is brilliant. However, a person writing up nonsense on Knowledge (XXG) is not a big story, it is a part of daily life here. But someone adding nonsense into a finished product like a newspaper, which ought to have a review and fact-checking process beyond anything we have on Knowledge (XXG), and gets the nonsense published and sold, is a bigger issue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It passes WP:N. There is no reason to exclude this article, so... why exclude it? --Dookama 09:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Despite my heart saying delete, a dispassionate view sees it as notable and referenced. --Dweller 10:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I would prefer this as a redirect, but would weakly accept keep. I don't think there is really debate about whether the content should be included. It is well-sourced and a valid aspect of Criticism of Knowledge (XXG). The question is whether it should be an article or a section in the Criticsm article that is its parent. I am inclined to think that the section in the parent article (currently ~700 words) is more than adequate. This isn't the Seigenthaler controversy, I don't think; instead of defamatory comments about a public figure, this was basically a "personnel issue" -- an employee with a padded resume. But in the end, the decision of what to make articles and what to make article sections is an editorial one (and not an AFD topic, strictly). If this is retained on its own, however, the passage in the parent article needs to be condensed considerably to avoid the impression of undue weight and recentism. Serpent's Choice 10:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as a balanced and properly sourced record of a notable incident. We might not want to remember it, but many others do and will keep bringing it up, so that alone is good reason for the topic to be properly covered. We don't delete historical incidents when they're out of the news for a month or two. .. dave souza, talk 10:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The length and depth of the article is way out of proportion to its importance, but in light of its wide media coverage I don't see anyone offering a compelling reason it doesn't fulfill WP:N. dharmabum 11:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I originally voted delete at the last nomination, but since then I feel the article has been improved to the point where it would no longer be reasonable to suggest merging its content into Criticism of Knowledge (XXG) as I supported at the time. I don't see any reason why the topic shouldn't be covered in this much depth: wikipedia is not paper, and the article is well-enough sourced to support its content. JulesH 11:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Just because it happened here, doesn't mean we can't have an impartial article on it. Personally, I'd rather someone searching for information on the matter found out about it here, rather than from Daniel Brandt — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This was a major and transforming event for a top ten website. WAS 4.250 12:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Extensive media coverage, significant event for a major Internet site, meets any reasonable notability standard, careful sourcing for every assertion. Casey Abell 12:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment By the way, any fond hope that this controversy will fade from the media is badly mistaken. Within the last two weeks, the Google news cache picked up references at PC World, History News Network, and The Sydney Morning Herald among others. This will endure in the media like the Siegenthaler incident, and will rise again in force whenever there is a publicized dispute over Knowledge (XXG)'s accuracy. In fact, the Herald reminded everybody of the incident just because Jimbo happened to be in town. When public disputes over Knowledge (XXG)'s reliability occur - and they will occur, don't kid yourself - we better have articles on both of the Knowledge (XXG) trauma twins, Siegenthaler and Essjay. Otherwise, there will be justified charges that Knowledge (XXG) attempted to bury the less savory episodes in its past by deleting either or both of the articles. Casey Abell 19:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly notable topic, appropriately sourced article. This thing is part of Knowledge (XXG)'s history. However, it would be interesting to delete it and see the clumsy cover-up make the news too. Then someone would write an article about that, which would be nominated for deletion ... . Stammer 14:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Whether or not the media attention has passed on is irrelevant, as notability is not lost over time. Tarc 15:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, a major event worthy of coverage in its own article. This is the backlash result of an overzealous desire not to talk about internet or wikipedia-related topics, when about any other organization they'd be considered legitimate. Complaints about 'short term newsworthiness' are BS. If it's got enough coverage, we can cover it, we're not paper, don't worry about it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see any issue with the notability of the event. InBC 15:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Well-sourced article about an event with more than short-term notability. NawlinWiki 17:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There are a sufficient number of stories with substantial coverage from reliable and independent publications to satisfy WP:N and WP:A, so it would look like a case of censorship to protect Knowledge (XXG) from criticism if we went deleted the article on the subject. If the stand-alone article were deleted, then the section in "Criticisms" talking about this controversy would need to about double and would grow excessively long. The same principles apply to Essjay as to Stephen Glass ,Jayson Blair and more recently Marilee Jones. Edison 18:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per comments by nominator who wrote in part: "The media coverage that surrounded the controversy is undeniable." and snowballing of keep votes. End of discussion. :) - Mr.Gurü (/contribs) 18:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sjakkalle. Not everything that makes it to press is noteworthy of an encyclopedia entry. -- Psy guy 18:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is clearly WP:N, part of a longstanding thread of criticism of Knowledge (XXG) in the press -- and indeed probably the most noticed Knowledge (XXG)-related controversy since Siegenthaler. Knowledge (XXG) is a global top 10 website, so it's entirely reasonable to treat this as a notable controversy. --Dhartung | Talk 19:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable. It happened, it's well documented, and it happened to WP, what's the problem? Frankly, it should be here, so if people have questions, there's an answer. If anything, put it in WP: space. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename with Knowledge (XXG) in title WatchingYouLikeAHawk 21:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and ban nominating for 6-months. These are just attempts to game the system. Keep nominating until you catch people off guard and get a delete vote. It can be nominated and be saved 999 times, but all it takes is one voting session to get it deleted, and make it forgotten. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to further this statement, I find it curious that this AfD began at what was the middle of the night in the United States (7:26 UTC) and 3 of the total 4 delete votes in this AfD so far occurred in the first hour of it. Not saying that this AfD was "gaming the system" to get a speedy delete, but it certainly does raise an eyebrow. --Oakshade 21:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Intimidation, that's the way to go! See WP:AGF. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 22:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep passes WP:N, the "no self-refernces" argument is a straw-man; I suppose the nominator with equal vigor would want to delete the Knowledge (XXG) article because of the dreaded self-reference. Carlossuarez46 21:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, stable, well-sourced article on a notable topic that isn't going away. Risker 22:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I'd say The New York Times and ABC News qualify as non-trivial sources. Quadzilla99 23:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Criticism of Knowledge (XXG). Not to say it's not notable or not important, but it doesn't stand well on its own, but it reads like overblown journalism, complete with a timeline and quotes to flesh it out. The whole thing spanned a very short time and would fit better in an article with a broader context. --Wafulz 00:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The controversy is still being discussed in the media, according to this April 24/07 article. Risker 00:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. It is a notable event, and no significant problems exist with the article any more now that the potential BLP problems of having an article on Essjay himself (rather than the event) have been dealt with. I previously supported merging into the general criticism article, but doing so now would detract from the encyclopedia either due to loss of cited information or making the criticism article excessively long. --tjstrf talk 00:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This can be linked to as an article off of Knowledge (XXG) Criticism, but it is both notable (number of media references) and provides valueable history for new Knowledge (XXG) contributors like myself. Ibanix 01:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I had thought (or maybe just hoped) that this subject had been settled. There are unimpeachable media references, and that is sufficient for the basic N. (dozens more could probably be found, and I expect them to be coming in for years). Let's face it--like it or not, the major things that happen at Knowledge (XXG) are notable, and so are the major personalies. We have no more right to delete coverage of our worst moments or the people whose deeds have been the most unfortunate to us, than any other organization has. There is WP:COI in trying to delete articles on the subject. I share the COI, but we can all deal with it by objectivity. The media sources are sufficient, and that should be the end of the argument. Incidentally, I would consider that the Knowledge (XXG) Signpost is a RS. It's coverage is unbiased, it is carefully edited, there is a named editor in chief, and the articles carry by-lines. DGG 02:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has became a notable event. Don't reopen till next year.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Plenty of coverage that demonstrates notability. Maxamegalon2000 05:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep we kept details on the Siegenthaler Incident... and this incident got way more media coverage.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this story got world-wide coverage (e.g. I saw it in several Danish media), but rename to include "Knowledge (XXG)" in the title. Valentinian 09:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete but move to Knowledge (XXG): "space". I don't really think this is appropriate for our encyclopedia as if this was an event centering around another website, i.e. Digg or Slashdot or something, it would probably be deleted as "non notable". It's only really here because people on this site heard so much about it because it affected this site directly and therefore I think you guys have a skewed perception of the media coverage. I do, however, think it should be kept around so that people who are new to the site (like myself) can find out about what happened (because I've seen it mentioned all over the place) from a non-POV perspective (i.e. negative or positive spin on the controversy by wikipedia editors). Kamryn Matika 13:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I really can't see any reason why this should be deleted. Pathlessdesert 15:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable event which made the news, important in the history of Knowledge (XXG), deletion would seem like Knowledge (XXG) trying to sweep it under the carpet. SynergyBlades 16:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
We shouldn't worry about appearances. The reasons for keeping or deleting should be separate from whether or not it seems like we're trying to hide something. Sancho (Review me) 16:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Comment: Although only a guideline, the notion that notability is generally permanent seems to apply here. However, it is a confusing point considering that many topics are deferred to Wikinews. I guess without guideline clarifying what news stories are encyclopedic enough for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) rather than Wikinews, the only thing we can do is exactly this — case-by-case discussion. Sancho (Review me) 16:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is important WP history. - grubber 16:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is notable. I have seen it mentioned in Time magazine, it was on the front page of CNN fopr two days, and so on. Agree with suggestions that this should not be nominated for de;etion for a period of time. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 18:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Suggest speedy keep. As deletion now seems to have a snowball's chance. Sancho (Review me) 19:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article clearly meets all standards of notability, and all of the information can be verified by reliable sources, we should not have special standards of inclusion for Knowledge (XXG) related content that is notable to the outside world.--RWR8189 19:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This incident has been covered extensively outside of Knowledge (XXG), and unlike articles about individual student victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, contains much that cannot easily be placed elsewhere. Nyttend 21:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Formative event for Knowledge (XXG), excellent sources. Quatloo 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - although the nomination was made in good faith, it still doesn't merit deletion, as the article demonstrates multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Therefore it meets WP:N. Walton 12:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to... some other article, and trim heavyhandedly. Just because we can write about this based on extensive press coverage doesn't mean we necessarily should make it extensive enough to warrant an article of its own. We had an event; You can describe the event succinctly in a paragraph at most. We had implications; we can and should discuss those in context of the common Knowledge (XXG) criticisms and history, but just explaining what this thing lead to makes me Not Care. When we describe current events, we forget the idea that succinctness is gold. We're not a current news portal. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, and I really urge people who are !voting "Keep" here to consider the mergeability, especially if all you're concerned are the media visibility and importance of this topic. I think it's pretty clear that there's no question of notability and sourcing; however, take a good look at the article and ask yourself "do we really need yet another split off article about Knowledge (XXG) history?". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • This is a major event in Knowledge (XXG)'s history. If you are going to ask "Do we really need" questions, perhaps you might start with more pressing matters, such as, Do we really need an article on each of the 400 Simpsons episodes? Quatloo 04:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Knowledge (XXG):Essjay Controversy It is important in the history of Knowledge (XXG) but not notable in the wider world. A1octopus 16:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Non-trivial coverage by multiple, independent, reliable sources. Clearly a notable topic. DickClarkMises 16:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Anything that gets major attention from the New York Times (as this did), and altered the view of a major website (I.E. Knowledge (XXG)), is very notable. I heard about this from several sources. The Star Tribune mentoined it, and so did the Signpost and Wikizine. THe times had an article on it, and of Course, the New Yorker had something on it. It's totally Notable. Knowledge (XXG)'s False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 18:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but in Knowledge (XXG):Essajay controversy like A1octopus. Essjay thing is very famous now so more ppl, especially Wikipedians are interested in this topic.--~KnowledgeHegemony~ 19:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Not having a login, I won't vote - I know that's not the wikipedia way, but I just dropped by to comment on this via a link from a friend. I just wanted to say that I think it should be kept, as it can prove instructional for other users - "Verify your sources, because we don't want to go through this sort of a thing again. I'm sorry, nothing personal, we just can't afford something like that again." Or perhaps something that doesn't sound like it has potential for sarcasm - I lack the way with words I used to have. 69.109.185.239 00:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Amply covered by mainstream news, so I don't think there'd be any doubt that it meets WP:N if it hadn't involved Knowledge (XXG). It joins Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, Lee Siegel, Binjamin Wilkomirski, Laura Grabowski, Gerd Heidemann (of the Hitler Diaries), and Clifford Irving's fake Howard Hughes autobiography, as a cautionary tale of hoaxing. -- Ben /HIST 01:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good grief; passes WP:WEB indisputably. --Gwern (contribs) 03:21 4 May 2007 (GMT)
  • Keep - Prominent imposture. If we delete this we will be surely accused of hypocricy and hiding our mistakes - Skysmith 11:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per all the reasons already stated. It passes the test of notability, without question. --pIrish 14:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Slow news days does not make this notable. Only shows that the mainstream news still doesn't know what they're talking about (regarding Internet coverage), they just like to jump on whatever is "hot" at that moment. The moment has passed. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It's been a while since I've seen the "reliable sources are unreliable" arguement. I'll use only one example to counter the non-sensical "slow newsday" charge. When this story was in BBC News on March 6 , they also reported an extremely deadly earthquake in Indonesia. Slow news day? --Oakshade 04:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I guess we'll have to make some amendments to WP:RS. How about: when citing an otherwise reliable source, one must check whether there were significant news stories occurring on that day. If not, then the source fails to be reliable, due to WP:SLOWNEWSDAY. I guess we'll need guidelines to objectively determine whether competing news stories are siginificant enough too. Well, let's get to it. --SubSeven 05:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Oakshade, where in my message did I say anything about reliable sources? Oh wait, that had nothing whatsoever to do with my argument.... My comment about slow news days was tongue-in-cheek, which apparently when over a few people's heads. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Ned Scott, "Only shows that the mainstream news still doesn't know what they're talking about ..." came accross as an attack on what WP considers reliable sources, ie "mainstream news." WP believes "mainstream news" to be reliable unless proven otherwise. --Oakshade 06:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
          • That is not what I am saying. The news reported facts, but gave undue weight to the situation because they didn't know what they were talking about. They're so quick to jump on the idea of someone lieing on Knowledge (XXG), even though it happens all the time. One report that was televised didn't even mention why it was a big deal (that he lied in debates or that he held a high position of access). My point is that just because someone reports something doesn't make it a real issue / notable / whatever. So again, while they can be used as a source, they are not always the full story and can give undue weight to a situation. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, this article meets and far exceeds all of our inclusionary standards. Give it a rest. RFerreira 06:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Plenty of coverage in mainstream press, and the incident is still being brought up. I was just at a conference a couple weeks ago, where "the Essjay thing" was mentioned as part of someone else's talk. The controversy was clearly notable. --Elonka 01:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Criticism of Knowledge (XXG) per Wafulz's comment. – Rianaऋ 07:11, 6 May 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. --Coredesat 07:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

No assertion of notability other than an unsuccessful run for New South Wales state parliament. The article is unsourced and mostly trivial in nature. Mattinbgn/ 08:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

a) Article does not indicate notability - it is not notable to be the first woman to stand for Toongabbie given Toongabbie was created as an electorate for the first time this year. Everyone who stood for Toongabbie did so for the first time (first man, first person with brown hair, first person named Kirsty and so on).
b) No record of political activism - article does not claim leadership on any issue or community campaign, and an internet search reveals only political blogs and incidental references
c) No realistic prospect of success - no disrespect to Ms Lloyd, but she attracted only 27% of the vote and was never in the running for what is a safe Labor seat.
d) Not the first woman to seek representation for this area - Toongabbie is the old electorate of Wentworthville renamed. Wentworthville was represented by Ms Pam Allan, further invalidating Ms Lloyd's notability claims (first woman candidate)
e) no sources, no photos, nothing that would be lost if this article was removed and recreated should Ms lloyd achieve notability at a future election. Euryalus 08:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted by User:Edgar181. NawlinWiki 18:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Nonsense Article Youngandsenile 08:31, 1 May 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. --Coredesat 07:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Lords of the Greens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article bears all the hallmarks of being a hoax :: Kevinalewis : /(Desk) 09:49, 1 May 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. While the tone of the article is admirably free of hyperbole, it fails the primary criterion of WP:CORP, namely being the subject of multiple independent secondary sources. All footnotes are to the corporate website. In "External links", the first two links are to corporate sites. The next three are to public relations pieces written by the company. The fourth link, titled "Newsletter from e-crime Congress 2007- reference to iDovos", is to a sponsor banner in which Mantissa is noted. The remaining links are not much better, including several symposium participant lists in which Mantissa is one of dozens. The best link appears to be this, conference notes, which include an description of a Mantissa employee's presentation. However, this is clearly incidental to the coverage of the conference as a whole and is from a low credibility source. While it certainly appears that such an old software company should have better media coverage, such coverage does not appear to actually exist. Notability is thus not established. - BanyanTree 02:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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

It seems to me to be promotional. The company is small (the are only distribution agents in other countries) and the article it's a list and a description of products. The overview is a descriotion of strategies and new products. The footnotes are referenced to pages of websites and the links are autoreferential. In this state it's not relevant for Knowledge (XXG). --Ilario 10:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • In reference to Ilario's above comment: Understand your concern. However, you will note the absence of any qualifying adjectives, e.g. good product or bad product. Products are merely described, not evaluated in terms of quality. In this, it seems to me that this page differs little from other corporate Knowledge (XXG) entries (see BMC, Computer Associates, etc)...Sathrif 17:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that an user has inserted this article in different Wikipedias and it is the his single contribution. I think that could be an "organized" spamming. --Ilario 12:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, weakly. This business may well be notable; it is a software company founded in 1980, which makes it as old as the Pyramids. The description given of the company is refreshingly readable and reasonably free from buzzwords, if not jargon. But if it were to be kept reliable sources would be needed to support the assertions in text; the instant article refers to nothing but the company's official website and press releases it has issued. Delete if these issues are not addressed. If kept, move to Mantissa Corporation for standard capitalisation of a proper noun. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In reference to Ilario's above comment: No organized spamming campaign is underway, just a simple, even if clumsy, individual attempt on my part to translate the material into multiple languages. However, I recognize the challenges to maintaining NPOV in regards to corporate pages, and would welcome any attempt at improving upon that aspect before summarily cancelling it. Also, as I've stated in my responses to your calls for cancellation in it:wikipedia and fr:wikipedia, no automatic translations have been employed here. As for it being my sole contribution, that is true, I am bran new to Knowledge (XXG) and therefore defer to the judgment of the Knowledge (XXG) community...Sathrif 17:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
'Sources?There are two sources listed only as "online article" from findarticles,, but that is not a source, the source is the journal or other publication to which access is provided--all online articles are not equal. In this case they are both from Marketwire, which is not altogether free of reliance upon PR. I see no truly independent sources. DGG 03:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm unable to find any news articles related to this company. Claims of notability don't count for much without independent sources...But as a message for Sathrif, if you could but find a couple articles from a major news source (major newspaper, news station, magazine, the AP) supporting the notability claims, then there would be little to delete this for. POV is fixable. Someguy1221 09:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
-Understood, and I appreciate everyone's input and guidance here. I will see if I can find some more effective references...Sathrif 14:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Have inserted additional links in an effort to address concerns as to whether or not this article meets notability standards. Again, thanks for all of your input...Sathrif 20:51, 8 May 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 -- Samir 03:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

F.C. United of Manchester season 2005-06 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

While there's a good case for keeping season-by-season articles on major teams, or on particularly interesting seasons for other teams (such as Wimbledon's promotion seasons, or Chesterfield's cup-run year), I can see no reason for keeping a season-by-season breakdown of a minor team in such absurd detail. I've not {{prod}}ded or merge-and-redirected this, because someone's obviously put a lot of work into this and it seems fair to give other people the chance to make a case for keeping articles like this, especially since any decision here will set a precedent for other minor teams. Note to Americans bemused by the European football pyramid structure; this is not an article about Manchester United F.C., who probably are vaguely noteworthy; F.C. United of Manchester is a semi-professional non-league outfit founded by disgruntled fans who play in the Unibond League (the seventh tier of the English footballing pyramid) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Before voting, you mention the Manchester United treble winning season being a notable season. I just wonder if the season in question for FC United of Manchester (FCUM), is notable, for the simple fact that it was not only their first ever season, but that they were Champions of that league in their first ever season. And that was maybe why the article was added and maybe could be a reason for it to be kept? Of course it might not be, and it might be that it should be deleted, but I just wanted to ask first?♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 13:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The article was actually added by being broken out of the main FCUM article as part of a drive by the Non-League Football project to reduce the ridiculous level of detail on there, which included all this info on their first season, lengthy pen pictures of all the players, and a whole lot more..... ChrisTheDude 14:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I deliberately nominated this in a very wishy-washy way precisely because I can (just about) see reasons to keep it. However, since we don't have articles on famous seasons for far more successful teams such as Arsenal 03/04, Wimbledon 87/88, Liverpool 00/01 etc it does seem a bit weird for a non-league club's season to get a full article (even a big non-league club) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Translation of the above for non-football types wondering what the hell I'm talking about: Arsenal's unique unbeaten season; Wimbledon's mob of no-hopers & rejects winning the FA Cup; Liverpool winning the FA, League & UEFA cups in the same season — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment I actually created the page in the first place. The reason for the page was that FCUM's own page was being constantly updated to include minor trivia and essentially match reports, this page was essentially all the detail from that page, expanded a bit. Attempts to delete or prevent this happening were just being ignored etc. I assumed the best way to do this would be to create a season page - I know there are examples of 'good' seasons for other teams without pages, but so are there other examples of similar pages. It enabled us to strip down the main FCUM page without over emotional people whacking all the content they'd lovingly typed back in. I don't mind if it gets deleted, just make sure you keep deleting irrelevant comment and match reports off the fcum page. --Gavinio 20:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. HornetMike 12:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The fact of their winning a title in their debut season is certainly worthy of inclusion in the team's article, but this is not a notable season. --Dweller 14:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is a record of the first season of a club about whom their are acres of secondary sources. TerriersFan 15:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge & Redirect back into main article - noteworthy as they are for a 7th tier side, I don't think we can support separate articles for seasons at the moment. It only needs to be a short paragraph - see a very relevant example, A.F.C. Wimbledon. Edit: there's already a perfectly serviceable paragraph on the season in the main article, so Delete.EliminatorJR 18:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, team is probably too minor. Punkmorten 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This was FCUM's first season and thus a very special one. Team isn't too minor, the last few years have seen a number of teams starting out in the minor leagues, but with the attendance numbers and regional importance of top clubs. There was a ton of independent articles and research about this sociological phenomenon. Malc82 09:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment re all but your first sentence... This AfD isn't about the team - no-one disputes the notability of the team. It's the season that is possibly not notable. --Dweller 10:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Dweller above, the team is probably notable, winning the division in their first season is possibly notable, but the season itself, I don't see it beyond sentimental (and therefore non-Wikipedian) reasons. Ytny (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge back to main article, but shorten. This is a minor league club, and probably barely notable in its own right. Having separate articles for each season is not warranted. Peterkingiron 23:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This article exists because the decision was made by regular wikipedians who edit the team's article that the content here for season 2005-06 (which was originally in the main article) was too long and unwieldy. I don't see a case for it to continue to exist. Steve-Ho 07:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I think dividing by team and season is far too detailed and crufty, and all such articles should be deleted. Qwghlm 10:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ref (do) 23:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this and any other season-by-season resume for any football club, including the major ones. Far too much detail. - fchd 06:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, possibly suggesting to merge it into a History of F.C. United of Manchester page. --Angelo 02:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per nom. Personally I was against to have season by season for every major team, history and season by season for every league would have been enough and include for major teams only season like MUFC 1998-99 etc.. It was decided that major team can have such articles. Now we see articles for such minor teams of so very low level. Can you imagine if every team, even from such level, has its own article about every season? There would have been million such articles in wikipedia. I think a brief about the history of FCUM on the article of that club is enough - User:KRBN 19:53, 8 May 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Steve Van Dyck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, despite his work on the Mahogany Glider Johnbod 03:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your personal opinion. Dr. Steve Van Dyck is a very important member of the Zoology and Natural history museum community. His work is not only about the Mahongany Glider — he is the Curator of Mammals at the Queensland Museum — however, his work with the Mahogany Glider has been a very important part of his work. The problem is with the fact that he is not known to the non-science general public at large world-wide for his work, despite his many scientific publications (by deleting the article, this would only ensure that this situation would continues). Figaro 07:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not my personal opinion, it's whether he meets WP:BIO. The article in any case doesn't reference any of his published papers, which are referenced at the M glider article (or some of them). Not every departmental head of every museum in the world needs an article here. Johnbod 11:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the article's a mess, but looking through his list of publications (not just academic papers, but mainstream books) I'm convinced he passes WP:PROF. Besides, it would be a tragedy to delete someone who lists "burying beached whales" as a hobby — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep He has many publications and the Mahogany Glider work is notable too. Scientists don't appear at Wembley or Lord's, they achieve notability through publications and this man more than qualifies. He's much more than just a curator of a museum department. This article can be improved but it shouldn't be deleted. Nick mallory 14:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment, none of this is asserted in the article, or has been demonstrated here here so far. Johnbod 20:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep , once the information is added. It was not necessarily obvious from the initial state of the article. DGG 03:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment, I've read his bio on his museum website, and see no real sign of it meeting the Criteria at WP:PROF. No "mainstream book" are mentioned, except that hwe is in the process of producing a revised edition of someone else's well-known work. That in itself doesn't help with WP:PROF I think. If there is evidence of him meeting those specific criteria, it needs to be produced. Johnbod 03:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment, I hate to harp on, but the fact that he is clearly the man for reporters to get a quote from when a dead whale is discovered in his part of Australia does not mean he meets WP:PROF, or WP:BIO in general. Johnbod 03:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Please read through the snippets of the Google News Archive results I provided before trivialising both the subject and my efforts. John Vandenberg 04:32, 6 May 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Nominating this in the wake of the deletion of the virtually identical entry for Sarah Darling. Spammy & virtually content free entry on a minor DJ on a minor local radio station, with the only sources being the station's own website and the subject's MySpace page. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:47, 1 May 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 14:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Notability is permanent, and I don't see any reason to consider this person notable for all time. Basically, to my eyes, it's a local news story and no more:

  • Guy gets some local infamy for vandalising walls
  • Gets caught
  • The vandalism and court case is mentioned in some local newspapers.

Previous nomination kingboyk 12:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong keep - he has very impressive independent sources & major news coverage. Previous AfD resulted in an (almost) unanimous keep. Look at the sheer volume we have on Banksy, and this guy seems to be the American equivalent ("wannabe" may be a more accurate term). Besides, notability isn't always permanent; it can always be deleted later once nobody cares. Should probably be under Borf though; Banksy isn't under Robert Banks — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The difference with Banksy is that he is an acclaimed artist whose works have been selling for "silly money". This Borf fellow is a vandal who got caught. If he's so important and notable, let's see some non-trivial references from papers outside of Washington DC. At the moment, if this guy is notable then so is every other criminal reported in my local papers. --kingboyk 12:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Person has relevancy. Corpx 12:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's something wrong with the tone of the article, though. Somehow pseudo-encyclopedic. BTLizard 13:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, frankly, I'd rather have more articles on people of local interest, not less. Our purpose is to inform people about things they don't already know about, after all, so why limit it to people everyone's already heard of? This guy got non-trivial media coverage, so we have enough information for an article, and just because the papers are local doesn't make them any less reliable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment - one of those "local papers" is the Washington Post — it's not like it's the Tottenham & Wood Green Journal. All the reasons for deletion given by the sole person arguing for delete are variations on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, aside from the novel argument of "all the sources for this are on the web" as a reason for deletion — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Frivolous nomination, based on a misunderstanding of the notability criterion. Notability is permanent in the sense that "If a topic has multiple independent reliable published sources, this is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing. Thus, if a topic once satisfied the general notability guidelines, it continues to satisfy it over time.". Sourced once, sourced forever. Stammer 16:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Borf meets the notability guidelines for independent sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. My friends and I in California know about Borf and have talked about him, and we aren't (all) graffiti artists or anything. He is notable in various circles nation (if not world) wide. He's not some trivial local graffiti artist. Ungovernable Force 03:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Stammer Iridescenti and others. All it would have taken is a moment to read those references or external links to see the sort of impact Borf had. --JayHenry 17:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment I added newspaper articles in Raleigh as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awiseman (talk • contribs) 16:34, 4 May 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. --Coredesat 07:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Michael Smith, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, unreferenced and possibly libellous Kittybrewster (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I have no problem with keeping the article provided it passes WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:RS. You have five days in which to improve it. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:02, 1 May 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. --Coredesat 07:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Article on some not notable crazy right group. Article had been deleted once before, Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Kinism. --LC 12:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I know nothing of these apparent scum, but I think that if nothing else the page needs to have a criticism section and information from other sources. ~AFA Ю 12:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been raised before, , . --LC 13:09, 1 May 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, I note that the strong argument of DGG is not refuted -- Samir 03:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Paul H. Smith (remote viewer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article appears to serve primarily to promote the business now run by the subject. There are no evidently independent sources (the sources cited are "non-skeptical", i.e. pretty much uncritical). The whole remote viewing subject area is largely a walled garden anyway, most of the articles have no significance except by reference to other articles in the same group. No objective independent sources are cited for this biography, and it contains no evident assertion of encyclopaedic notability. The rank of Major is not generally indicative of a pivotal role in strategic events. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Even with the greatest possible credence given to the wider subject matter, there's still no assertion of great notability for this individual. --Dweller 16:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)I am withdrawing this comment, pending further digging on the subject. --Dweller 16:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Sounds like part of a walled garden promoting a claimed psychic abiility which has a l-o-o-n-g history of being repeatedly discredited by skeptics, and lacking independent and reliable sources. Edison 16:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Smith is a fairly significant figure on the crankier end of the conspiracy spectrum - he's been covered by Fortean Times, Anomaly TV etc and he's probably the name best associated with the Stargate Project. His books were all pretty big sellers on the lunatic fringe specialist market - it shouldn't be too hard to dig up sources — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • My comments: If one questions what is on my biographical page (full disclosure -- I AM Paul H. Smith), then one has to wonder exactly what counts as factual for Wikepedia. I did not write the article, but the person who did asked me to vet it. Every statement in the article can be shown to be completely true (I made sure of that before allowing the person to post it), and there are NO claims included in it (and that was done intentionally) about the efficacy of remote viewing or my abilities concerning it (though all this in fact can be documented both on and off the Web -- the remark above about remote viewing being discredited is in fact false, though there is no space to argue that here). The comment about the article existing to promote my business is a non sequitur. There is only one line about my business, and it is strictly factual about its founding and present existence. If that is disallowed then you would have to take any mention of Microsoft out of the Bill Gates entry, or delete the entire entry for "promoting" Gate's company. Further, in objecting that no "non-skeptical" sources were cited, there is a question begged: How is a skeptical source relevant to a biography? Are you going to challenge on skeptical grounds my military service, that my book was published in 2005 or the fact that I even exist? The comment about the rank of major is irrelevant. There are plenty of cases of generals who played no lasting role in anything, and on the other hand privates, sergeants and lieutenants who make all the difference (Sergeant Alvin York being one of many examples). What matters is what was actually done, and in that category I count at least as much as several other remote viewing-related notables who have undisputed pages on Wikepedia. As a final note, I have thus far only published one book, and it was not a best-seller; however it WAS selected as the Book Bonus Feature and Editor's Choice for the March 2006 issue of Reader's Digest...and yes, that can easily be verified. -- rviewer 71.145.166.155 19:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nabla 13:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment How about Paul Smith (utter fraud and charlatan) to avoid any confusion of his claims with anything approaching reality? Nick mallory 14:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems like he's notable, but the article is utterly imbalanced. --Dweller 14:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment agree with dropping the disputed claim that he has "remote viewing" powers from the title, just as we have Jeanne Dixon rather than Jeanne Dixon (psychic). As for "remote viewing" being discredited, the only reliable source cited, from CBS News, says "After 20 years and $20 million, the CIA dropped the program in 1995, concluding that Stargate "has not been shown to have any value in intelligence operations." That CBS feature story is in no way a balanced scientific look at the claims. Edison 16:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The CBS story was quoting the official government report which noted that remote viewing was useless. I used that example because the media report gave 'both sides of the story' as they always do. If remote viewing isn't hooey I'm sure Edison can quote all the peer reviewed scientific papers which argue for the validity of it here or in the article. It would be such an amazingly useful skill that I imagine Nature or Scientific American is full of such research. There's also the one million dollar Randi prize for demonstrating this sort of skill, which I'm sure Mr Smith is going to pick up any day now, just as soon as he gets round to it. Nick mallory 16:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment Even if I stick my neck out, violate NPOV and declare that I for one am fairly certain Remote Viewing is a steaming heap of bullshit, that's neither here nor there; if the US government were willing to throw money at something so patently loopy, that makes it more notable not less. We have plenty of articles on things I don't believe — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree there should be an article on remote viewing, so long as it points out that remote viewing is bollocks, but as I was reading about remote viewing to review what I thought about this article it was noticable that Mr Smith's name didn't come up at all. He didn't seem to play a major role in project Stargate, so I don't see how he's notable for that. We don't hold marines who die in battle notable simply for participating in a war, so why is a guy who says he played what seems a very minor role in a small failed project notable? 124.176.67.208 01:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as the subject seems to be notable given the cited references. The article does need some work, including cleaning out the spam in the External links section, but that does not mean the article should be deleted. --ElKevbo 21:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There are three sources listed. one is by the subject of the article, one is a book for which I can find no published reviews, and the third is CBS news, but it mentions Smith only in passing. Thus it fails the standard criteria of two independent non trivial sources. "Remote viewing" is notable, as a successful work of the imagination, but that does not mean that everyone --or anyone--connected with it is individually notable. DGG 03:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment I have read the first two sources listed: the Smith and Schnabel books. In addition to the assuredly non-skeptical material in Smith's book, they both also describe verifiable historical information associated with the U.S. military-sponsored foray into remote viewing for intelligence. It's been a couple years since I've read his book, but Schnabel was a science writer for Newsweek magazine. In the book he represents himself as attempting to be objective and beginning research for the book as an independent skeptic. He refers to Smith 14 times in The Remote Viewers (Amazon has the index). In it, Schnabel characterizes Smith as an instructor in (and the de facto historian of) the INSCOM/DIA remote viewing program, as well as writer of the Ft. Meade remote viewing unit's "how to do coordinate remote viewing by the numbers" army training manual (not the actual title). Smith's Reading the Enemy's Mind -curiously titled in that there is little if any reference to purported mind reading- is consistent with Schnabel's account, though detailing a narrower timeframe and from an obviously non-independent perspective. I'm not sure what constitutes "non trivial" in this arena, but I think it is not unreasonable to call Schnabel's book "independent," and to say that it portrays Smith as a noteworthy figure in the military's remote viewing program. So, there's one . . .Cal Jimenez 09:23, 2 May 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. Majorly (hot!) 15:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Hoax - no Ghits for "Kierdersson" nor for his books; also no context for the article and no references. andy 13:45, 1 May 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. --Coredesat 07:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The material in this article no longer serves its intended purpose and Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica contains the same information. Note to admin Famous Gnostics redirects here, please delete both. (Prod by User:Jbolden1517 converted to AfD.) --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:16, 1 May 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 14:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

This article is about a coffee and tea manufacturer. However, it is not mere advertising, remains neutral, and seems to have been mentioned in several reliable sources. I'm not completely sure that it establishes the company's notability, though, although I think it should as its products are prominent in several notable businesses and has fair trade/charity links. I wouldn't particularly like this article to be deleted but I have put it here so concensus can be reached. I have added seven different references to the article.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:22, 1 May 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 14:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a violation of Knowledge (XXG):Consensus (and indirectly of Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference as will be explained.) This list was created by User:BrownHairedGirl to counteract and pre-empt a similar vote about the fate of Category:Jewish United States Supreme Court justices that is taking place now, see Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 24#Category:Jewish United States Supreme Court justices. She says: "I have created List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices to preserve the information." But the point of putting that categeory to a vote is that the information does not deserve to be "preserved" which she has taken it upon herself to decide on her own while a vote is in progress, indeed as a unilateral response to that vote. In this case, both this category and the list are of an identical nature, and an editor should not undertake any preemptive moves, maneuvers, or leights of (the editorial) hand of moving categories to lists or lists to categories, or renaming articles, lists, or categories while a vote is still in progress with the sole purpose of saving them from a possible axing. IZAK 14:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Now, I suggest you curb your very uncivil tongue. The initial AfD comment and the "wake up" response are seriously out of bounds. Tarc 15:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hence my statement of " That way all of the various justices could be covered." which perhaps you didn't understand was meant to cover any and every ethnic group and/or religion for which justices of the supreme court can be established as being a part of. This would be the most inclusive way to cover it. FrozenPurpleCube 17:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Question. IZAK, your nomination was entirely procedural. You have been asked several times to explain what AfD criteria apply here, but your most substantive response consisted of a long list of links to wikiprojects and essays: no policies, no guidelines. Please could you take few minutes to explain concisely why this list should be deleted, rather than why it should not have been created; and explain what part of what policies or guidelines supports each point. Merely posting a catalogue of wikiprojects and essays does not explain what you think the problem is with this list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • BrownHairedGirl: Not conforming to procedures is a violation by definition. Do not minimize that please. Kindly re-read everything that I wrote in the nomination and carefully re-read the guidleines and procedures that I have cited after you had requested them, they apply to the totality of this discussion. One cannot do more than that. You are using tangential arguments to try to cover up your serious precedural error, while you have not cited one instance of a similar action, whereby an editor went ahead and created a list based on the exact same information that is in a categroy at the exact same time that that category was up for deletion. To repeat, by doing this alone, you broke Knowledge (XXG):Consensus. As I have noted on your talk page, this is no less serious than is the parallel act of emptying a category while a vote is still in progress, the latter being clearly against the rules. I cannot be clearer or add much more to what I have said here. Let other editors who join this discussion judge for themselves, add their views, and vote their conscience/s. Thank you for your attention.IZAK 17:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • IZAK, you have yet to cite any procedure which I have breached, and you continue to misunderstand that there are different criteria for deleting categories and deleting lists, because two categories and lists different (albeit overlapping) purposes: that's why there are different procedures for assessing them. However, if you still believe that I have breached a procedure, please take your case to WP:ANI.
        However, if you were right on procedure, that would not be grounds for deleting this list, which is in article space. You now appear to be saying that the reason for deleting this list belongs somewhere in the midst of a long list of essays and wikiproject pages: in other words, that for other editors to discover your intentions they should read several tens of thousands of words and try to define what you meant. That's not very helpful.
        The bottom line here is that you believe that List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices should be deleted from wikipedia. Do you have any objection to the content of the list? If so, please set out your objections rather than continuing to allege "sleight of hand" etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
      • Please remember, Knowledge (XXG) is not a bureaucracy so references to violations of rules and procedures is less important than actual examination of an individual situation. Even if there were a clear violation here, I don't see that BrownHairedGirl's actions were a grave violation of any kind. Perhaps you might wish to consider a less confrontational approach? It would probably be a much more effective to discuss the merits of this page, rather than whether BrownHairedGirl's actions were appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 17:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Mister.Core: The merits of the page are about zero. It serves about as much purpose as would a List of LGBT United States Supreme Court justices or a List of vegetarian United States Supreme Court justices which would, perhaps to some, be just as "valid" or "interesting" but would serve absolutely no scholarly or encyclopedic value, beyond maybe titillation and gossip for some folks. My concern is as a Wikipedian who participates in AfDs and CfDs which are all about procedure only (obviously we judge the content/s of articles as we read them to vote about them, but the nomination and voting process is all about procedure) and it is in that context primarily that I am calling attention to, criticizing, and objecting to the action, and particularly its consequences, that can be far-reaching. Imagine, each time a category comes up for a CfD an editor on their won decides to "preserve" that information by listifying it at the very moment the CfD for the category is taking place? This is no joking matter and no different than "moving the goalposts" and very troubling. IZAK 18:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Not convinced, religious and ethnic status are quite important in biographies, and somewhat more common than vegetarianism or LGBT-ness, which if they do apply to any Supreme Court justice, probably don't apply beyond the individual, in which case listing just on that individual's page is enough. In contrast, religious and ethnic backgrounds are quite widely considered, and often the subject of articles like the one I referenced, and that of the others brought up by other editors. If you want to focus on procedures you can, but I don't think there's enough of a problem here to make that the concern over the page itself. FrozenPurpleCube 19:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. First of all, I gather that there is a back-story of prior disputes involving this or related lists or categories, which I am not familiar with in detail although I have skimmed them now. I sense a level of unfriendliness that should be avoided in any Knowledge (XXG) discussion. On the substance of the issue, I recognize the delete-side argument that this an artificial categorization and that we do not list Justices by other religions or by ethnic groups, etc. Nonetheless, the Jewishness (and Catholicism) of different Justices has had a historical importance on the Court (more in prior times than now) and on the selection of nominees in earlier times. I also find it significant that when the Supreme Court Historical Society published Jennifer M. Lowe, ed., The Jewish Justices of the Supreme Court Revisited: Brandeis to Fortas (1994), Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the Preface and Stephen Breyer wrote the Introduction. I submit this suggests that this is not an artificial construct and that the list and category should both be kept. Newyorkbrad 17:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
So, what do you think of my suggestion of covering this information in the
Newyorkbrad: Writing an article would have been a better intellectual exercise with perhaps some meaning, but as I have illustrated having this list means that Knowledge (XXG) will become infested with junk knowledge, and in any case, see WP:NOT#DIRECTORY we don't need a list of half a dozen Jewish justices names. IZAK 18:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep based on arguments made above. Procedurally, I don't buy that this was improperly created, and would suggest that if that argument is to be made it needs to be supported by better, more specific citations. Second, essays are not convincing in and of themselves - they have not attained consensus support; I would prefer seeing a position based on guidelines or policy. It also appears as if the essays are not being read carefully enough for support here; for example, there are repeated cites to the essay that states that "lists should reflect consensus opinion", and a reading of that provision is clear that the point being made is that information should only be listed where there is consensus that the person listed qualifies (e.g., in this case, there would need to be consensus that the person is Jewish and consensus that they are a Supreme Court Justice). That discussion in that essay has nothing to do with when it is appropriate to create a list. As noted, this is "keep" based on the argument made above. If someone wants to make more careful and consise arguments, I am open. A Musing 17:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • A Musing: So according to your reasoning here, any time a category is up for deletion anyone can just create an identical mirror list, or the other way around, if a list or article is up for a AfD then a mirror category should be created in order to "Save the information" in the AfD? In that case, the entire purpose and process of nominating lists, articles and categories can (and will) be totally subverted by allowing anyone to go ahead on their own and create a replica of it in Knowledge (XXG)'s other venues. And, if, the time comes when people really want to delete a subject they may sometimes have to go searching for both the identical list and category which a crafty editor may have set up to circumvent and put spikes in the wheels of the AfD and CfD process. IZAK 17:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Categories, lists and articles serve different functions and contain different material. For example, categories should not include subjective criteria and we need to be wary of overcategorization. Each of these concerns is specific to categories -- we cannot use footnotes or qualifications, as we can in lists and articles, and we have limited real estate at the bottom of the articles, so we have to be more sparing in our use of it. With lists, we do look to avoid the outrightly trivial, but there is not the same real estate concern and there is an ability to explain and footnote (if not fully discuss). What might be a trivial intersection in categories is interesting in lists, and so many categories that are deleted because the intersection is insufficiently important do get converted to lists. For articles, full discussion and an explication of multiple sides of the story is possible, and thus the relevant information appropriate to include is still broader. Thus, each discussion is different. Had another category been created, I would object, but it was not. And I would have to think about whether there is information that we wish to entirely keep off Knowledge (XXG) (other than that prohibited by WP:Bio); I don't know that there is anyplace to discuss information we wish to thoroughly censor from all forms of coverage. If you want to convince me, please feel free to look at the specifics of the guidelines and argue why this isn't an appropriate list. So far, I don't see it.A Musing 18:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
        • A Musing: Again, you are not paying attention to what I am saying. I am NOT arguing the merits of categories versus lists. The problem and violation I see here is that while a vote about the FATE of a specific category was taking place, an editor went ahead and "preserved" that category's information by "listifying" it. Is that allowable? Have you ever seen that done during CfD debates? Let me know when you can up with any examples. In fact I have asked for some expert advice, see Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy)#Creating a list at the exact moment a vote to delete a category is taking place. Thank you, IZAK 18:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
            • I believe I do understand you; you have cited a bunch of stuff for the proposition that this is not permitted, and I've found none of them convincing. If you can show me what, specifically, applies in those policies and guidelines, or find a new one, it might be convincing. But even if the CfD prevailed unanimously, I don't see how that would prevent the creation of a list or article using the same material. Again, you are welcome to convince me otherwise. And if a prevailing, full consensus discussion doesn't prevent it, why would a half-way through, still open discussion prevent it?A Musing 18:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would support either having a list of all S.Ct. Justices by religion instead, and leave open the ability of editors to incorporate all the Justices, or incorporating this information into one of the other lists of S.Ct. justices. A Musing 17:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • NOTICE: See Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy)#Creating a list at the exact moment a vote to delete a category is taking place] where further clarification has been requested. Thank you, IZAK 18:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, fine list, becoming a good article. Cardozo doesn't seem to be in the timeline, but that's a reason to fixit, not delete the article. Only issue is lack of references showing that someone besides us editors is interested in this intersection of highly notable people, why don't I provide some. Nominator should be warned that it looks like he has put on the Spider-man costume and is approaching the Reichstag. --AnonEMouse 18:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, and here I thought I was Superman? And besides, the Spidey/Reichstag thing is about those who are reverting pages madly, so it has nothing to do with this very focused debate. Digression, to Spidey-nonsense is not a substitute for substantive dialogue. IZAK 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • See WP:SPIDER#What the...?. Please. You're typing madly, on multiple forums, asserting that no one is paying attention to you. Honest, we are. --AnonEMouse 19:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Excuse me AnonEMouse: Try to be accurate, ok. I am not typing on "multiple forums", you can see it all connected to here, and I am certainly NOT "asserting that no one is paying attention to (me)" -- can you show me one place that I "assert" your observation? Seems that it is your perception that I am perhaps doing so, therefore may I suggest that you adjust your POV of things and try to zero in on the actual debate. Honest, I can take criticism by now. IZAK 19:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I see no reason why we should be "categorising" justices by religion; that makes it an indiscriminate collection of information, which makes it listcruft. --kingboyk 18:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It would be if this were the first time someone was interested in this subject, (i.e., Knowledge (XXG):original research) so I cited a book about the first 5 Jewish supreme court justices, parts written by the current 2, and published by the Supreme Court Historical Society. Not listcruft, notable subject for a list. --AnonEMouse 18:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Of course now I see Newyorkbrad has already cited this same book earlier in this discussion, which I didn't see earlier in this huge mound of highly charged text. Sigh. I should have known. But at least I added it to the article itself, so I'm not completely useless here! --AnonEMouse 19:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as encyclopedic and historical. The religious affiliations of Supreme Court Justices, whether it's appropriate or not, have been factors in their selection and in analysis of opinions. IZAK should know better than to claim that CFD votes have overriding authority over the existence of articles on the same topic. (There's a long, long, long history of AFD kicking things over to categories and vice versa.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi Dhartung: These justices have very little to do with Judaism as such. They are ethnically Jewish, and a few are even married to gentiles. But they are not deserving of special note as "Jews" any more than the Catholics and Irish-Americans who have reached that post. What matters are the political calculations by the President, Congrees, and other politicians. You also say that "There's a long, long, long history of AFD kicking things over to categories and vice versa" so could you please provide some examples where that happened at the very moment a CfD or AfD was taking place? IZAK 21:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a perfectly sensible article. Whether IZAK approves of the reson for its creation is irrelevant; it must be considered on its own merits.--Runcorn 19:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment and I just noticed this article: Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States which discusses the subject. FrozenPurpleCube 19:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 20:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per AnonEMouse and Dhartung. It deals with a highly notable subject.--Brownlee 21:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per all the above keep arguments, especially Dhartung's. Carlossuarez46 21:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think that this was not primarily an attempt to save the information--userifying would have done that--but an attempt to compare the different approaches. One of the ways in which they are being usefully compared is buy seeing the reactions here as compared with those about the category at CfD, so in fact i thank IZAK for helping clarify this, and I mean it literally, not at all sarcastically,for it is by these discussons that we establish consensus.
What this establishes to me is that the information is much more usable and interesting in list format--but then I do like lists. I don't like lists with unclear criteria and random inclusion, but those are editing concerns. DGG 03:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
MPerel, you've just cited a guideline for categories, not for articles. --Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
But Dhartung, the only reason this list was created in the first place was to escape any possible outcome at the category for this. Have you read what I said? IZAK 21:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral ...but...I don't think putting it in List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States is an appropriate solution. That article is already taking up a bunch of screen space and is in the 60KB neighborhood, so any other side features would probably get severed and spun-off into child articles. –Pakman044 08:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (new opinion given below) Carcharoth 23:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC) but ensure it is synchronised with Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States#Jewish Justices, and add the reference from this article to there. Also, to ensure lack of bias, reliable sources should be found for the notability of lists of Supreme Court Justices by other religions, and those lists created as well. Another possibility is to merge this article to the section I mentioned above. The current list is rather short and could, in my opinion, fit in the Demographics article, which is a better way to approach the subject. Oh, and if the result is merge, do not delete (use a redirect). Anyone who says "delete and merge" without realising that this contravenes the GFDL (someone above said that) should read up on page history and how we try and preserve it. Carcharoth 10:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a list with very well-defined inclusion criteria. Further, Brandeis for example is particularly notable as being the first Jewish United States Supreme Court justice.--Simul8 11:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The concept of the "Jewish Seat" on the US Supreme Court is a well established idea in the history of the Supreme Court (Google search for "Jewish Seat" "Supreme Court" -wikipedia). Although an article may not yet exist for the "Jewish Seat" it easily could and probably will. This list would be a fine adjunct to it, or could evolve into it. The nominator has not, so far as I can see, suggested a single article deletion criteria that is applicable. Dsmdgold 15:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Dsmdgold: That is a good joke! There is no such thing as a "Jewish Seat" and if there can be one it's meaningless and only conspiracy theorists (or deluded secular Jewish ultra-liberals) would take it seriously. IZAK 21:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
      • There is not now a "Jewish seat", despite there currently being two Jews on the court. However, the seat held in succesion by Justices Cardozo, Frankfurter, Goldberg, and Fortas was known, informally, as the "Jewish Seat". (That seat is now occupied by Justice Breyer.) The term was part of the political discourse of the 1960s. I assume that you did not look at the Google search results I provided, I you did you would have seen that the is used by organizations such as the Uinversity of Chicago Law School, NPR, The Journal of Politics (link via JSTOR), the American Law Encyclopedia, and by Justice Ginsburg, none of which could considered "conspiracy theorists". Dsmdgold 22:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This twists "non-notable intersections" to breaking point - clearly this is a notable intersection.--Newport 19:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but it seems that this article is not merely a list. (Such a list already exists.]) The article could and probably eventually will be expanded to cover other analytical points. For instance, is it civil or prejudicial to refer to a Jewish or minority or female seat? Do judicial voting patterns reflect such surface demographics? Perhaps source the notability with both the prejudicial-type media and the Jewish press on the other hand. Therefore, I would rename it: Jewish justices of the United States Supreme Court. Maybe it could eventually merge into a broader article on identity politics and the Supreme Court. HG 21:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oops, now I see and concur with Carcharoth's comment, above, and the need to merge or synchronize with the Demographics article. HG 21:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Similarly, I concur with your finding of List of Jewish American jurists#Supreme Court of the United States (that is a good find, don't think anyone has pointed this out before). I would say this list could be merged to that larger list, and the article bits of this list could be merged to Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States#Jewish Justices, if that makes sense? Carcharoth 23:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
sounds good. Thanks. HG 00:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Note that this would be a "Keep" !vote for AfD purposes. A "delete" result winds up with a redlink. If the article is kept, then editors can use the regular editorial process to decide whether to split, redirect, etc. (And I would argue to leave the content where it is, but I could live with a redirect if I had to.) Newyorkbrad 00:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There is nothing wrong with creatign a list from a cat being proposed for deeltion -- indeed it is a common way to prepare for a !vote of "Listify" at CfD. This looks like a reasonable lsit to me, particularly give the fact that the religion of potential justices was for a time a significant factor in appointment decisions, and that in particualr there was for a while a semi-tradition that exactly one Justice would be jewish. DES 22:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep obviously...User:IZAK is a delete-happy user (for whatever reason); therefore, his/her edits and nominations should be watched more closely. This was a POINTLESS nomination for deletion, a blatant waste of everyone's time. Again, we should all urge User:IZAK to get his editing/deleting behavior under control a bit. --Wassermann 08:24, 5 May 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. --Coredesat 07:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Virgin Radio number one songs in 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There are no sources here and the formatting is poor, and as far as I know, the Virgin Radio chart is not representative of any country, i.e. it is not an official chart. Not notable in any way - seems to have been created for the amusement of a chart fan. - eo 14:27, 1 May 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. --Coredesat 07:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Virgin Radio number one songs in 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There are no sources here and the formatting is poor, and as far as I know, the Virgin Radio chart is not representative of any country, i.e. it is not an official chart. Not notable in any way - seems to have been created for the amusement of a chart fan. - eo 14:27, 1 May 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 as non-notable, particularly in light of main editor's actions. --Nlu (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Vanity page created by Christian Campos and edited mainly by him and by his sockpuppet 71.160.130.166. User has repeatedly removed {{prod}} and {{verify}} tags. Although the user has attempted to assert notability, there is no substantiating evidence. Curtis Clark 14:49, 1 May 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, although a lot of the 'keep' comments were discarded, there's still sufficient support to keep this. Daniel Bryant 09:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Jon Abbate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Keep. Jon Abbate will go down in history as one of the greatest and most inspirational players to have ever played football at Wake Forest University. This page will continue to be created because of the impact he has had on his university and on the many Demon Deacon and college football fans the world over. On the contrary to what many of you are saying, this article was created so as to celebrate and conclude his awesome collegiate career, NOT to say that "he deserves a wikipedia page now that he is in the NFL" (whether he makes it or not). There is also sufficient reason to include him simply because of the "Five Foundation" that his family started in the wake of his younger brother's death. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.17.57.36 (talk) 06:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

This article is another test case for the proposition, "All professional athletes are notable." The subject was a team leader in college football, and has now signed a deal with a professional team as an undrafted free agent. He has not yet played in a game, nor has he "made the roster" (in fairness to him, it's May, so no one has made this year's rosters yet.) This was originally marked as a CSD A7. I don't have much of an opinion on this, except that this case is perhaps the ultimate borderline on what constitutes a professional athelete. Weak delete, pending other opinions. Xoloz 14:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. While he's currently very much on the edge of being a professional athlete, I think his college career is sufficiently notable to warrant keeping the article -- D-IA college football receives as much coverage as a pro sport in the U.S., after all. Pinball22 15:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete He becomes notable when he's played at the highest level in his sport, and he hasn't done that yet. If and when he does play, then he becomes notable. It's not a question of how much coverage college football gets in the U.S. in general but what Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines are. Nick mallory 16:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm confused here. I'm new to the Knowledge (XXG) editing scene, but aren't there plenty of notable college athletes who have entries in Knowledge (XXG)? Once they leave school, are their entries automatically deleted? Jon Abbate just signed a contract to play professional football, isn't it premature to wipe him off the record? Furthermore, he was an incredibly important part of the Wake Forest football team that won an ACC Championship and made it to the Orange Bowl this year, something that most sports followers would have never thought possible. The current entry for Jon Abbate needs a lot of polishing and more citations. But he is a "competitor who has played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports." He's been signed to a professional deal. And there's a groundswell of support from sports fans to give him his own Knowledge (XXG) page, which seems to me the whole point of having something like Knowledge (XXG) in the first place. bigdoublezero 13:06, 1 May 2007
    • Comment. We do already have lots of articles about current college athletes -- I think the reason this one is under scrutiny is that it wasn't created during his college career, but rather when he signed the free-agent deal, as part of the article creations for newly-drafted players. Pinball22 18:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. We're a better encyclopedia with this article than without it, and absent BLP or privacy issues, that's my ultimate test. Newyorkbrad 17:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Youth players in England who haven't played for a team in the Premiership or Football League get deleted. Cricketers who haven't played first class cricket get deleted. College soccer in the USA isn't the highest level of amateur sport. If he's signed to a professional deal, then he'll soon make his debut for a proper professional club and there won't be a problem. Nick mallory 17:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It's American football, not soccer, and trust me, for better or worse high-level American college football is big business and major notability. Newyorkbrad 18:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - Probably does technically violate WP:BIO (Xoloz you may want to re-read it - it doesn't say "All professional athletes are notable" but "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league", and as I understand it he has yet to play. However, since he's been signed as a pro now, and the moment he does set foot on a pitch (or whatever American Football has) the article will be legitimately recreated, I think this is a good time to WP:IAR to save everyone involved annoyance and wasted time — iridescenti (talk to me!)
    • I gave up on following the exact wording of guidelines a long time ago, but thanks for the heads up! :) Who knows what it will say next month? -- we can only hope the spirit remains consistent as the wording is tweaked. :) We call it a football field over here, btw. Xoloz 19:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, undrafted free agents are usually longshots to play in the pros. Feel free to recreate if he makes the Texans' opening-day roster. NawlinWiki 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you saying Abbate's college career and significance to football fans isn't enough to keep his Knowledge (XXG) entry? It's not his fault he was signed as an undrafted free agent. He's even listed, along with many other players, as an Undrafted Rookie on the Houston Texans roster on Knowledge (XXG). Should we go through and delete all those URs from the Texans page? I'm failing to understand why putting more information on the Internet for interested people is a bad thing. Isn't that the point of Knowledge (XXG)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.235.241.180 (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep, Wake Forest's unprecedented run to the Orange Bowl will be remembered for years, just as Boise State's Fiesta Bowl victory will. College Football is just as big a market, if not bigger, than pro football. Jon Abbate was the unquestioned team leader of this Wake Forest team, and if you asked any college football fan who he is, I'm sure they could answer. The fact is, in at least Wake Forest fans minds, this season will be remembered for decades as possibly the turning point for Wake Forest Football, which, for a long time, has been one of the worst in college football. If you don't think the leader of this team is notable, then I don't know what to say. I don't understand how he has to be great in the NFL in order for there to be an article on him. Would we not be allowed to write an article about Randolph Childress? The guy tore his ACL and therefore had a sub-par professional career, but broke the all time scoring record in the ACC tournament, scoring 40, 36, 32. That is "notable" if you want an understatement. Delete BS articles if you want, but this is a serious article as a tribute to one of the best football players to ever go to Wake Forest, and I think that meets the criterion "notable" in and of itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.125.192.169 (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep, This just skirts the edges of WP:BIO, but given his fairly notable amateur career to date, he has a significant chance to make it as a pro. May not be perfectly notable, but close enough. Coren 23:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, None of the players that were drafted in the NFL draft last weekend have played in an NFL game. Does this mean that they all do not deserve Knowledge (XXG) pages? Abbate is in the same boat as every other rookie in the NFL, he is under contract but has yet to officially make the team or play in an NFL game. Granted, he may have less of a chance of ever playing in an NFL game than the top draft picks, but who's to say that JaMarcus Russell doesn't have a career ending injury before he ever plays in a game. I doubt that anyone would call for his article's deletion as his college career is enough to merit an article, and that is the same rationale that should be used for Jon Abbate. Hindudot1788 00:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't have a very firm opinion here, but it is quite clear that there is a very big practical difference between a top draft pick and an undrafted player. If JaMarcus Russell never plays a game, his disastrous career will be legendary for its failure. Whether there is a difference between low draft picks and an undrafted players (as well as whether either category belongs in Knowledge (XXG)) is the open question here. It isn't clear to me that a seventh-round draft pick is notable -- perhaps those sorts too should be eliminated from Knowledge (XXG), at least until they've played in a game. Xoloz 01:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
      • However, there are plenty of examples on Knowledge (XXG) of players, such as Jared Zabransky, the former Boise State quarterback that was not drafted in the NFL Draft, and has signed as a free agent with the Houston Texans - the same exact situation as Jon Abbate is currently in (down to the same team). I don't see any differences between the two cases - Zabransky is clearly staying on Knowledge (XXG), and Abbate, who was the Wake Forest team leader as much as Zabransky was the Boise State team leader, is being debated about here. Darius Walker, undrafted out of Notre Dame, has a page on Knowledge (XXG). I don't see any differences here, and that's reason enough for this article to stay. It's not hurting anyone - let it be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mersk862 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 4 May 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, patent nonsense. Guy (Help!) 16:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

This is an article on a 15 year old boy who is supposedly the manager (or "manager-adviser", whatever that means) of FC Barcelona. Needless to say one of Europe's largest and most successful football clubs is not managed by a 15-year old ChrisTheDude 15:04, 1 May 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 nomination withdrawn. —gorgan_almighty 10:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Lagarde-d'Apt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It is a one line article that has existed since October 2006, and shows no sign of expanding. The subject matter probably doesn't comply with Knowledge (XXG) requirements on notability. The article was originally marked with {{prod}}, but the author objected so I brought it to AfD instead.

Nomination withdrawn, as original author has expanded article. gorgan_almighty 15:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • keep, cities, towns, villages, and any similar human settlements are generally considered notable, no matter how few people they have. Needs sources and expansion, but a quick google turns up interesting information that could easily let it grow Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems I missunderstood the term "commune". Silly me. But I'm not going to withdraw the nomination, as I still feel that a community of only 26 people is not notable enough. I agree with what you said about cities, towns and villages, but I don't think it should be applied to French communes if they only have 26 inhabitants. —gorgan_almighty 15:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If you read Communes of France, you'll see that all of france is divided into communes, and their specification is very clear, even the ones annihilated by the first world war are still defined to cover the same territory, even with no inhabitants. We've never deleted towns for being too small before, so I don't think this'll be any different. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:17, 1 May 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Does not seem notable under WP:BIO, and the article does not assert his notability. Flex (talk|contribs) 15:18, 1 May 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Professional Education Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has existed for quite some time with terrible sourcing. It is clearly not spam, as it does contain a "criticism" section. Unless sourcing comes forward during the AfD, delete. The AfD directly below is for the founder of this company; iff this article survives, he would be a suitable redirect. Xoloz 15:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete and merge into Carleton Sheets article. Sheets is notable and is a well known purveyor of questionable real estate advice. This "institute" is not.--Mantanmoreland 16:41, 2 May 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 current version, without prejudice to recreation of a better article. Daniel Bryant 09:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

This page is probably deletable as spam/G11, I admit. The reason I bring it here is because its companion page, for the PEI, is long-established, and is not spam, as it contains a criticism section. Both articles suffer from a lack of verifiable sources, and should best be considered to together. Delete or (if Professional Education Institute above somehow survives), redirect. Xoloz 15:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added some comments on the talk page. 63.215.28.84 18:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but fix. I agree that this is an awful article. However, Sheets is definitely notable. There are over a hundred thousand hits to his name on Google. He is a well-known "informercial" spokesman who has come under a great deal of criticism that needs to be fully and completely reflected in this article. That "institute" however is just a marketing gimmick and should be deleted or merged into this article. The reason is that Sheets is well known to any viewer of late night TV, but his "institute" is not.--Mantanmoreland 16:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
>100,000 raw hits on Google but just 565 unique Google hits. --A. B. 03:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Change to weak keep since I proposed the speedy delete. But don't look to me to fix this one. Bearian 16:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • weak delete I don't generally approve of the weak/strong keep/delete nomination, but... I think the present article falls far below the standards of quality for Knowledge (XXG), I really think it ought to be deleted rather than kept in it's present state. I agree that notability may be achieved by this case, but notability is not the only criterion. I don't know whether the many internet sources (representative example: "Carleton Sheets No Down Payment Complaints" on infomercialscams.com) can be buttressed by reliable sources, but I think that needs to be done before the article can be kept. Pete.Hurd 21:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed a few "offhand" references from apparently reliable sources on Google News. However, I agree that without some good reliable sources reflecting the dubious nature of this person's theories, the article should be deleted.--Mantanmoreland 15:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete So far there's been talk of latenight television, etc., but no sign of any reliable sources to prove notability per the requirements of the Reliable Sources and Notability Guidelines. If someone can change this, then I will reconsider my "delete" comment, but until then no reliable sources = no notability = no article. --A. B. 03:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice against a better bio being written; currently it has no RS and notability isnt well established in the article. This article has been around for years and is still virtually an orphan. John Vandenberg 03:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
May not be a bad solution. Only am in favor of this article if it can be written as a properly sourced article that can't be read as endorsement of his dubious "no money down" program. If and when this thing is canned, I will try to see if there is a good piece on him in, say, the Wall Street Journal that might be the used as the source of an article. I am fairly sure I have seen articles on him in investment publications.--Mantanmoreland 15:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
A check of the last 10 years worth of archives turned up nothing in the Wall Street Journal or any other Dow Jones publication -- I checked. --A. B. 04:47, 7 May 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 both a7 (no assertion of notability), no sources, probable attack (how many variations on "X person is gay" are there, anyway?). NawlinWiki 17:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Listed after speedy tag removed. WP:N/WP:FICTION. Appears to be a character in a work of fiction with no assertion of notability. Ytny (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I am also nominating the following page because the article does not assert its notability and actually says "The novel did not do so well in Hong Kong, and nver made it to the UK or US markets":
Collectible Dreams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Ytny (talk) 17:19, 1 May 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 13:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Stub-article about a lake in England that does not stress the notability of its subject, and the article acknowledges that the lake in question is rarely visited. Article has received no edits since its creation nearly 5 months ago, and so prospects for improvement are slim Thethinredline 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Well, I just improved it, noting the old norse derivation of its name, a popular walking route around it and the fact that it's a feeding area for the (very rare in the Lake District) Ospreys which nest nearby. All in the time it takes to post a perfectly legitimate article for AfD as well. It should be noted that 'rarely visited' in Lake District terms means that only hundreds of people walk around it every day, rather than the tens of thousands who might be on Windermere. It's not in Siberia, it's a lake in the Lake District, one of the most famous and commonly visited national parks in England. This may not be notable to the nominator, but I think it's notable under wikipedia policy regarding geographical landmarks. Nick mallory 16:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable by being a Lake District lake. See List of lakes in the Lake District for an idea of the work in progress. Bobble Hat 07:42, 2 May 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, cleanup and remove OR -- Samir 03:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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

NN term. Only 14k ghits Computerjoe's talk 16:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Not NN. More OR etc. Computerjoe's talk 14:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete- Changed mind, due to the reasons below. Eaomatrix 19:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not because of notability, but because the article is an original essay about teaching. See Knowledge (XXG):No original research. NawlinWiki 17:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - original essay, as Nawlinwiki says. Spammy about this new method. 64.178.96.168 19:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Unfortunately, this kind of nonsense is being taught in college education programs. I left a note on the Education project page a week or so ago asking them to look at it for possible cleanup, no response. If you look at the history and read the lengthy example I deleted you will see why my daughter went to a conservative private school, I'm not against innovation nor am I a conservative, but this is waaaay too out there for me. As penance for past deletional sins I have rewritten the first para and found adequate refs for this. I'll work on it more a little later.--killing sparrows 20:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - I see 14,000-plus Google hits for this, and it seems to be a relatively accepted thing - but the article desperately needs sourcing. (Note also that it went through a VFD back in 2005; comments from the VFD are listed on the talk page. I can't track down the original discussion, though.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as the general concept is notable, for better or worse. When I've taught practical subjects, it can be a useful technique occasionally--if I pretend to be a patron approaching a reference desk, I suppose it's teacher in role, though I never thought of it with those words. And there's nothing to show whether this is the commonly used term for it.DGG 05:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: seems to be pretty much the same as Role-play, best case redirect. Ohconfucius 09:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, The Role-play article has very little on use in education but I would support a merge and redirect with this info used as a section, 'Teacher in role', to expand the use of role-play in education. There are some pretty good refs for this concept.--killing sparrows 16:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep, pending complete re-write. Its hard to tell at this juncture, since I am not at all familiar with the term and the article is written a) like original research and b) with no context for the layman. Would also support merge to Role-play per User:Killing sparrows. Jdcooper 17:44, 6 May 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 all. - Mailer Diablo 11:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wire 98.3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hoax article. Station's callsign does not appear to the NTC's official list of FM stations in the Philippines - Danngarcia 16:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to nominate the following articles for the same reasons:

RM 105.5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
RL 91.1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DZRL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
95.9 Real FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
95.9 Real FM Cebu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DZRS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
95.9 Real FM Davao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment Can you present a more recent list of NTC-licensed radio stations? It's been seven years since June 2000. --Sky Harbor 00:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment NTC has yet to provide a new list of FM stations. I tried to Google the names of the companies who owns these stations, the results are there were no relevant links about the station. I may also add that DZRL and 95.9 Real FM according to their respective articles are based on Metro Manila, which I am sure that these stations does not exist. -Danngarcia 06:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. The Wire page now has an external link to the radio station's webpage; it looks reasonable. A seven year old PDF really isn't good enough to determine whether it exists or not. I need to take a look at a recent copy of the World Radio TV Handbook to see if I can verify any of these. That being said, I don't think these were started in good faith; my guess would be they were started by employees based on the edit summaries. But such a large quantity of radio stations in the US have their own articles that these will probably be notable enough, so we should take some time to look at the hard copy source that may be able to give some answers. –152.7.54.228 08:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment If you will check out the "first air date" of these articles, you may notice that they were supposed to be founded from 1960 to 1990; WAY BEFORE the NTC list was created. If these stations existed for so many years, why is it not included to the list? -Danngarcia 09:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice for recreation. A lot of radio station articles have popped up, and most of them were hoaxes. Either they don't exist or they're underground stations that can transmit for a short distance. --Howard the Duck 13:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. If and when some reliable sources are found then maybe the article can return. The other option is to merge the stations into new articles on the owners. That way there is a place for information to be developed so that it can be split out to new articles when we have reliable sources and notability is established. Vegaswikian 02:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. If a seven-year old PDF cannot provide sufficient evidence that these stations do exist (since they were established before the list was even compiled), then I see no reason for them to have articles in the first place. --Sky Harbor 17:40, 6 May 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Delete We have a category to collate this information automatically, we don't need a "List of" page that just invites spam. See also WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. AlistairMcMillan 16:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Do Not Delete. The page is not an indiscriminate list. It discriminates among which file managers are usable with which OS better than the comparison of file managers category. It is a spam magnet, however. Maybe incorporate better discrimination into the comparison page before killing it? I know I won't have the time... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.62.28.197 (talk • contribs) 02:06, May 5, 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 per consensus of established editors. --Coredesat 08:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Article asserts author's notability as an author of gaming books, so I removed the speedy tag and moved the discussion here. No opinion from me. Article is full of irrelevant nonsense about cows, which needs to be removed even if article is kept. NawlinWiki 17:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete. I originally put a {{db-bio}} on this, but the books listed were written by him, and one of the links is to a scan of an article about the subject. Still, he seems to fall short of the requirements of WP:BIO. If not deleted, the article should be moved to "Andrew Mulholland". Gtg204y 18:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be enough, but I could continue with the other books if you like.SatinNSilk 19:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not close to being enough. Anybody can provide fake ISBNs to a drop shipper, and have the ad show up on google. Run the actual ISBNs through the Library of Congress (you can do it right here on wiki) and the numbers come up as nothing. They are bogus. These books are most likely self published. The author adding fake ISBNs to make them look legit. Self published books are not wiki sources. Also, feel free to examine the alumni at Abertay. We don't need any more Essjays in Knowledge (XXG). Matt Brennen 19:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - A notable author and programmer

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Programming-Multiplayer-Wordware-Developers-Library/dp/1556220766/ref=sr_1_1/203-7610856-3469561?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178107760&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Developers-Guide-Multiplayer-Wordware-Library/dp/1556228686/ref=sr_1_4/203-7610856-3469561?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178107760&sr=8-4

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Java-Programming-Wordware-Developers-Library/dp/1556229631/ref=sr_1_8/203-7610856-3469561?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178107760&sr=8-8

His newest game has flown since its release and has a much higher Alexa rating than the webgame standard - Outwar.com - http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.fallensword.com

--Radneto 13:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC) — Radneto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete per Wafulz. Existence of the person isn't the issue. Notability, verifiability and (once again for this company) reliable sources for the first 2 issues are the problem. DarkSaber2k 13:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
No-one is questioning the existence of the books. The issue is that no one in the entire web seems to have given a damn about them outside of your group. As per the other Hunted Cow vanispamcruftisement pages that were deleted, no-one has been able to provide any reliable, non-trivial, independent third party sources.DarkSaber2k 15:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, KathrineS, please do not attempt to circumvent the deletion process by reposting the article under a different name. DarkSaber2k 15:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I was not circumventing anything - I was advised by several Wiki editors to rename the article - the issue came about due to it's attempted deletion whilst I was trying to change the name. Removing the books that were listed and discussed simply backs up the dossier of mismanagement and bias we have already submitted to the appropriate higher editors/officails KathrineS 15:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Frankly I don't know how many more times you have to be told that publishing 4 books the rest of the larger world apparantly ignored is no claim to fame. You assert the author is notable becuase of the books, but have still been unable to prove the notability of the books themselves. Your argument is fundamentally flawed because you are trying to claim the subject is notable becuase he wrote books that no-one has been able to prove the notability of. It's like trying to make a house of cards without the bottom layer.DarkSaber2k 15:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

After watching and attempting to help on this site, I now see why high school and college educators no longer accept it as a valid reference. I had heard that when you attempt to update an article that you are met with a lot of resistance unless you are 'in the groove' but I thought that was a myth because I had always viewed this as a reliable source. I guess this was wrong. Thank you for proving the rumor mill correct. Happy editingSatinNSilk 15:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your so desperate to play the victim and score some sympathy votes that you overlook the fact that practicaly everyone has provided links to enough information to answer all your questions, and the policies and guidelines go into detail that would be impractical to go into in an AfD, fully explaining why people are saying what they are saying. I know these facts will probably be rejected as contrary to whatever fantasy conspiracy theory you've all got in your heads, but they are the facts nonetheless. It's actually the people like you, who can never back there claims up despite loudly and persistently making them, who would turn wikipeida into an unreliable source. DarkSaber2k 15:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for providing helpful constructive criticism to Knowledge (XXG). We constantly strive to be the best encyclopedia we can be. If you have the time, could you point us to some examples of how other encyclopedias have handled their "Hoofmaster" articles, so that we may perhaps learn something from their example? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Information was provided regarding these books and has been removed, twice. How many thousands of people have to know an individual before you accept they exist? Andrew Mulholland/Hoofmaster is extremely notable amongst the million plus players of the 6 games he has created. The 4 books that were mentioned are still used and respected within the computer programming world. Maybe this article requires someone more familiar with it's content as a judge to what is notable? KathrineS 16:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)— KatherineS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Let's get real. He's sold a grand total of maybe eleven copies of the books. Amazon even counts how many are left, lol. Matt Brennen 19:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

And here we go. The WP:BIO notability run-down. Listed below are the criteria from WP:BIO. In the interests of space, I'm only copying the relevent General and Creative profesionals sections. The full text is available just beyond the link. I know it says these are only guidelines, but I reckon failing to meet any these should be a pretty good guideline of non-notability.

  • In general:
    • A credible independent biography.
    • The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.
    • Wide name recognition
    • The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.
    • Multiple features in credible news media.
    • Commercial endorsements of notable products
  • Creative professionals: scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals.
    • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
    • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
    • The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
    • The person's work either (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument (b) has won significant critical attention, or (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance.

And it goes without saying that any claims to passing any of the above would have to be proven with reliable sources. DarkSaber2k 19:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Your information is incorrect. Not only did Andrew Mulholland attend - but he graduated with HONOURS. This is how Hunted Cow was created...it was his and Glenn Murphy's honours project. I'm betting 'you' won't find his name either, despite both of them graduating. That list you have is NOT a complete list. Anyone with an ounce of commons sense can see that. Do you honestly believe only 3 people graduated in 2005 and only 12 in 2004? As I previously stated, you can actually pay to be on the alumni. You are basically making a contribution to the Uni. However, I am glad that you continue with this line of investigation as it helps to prove the issues I have already raised. On several occasions I have asked as to where I should send a copy of the graduation certificate (and sales figures for the books if you want those too), and as of yet I have had no response other than further accusations of falsehood. KathrineS 21:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't wish to get involved in the whole did he/didn't he graduate debate. For the purposes of this AfD whether he has a degree is irrelevant. Personally, I would doubt whether the alumni website would list all graduates. The real matter for consideration is whether the subject meets the primary criterion set out in WP:BIO; "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I do not think the subject meets this basic requirement, there seems to be just the one article in the newspaper about him. For this reason I suggest this article is deleted. Adambro 21:42, 5 May 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 -- Samir 03:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wii technical problems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Insufficient content that duplicates existing content in the Wii article. Previously speedy deleted for being an attack page. Nearly all external edits are deletions to the page in an attempt to remove weasel words, unsourced opinion, and attack language. Jbanes 17:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you wish to vote merge, please specify which pieces of information you think should be merged. As discussed under Thunderwing's vote, all information of known value is already contained in the Wii and Wii Remote articles.

  • Verdict - It seems that there is a consensus that this article should be removed. There is some interest in merging it, however, though there was very little feedback on what is worth merging. Just64helpin, you suggested that the "Wii Remote operation" section could be morphed into a "Reception" section for the Wii Remote article. Is this something you think you could take a crack at? There has been a lot of discussion concerning the fact that the "Wii Remote operation" section is lopsided toward negative reviews of the remote. Is there any chance you could balance that out in a Reception secion for the Wii Remote article?

    Once any information of value is merged, I'll place the delete request tag on the page to have it vaporized by an admin. Thank you all for your participation in this process. Jbanes 15:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Update - Seems that the admin review process is more automated than the guide suggested. Just64helpin has agreed to attempt to merge the suggested text into a new Reception section for the Wii Remote article. He's already userfied his work in progress, so this page can be reviewed by an admin at any time. Apologies if my own confusion confused anyone else. Jbanes 20:23, 7 May 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Plaza 22 Strip Mall (Saskatoon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable strip plaza. Delete. Skeezix1000 18:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. I can't find a single page on this strip mall, so you bet your @$$ it's non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer • 18:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice, non-notable Gtg204y 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopedia-worthy. Punkmorten 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • ADVICE NEEDED - Article requested as a answer to a request Please advise what route should be taken. This has been on several Talk pages already. This was an answer which was derived at. Another main article (city) was getting very lengthy, so the shopping malls were put into a list and a category created. The malls were also attempted in a (neighborhood) articles which also was felt by Wiki editors to be getting lenghty. Malls with photos and primary source information had articles written, some were started as stubs. This was a request put out to start articles especially if it had a photo It does conform to Wikipedi's s as it has encompassed these three. (Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view, Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability, and Knowledge (XXG):No original research) What seems to be the issue here is Knowledge (XXG):Notability (organizations and companies). Shopping malls of various types are found in large and small communities, and are part of what defines a community. Studying mall locations and amenities shows a suburb's or subdivision's inclinations, and desires for their particular convenient desire for example if the small strip mall contains a dry cleaning service or laundromat service for instance. The shopping mall started out in the city article, then moved to the neighborhood article and then an article of its own. This is an example of a Strip mall. It is not one of many Power centres, Shopping mall#Regional Malls or Shopping mall#Super-regional Malls so it may not be notable because it is not big, and it does not serve a big neighborhood. However it is important to the residents of that community and it is an example of that species. There are many examples of the species defined at power centres, and none of the species defined at Strip mall. SriMesh | talk 22:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Things interesting to the immediate area are outside our scope. The requirement which it fails is RS: there are no non-trivial sources. There can be a general article on strip malls, but it is a very rare one which would be notable. I would include it in an article for the neighborhood; I'm not even sure from the article which neighborhood it would go it, but none of the sampled neighborhood articles seem too long to accommodate a mention. I know this is not a formal consideration, but the existence of Google Maps (and similar) have removed whatever need might have been felt to include articles like this. DGG 05:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
There is more discussion at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Westgreen Shopping Plaza (Saskatoon) and changes have been made to the list and neighborhood articles so there are not stubs about smaller strip malls hanging around and about, but rather paragraphs like a discussion would be better, and WP:MALLS has some good notes to follow also, but not about notability as of yet.SriMesh | talk 04:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment there have been some changes made to the List of Shopping Malls see the discussion at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Westgreen Shopping Plaza (Saskatoon) for further notes.

SriMesh | talk 04:29, 3 May 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Royal Square Strip Mall (Saskatoon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable strip mall, page evidently created by same user who created Plaza 22 Strip Mall (Saskatoon) which is also up for deletion. This strip, like Plaza 22, makes no claim to notability -- it seems like just another strip mall that doesn't need to be listed. Ten Pound Hammer • 18:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, not encyclopedia-worthy. Punkmorten 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • ADVICE NEEDED - Article requested as a answer to a request Please advise what route should be taken. This has been on several Talk pages already. This was an answer which was derived at. Another main article (city) was getting very lengthy, so the shopping malls were put into a list and a category created. The malls were also attempted in a (neighborhood) articles which also was felt by Wiki editors to be getting lenghty. Malls with photos and primary source information had articles written, some were started as stubs. This was a request put out to start articles especially if it had a photo It does conform to Wikipedi's s as it has encompassed these three. (Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view, Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability, and Knowledge (XXG):No original research) What seems to be the issue here is Knowledge (XXG):Notability (organizations and companies). Shopping malls of various types are found in large and small communities, and are part of what defines a community. Studying mall locations and amenities shows a suburb's or subdivision's inclinations, and desires for their particular convenient desire for example if the small strip mall contains a dry cleaning service or laundromat service for instance. The shopping mall started out in the city article, then moved to the neighborhood article and then an article of its own. This is an example of a Strip mall. It is not one of many Power centres, Shopping mall#Regional Malls or Shopping mall#Super-regional Malls so it may not be notable because it is not big, and it does not serve a big neighborhood. However it is important to the residents of that community and it is an example of that species. There are many examples of the species defined at power centres, and none of the species defined at Strip mall. SriMesh | talk 22:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete same as above. But it might be strategic to not nominate similar articles till there's been a decision of these--then others can probably be dealt with more simply by PROD. DGG 05:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
There is more discussion at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Westgreen Shopping Plaza (Saskatoon) and changes have been made to the list and neighborhood articles so there are not stubs about smaller strip malls hanging around and about, but rather paragraphs like a discussion would be better, and WP:MALLS has some good notes to follow also, but not about notability as of yet.SriMesh | talk 04:30, 3 May 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Eastview Shopping Centre (Saskatoon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Yet another non-notable, vague strip mall page from evidently the same person who created two other strips getting zapped for deletion Plaza 22 Strip Mall (Saskatoon) and Royal Square Strip Mall (Saskatoon). Makes no claim to notability, page is very vague to boot. Just judging from the picture I can tell that this is a dinky strip mall with nothing notable about it. Ten Pound Hammer • 18:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There is more discussion at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Westgreen Shopping Plaza (Saskatoon) and changes have been made to the list and neighborhood articles so there are not stubs about smaller strip malls hanging around and about, but rather paragraphs like a discussion would be better, and WP:MALLS has some good notes to follow also, but not about notability as of yet.SriMesh | talk 04:31, 3 May 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 -- Samir 03:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Westgreen Shopping Plaza (Saskatoon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Yet another nn strip mall in Saskatoon. Looking at the picture, I can see no reason to keep this page -- it's just a tiny strip that could be anywhere in Canada. The page is vague and makes no claim to notability, just like the other Canadian strips listed above. Ten Pound Hammer • 18:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    • ADVICE NEEDED - Article requested as a answer to a request Please advise what route should be taken. This has been on several Talk pages already. This was an answer which was derived at. Another main article (city) was getting very lengthy, so the shopping malls were put into a list and a category created. The malls were also attempted in a (neighborhood) articles which also was felt by Wiki editors to be getting lenghty. Malls with photos and primary source information had articles written, some were started as stubs. This was a request put out to start articles especially if it had a photo It does conform to Wikipedi's s as it has encompassed these three. (Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view, Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability, and Knowledge (XXG):No original research) What seems to be the issue here is Knowledge (XXG):Notability (organizations and companies). Shopping malls of various types are found in large and small communities, and are part of what defines a community. Studying mall locations and amenities shows a suburb's or subdivision's inclinations, and desires for their particular convenient desire for example if the small strip mall contains a dry cleaning service or laundromat service for instance. The shopping mall started out in the city article, then moved to the neighborhood article and then an article of its own. This is an example of a Strip mall. It is not one of many Power centres, Shopping mall#Regional Malls or Shopping mall#Super-regional Malls so it may not be notable because it is not big, and it does not serve a big neighborhood. However it is important to the residents of that community and it is an example of that species. There are many examples of the species defined at power centres, and none of the species defined at Strip mall. SriMesh | talk 22:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • To answer your questions: While an article on a city is likely to be noteworthy, almost none of the malls in the city will be. You need to show why it is noteable to someone not familar with the city (not a resident). You give it away at "were put into a list". Lists are bad - see WP:Listcruft. The correct thing to do is Delete all mall entries for the city unless they are notable by common standards. Furthemore, because we have an entry for Shopping Malls does not mean we should create a stub for every shopping mall! The idea of a shopping mall is noteable; the majority of shopping malls themselves are NOT notable. Finally, "it is important to the residents of that community" is not criteria for notability in Knowledge (XXG). This is an encyclopedia, not a yellow pages! See WP:NOT. Ibanix 23:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment/suggestion. Though individual malls within a city are for the most part going to fail notability requirements, I for one would not object too strongly to the smerging of such articles into an article such as Shopping malls in Saskatoon, which could quite comfortably take a short paragraph on each of the main ones. A single article on the main shopping malls in each sizeable city would be far preferable to stub articles on every shopping mall in the world, and would be encyclopaedic enough that they would be likely to survive without AfD'ing. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a good alternative to my earlier suggestion for including them in the neighborhood articles. Personally, though, I think they'd be more useful in the neighborhoods.DGG 05:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd advise against it myself, per This discussion on WP:MALLS. If you merge all the shopping centers in Saskatoon, you risk violating NPoV, and you also risk a bad case of listcruft -- because after all, what constitutes a mall or strip? There's a strip mall in my town that has only three stores in it, all vacant -- would I then include that under Shopping centers in Iosco County? (And keep in mind that the nearest enclosed mall to me is fifty miles away. Ten Pound Hammer • 17:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Thanks to everyone who has commented, these all make sense, and such will be amended...see this page List of shopping malls in Saskatoon. and the changes therein so that there aren't little stubs about non-notable malls hanging about, but the ability to develop articles on the larger ones. There is also a Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Shopping Centers which will help give guidelines for the larger malls. It so far has not listed guidelines re notability. All the help is much appreciated. Kind Regards. SriMesh | talk 04:24, 3 May 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. Daniel Bryant 09:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Hopeless stub on a mall in Superior, WI. The mall is mostly dead by many accounts, and I can't find any verifiable information online. I'm not usually one to delete mall pages, but I personally have tried to expand this page before and failed, so I'm putting it up for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • 18:45, 1 May 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. Daniel Bryant 09:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Big Four (music) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research. kingboyk 18:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete! Definitely OR. I've never even heard of most of these bands, much less the term "big four". Ten Pound Hammer • 18:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Big Four of Thrash Metal is a widely known term. Rubbish article which I think should be deleted this is, but if someone created a Big Four of Thrash article I'd vote keep. LuciferMorgan 19:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Patently original research. Who says the respective lists are the "big four" in any given field? Based on my itunes play count, the big four bands are The Aislers Set, Bearsuit, Marine Research and the Television Personalities - can I edit the page to make that the "big four"? The reasoning's no less valid. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I created this article with content from Big Four, which is a disambiguation page, which therefore cannot include content per Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Deleting this article will only result in the dab page getting polluted again. It's preferable to do OR patrol in this article than to do dab cleanup in what is already a stable dab page. --maf (talk-cont) 00:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mostly fanboy stuff, what isn't can be easily put in the existing disambiguation. Adamravenscroft 17:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment -- could keep and trim down to the handful (thrash bands, Seattle grunge bands, Pink Floyd albums) that can have their own articles or mentions in the bands' articles (those entries are the musical "Big Four" mentions I could find citations for, and the Pink Floyd album cite just mentioned that there was a big four, but didn't enumerate them) -- but by the time this list is trimmed, it might just as easily be slurped back into the base Big Four dab. If the artist/album's articles don't describe themselves as one of some big four, there's no need to list them on a dab, IMO. -- JHunterJ 19:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete trash all the non-notable/OR lines, then the few lines that are left can easily be put back into Big Four. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.27.130.242 (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Weak Delete The only thing from this list that is not OR is the Big four of Thrash Metal, even then it's not really notable and is probably better documented else ware. Avador 04:20, 8 May 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Past, Upcoming, Unreleased (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

indiscriminate list: I'm not even sure what the author means to include. all hip-hop albums? Calliopejen1 19:19, 1 May 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. --Coredesat 08:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

This page was nominated for deletion by User:PrincessOfHearts; however, that user didn't properly complete the AfD process so I'm helping out. Page is uncategorized, makes no claims to notability, and has formatting errors galore. Ten Pound Hammer • 22:56, 2 May 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. --Coredesat 08:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

SBGT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of SBGT episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of SBGT story arcs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SBGT The Movie: Hell's Welcome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-existent anime series. No sources indicating such a show called "SBGT" airing on TV Tokyo nor the existence of it's creator "Gojo Akiri". Also nominating a bunch of spin-off articles made by the creator. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:36, 1 May 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. --Coredesat 08:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Delete - indiscriminate unmaintainable directory of unrelated characters with POV inclusion criteria so broad that almost any antagonist would qualify. Otto4711 19:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete the inclusion criteria are, as the the nom said, too broad and also too subjective. Especially: "impulsivity", "irritability", and "irresponsibility." Anybody with a bad attitude might fit those criteria; it doesn't necessarily mean they have a personality disorder. The article is totally unsourced, and given the subjective nature of the criteria, it is likely WP:OR. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:55, 1 May 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. Will redirect to Mill Valley, California; not merging because there is no sourced information to merge. --Coredesat 08:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

This article should be deleted because it does not meet the notability critera; in particular it meets the criteria for speedy deletion: "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and websites. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. Ibanix 20:33, 1 May 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. DS 22:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Zero google hits on article title and 3 goog;e hits from the name of the table and that only a flickr site suggests that this is "something made up in school one day" and not therefore something for wikipedia. Spartaz 20:54, 1 May 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. WjBscribe 19:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Seems too trivial to have its own article. To be honest, I'm suspicious whenever "fandom" is mentioned... JianLi 21:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge to the episode article. The other usages give it just enough weight that I'd rather have a redirect leading somewhere rather than nothing. FrozenPurpleCube 22:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge I agree that it should be merged with the series that the currency is used. Unless a decent overview, usage, history, exchange rate and other detailed information can be posted on the subject, it's best posted as part of the game's article.--Kylohk 22:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • reluctant Merge to the epsiode article. It might be a good idea to create a stub at Quatloos! for the notable website. I concur that it has become an in-joke, but has not been much published (even within fandom) because of fears of legal action. The lawyers have turned a blind eye toward Star Trek fan productions, but they might look less kindly on possible trademark violations which dilute a trademark, rather than enhance the trademark. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Lacking sources for real world context. May not need mentioning within another article, or preserving any of this content. I have no problem with creating a new redirect after deletion if it will help deter recreation. Jay32183 20:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep it as is The primary function of an encyclopedia is to be a reference source for anyone seeking an explanation on any given subject of interest. I just reached this article myself precisely because I looked up the term quatloo after coming across an instance of it being used outside of any given trekkie context. The term itself clearly is at least appearing in the real world even if it's origins is not the real world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.183.209.254 (talk) 05:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC). — 67.183.209.254 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Merge or redirect to episode article; not everything referenced in Star Trek is worthy of an article. Fictional money used in a single episode is streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetching it more than a bit. Carlossuarez46 21:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I wager 400 quatloos that this article will be merged! —phh (/c) 00:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep it as is This came up in conversation during a Terrace game, and we needed to find out what a Quatloo was, thankfully finding it here. Please do not remove it!
  • Wait a second! Did someone just say this was used in a single Star Trek episode??? And we're debating whether or not it should be kept/merged/deleted? SERSIOUSLY? RFerreira 06:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep it as is I don't see the problem. I just accessed the article and it was useful to me. The information is verifiable and noncontroversial. Why do articles have to meet some sort of arbitrary standard of independent importance? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charvakan (talk • contribs) 14:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC). — charvakan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 08:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Article consists of two related dicdefs and belongs at wiktionary Vicarious 21:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Valid article on a valid subject that could be expanded. 1ne 22:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary if it ain't there already. Keep - changed my mind, it could stay on its own as an article if improved. Unfortunately, I was way too late for the hippie era (I'm only 20) so I can't help this one. Ten Pound Hammer • 23:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Currently dicdef, but definitely a topic deserving an article citing trends, reasons, etc. for "dropping out." --Auto 23:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Autocracy. I'm surprised there's not already a decent article on this. --Galaxiaad 01:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as well. It's the kind of social concept I'd expect to see an article on; it just has zilch content. It could be a decent article if it gets some attention (maybe tag it with some appropriate template?). –Pakman044 08:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete origional research and dictionary definition--Sefringle 05:55, 3 May 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. --Coredesat 08:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Guest and employee advocacy at casinos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Employee turnover at casinos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The articles overlap. At best they are original research but really they spam for Martin R. Baird (also on AfD). -- RHaworth 21:06, 1 May 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. --Coredesat 08:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Martin R. Baird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bio - either autobio or written by an author with strong COI. Essentially an advert for the subject's company. By the same author as Guest and employee advocacy at casinos and Employee turnover at casinos (also on AfD). -- RHaworth 21:11, 1 May 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 deleted by ^demon. W.marsh 22:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Copy and paste of official biography... technically might be a G11 (blatant advertising) but I would like to resolve this now rather than just have to AFD a rewritten version in a few days. This person just doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO: . Should be deleted for good if reliable sources can't be pointed out. W.marsh 21:49, 1 May 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 13:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Students for Organ Donation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Now that's what I'm talking about, I'd have little objection to keeping the article based on sources like that. FrozenPurpleCube 00:10, 2 May 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. --Coredesat 08:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Probably a hoax. Basically impossible to google for ("John MacHines", "Ian MacHines", "Mary MacHines" find no relevant hits. No reference to the "MacHines Estate" can be found despite the supposed famousness, and reference as a joke, no less by Stern hardly qualifies as a reliable source. Article as a one-shot abandoned for days by its author despite the {{hoax}} tag. Coren 22:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That certainly helps. I wonder why I didn't think of checking phone listings-- Is there an online directory for BT (for future reference)? Coren 23:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Infobel has the phone books of most major countries online - the UK ones are here. In my experience it's awesomely user-unfriendly and crashes at least every other time you use it — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:55, 1 May 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 all, although it was no consensus on some. I'd suggest a relist for a number of the five may be beneficial. Daniel Bryant 09:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Delete Knowledge (XXG) is not a billboard for advertising commercial software. AlistairMcMillan 22:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because these articles also exist solely to advertise commercial software:

Magellan Explorer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
RageWork (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
XYplorer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ZTreeWin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Strong keep all five - they are all very widely used pieces of file management software (114,000, 56,900, 57,300, 83,500 and 246,000 Ghits respectively for those who play the Google count game), and all three articles have been repeatedly edited by multiple editors over two to three years, so it's not as if this is a batch of spam someone's chosen to post. (Even if they originated as spam, they certainly aren't now.) I don't see anything in any of the articles that could be construed as spam; all of them are purely technical "this is what the program is called; this is what it does; this is what makes it different" articles — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Quick comments. (1) XYplorer has been overwhelmingly edited by one editor, which at least for that article suggests advertising. (2) I could find no significant independent reviews of any of these pieces of software. (3) Thousands of Google hits don't mean anything if they are all simple listings on software directory sites like download.com or softpedia.com. AlistairMcMillan 00:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Altap Salamander is the one of the top file managers in respect to functionality and desing. If you are looking for review, try searching "Servant Salamander". The name has been changed very recently. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prikryl (talk • contribs) 06:42, May 2, 2007 (UTC)
And? Still can't any real reviews of the product. AlistairMcMillan 14:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
What about these?
http://www.kickstartnews.com/reviews/utilities/servant_salamander_25_ksn.html
http://www.simplehelp.net/2006/10/11/10-windows-explorer-alternatives-compared-and-reviewed/#servsal
http://www.softpedia.com/reviews/windows/Servant-Salamander-Review-12761.shtml
--Prikryl 07:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Cool. But what you want to do is add these to the article. They don't do much good here. How about the other four articles I nominated, any care about them? AlistairMcMillan 10:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The difference with Windows is that it is notable software. There are thousands of credible articles and reviews about it that can be cited as sources. Hundreds of books have been written about it. Collectively millions of dollars have been spent in buying Windows. You really can't compare it to these comparatively trivial pieces of software. AlistairMcMillan 11:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I've been using this software for several years. You want reviews? Google found many of them... And what about Total Commander? Do you still want to delete it, too? Where is the border between articles about software which will be deleted and which will not be deleted? majkl 12:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The point is notability. What makes these pieces of software notable enough to warrant having as article on them?
Please point us to these reviews you found on Google. All I could find was forum postings, which aren't reliable as sources, and comments on file directory sites like download.com, which again aren't reliable sources. Has it been reviewed in any magazines (PC World etc), has it been reviewed by a site like ArsTechnica? AlistairMcMillan 13:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
On account of Altap Salamander - the new 2.5 version was released after 6 years! of work on 27th April 2007. I don't think 6 days (as today) are enough for the reliable sources to review software update after 6 years of development. → Zarevak 14:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
So... were previous versions not reviewed by anyone? AlistairMcMillan 14:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Cannot vote as I'm biased towards Altap Salamander. But I'm for Keeeping the articles with rewrite. I just tried to rewrite history part of Altap Salamander article to remove of commercial stuff. Feature list still needs to be updated. → Zarevak 12:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep these Entries It goes to far IMHO to charge articles that merely present information on successful commercial applications with "advertising". An article would have to be openly biased and one-sided to qualify as such. AlistairMcMillan's additional criterium of notability is somewhat problematic - any regular user of a particular program may well find it notable, whereas a non-user could not care less. To a certain degree, notability of software seems to be a consequence of marketshare, not necessarily quality and usefulness.
There are certainly more reviews of Windows Explorer than ZtreeWin or Altap Salamander, but that doesn't mean the former is a better filemanager. In the interesst of user choice, Knowledge (XXG) ought to present interesting alternatives to the established heavyweights in the software market. Both open-source and commercial ones. Textor 04:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Notability is an long-standing established guideline. If you think it is "problematic" you should discuss that on the appropriate talk page: Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability. AlistairMcMillan 16:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
What we seem to be arguing about is rather the interpretation of Notability in this concrete case, not Notability as such. Do you want delete all references to software that is not market-dominating in its field? Then we might as well toss out the articles on WordPerfect and Abiword, because compared to Microsoft Word, they have a marginal share. Where do you want to draw the line? What you dismiss as comparatively trivial pieces of software may well be better filemanagers than a certain monopolists's OS-integrated product - otherwise, would there be so many satisfied users? Textor 18:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, "Knowledge (XXG) ought to present interesting alternatives to the established heavyweights in the software market." What are you smoking? This is an encyclopedia not a platform to level the playing field in the software market. Please see WP:NOT. K1ng l0v3 14:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not smoking. Please think about the consequences of deleting everything but the dominating application in its field: numerous entries like Comparison_of_file_managers or List_of_file_managers would become superflous, there'd be nothing left to compare. Dito for any other category of software: spreadsheets could be reduced to Excel, text processing to Word, email to Outlook. Some kind of encyclopedia that would be. Textor 18:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey! The first argument for deletion was about advertising commercial software - I agreed that there was this problem so I updated the Altap Salamander article to be more encyclopedic. I don't see any reason, why to remove this articles based on Knowledge (XXG):Notability - there are articles on much smaller pieces of software on wikipedia. Also these article names are so special that no user can find them unintentionaly.
I don't even see a justice about needing to have proper magazine review to have article about some software - I don't know if Altap Salamander had or had not any magazine coverage as I don't read any; but my friend's school project had once one page review in Czech version of CHIP magazine and I don't think his school project was notable as I think about Altap Salamander. It was just a nice tool the reviewer found usefull at the time. → Zarevak 19:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Some notable czech reviews of Altap Salamander:
→ Zarevak 19:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I am only familiar with ZTreeWin, but this program has a very enthusiastic user following, with its own Wiki & User Forum. The entry was created by the users, as an addition to the Orthodox file manager, Comparison of file managers, List of file managers pages. (Incidentally List of file managers is also listed for deletion, but not Comparison of file managers).
The page is not advertising, although it supports & promotes ZTreeWin, which is an essential add on to Windows (how do Explorer users work when you can't even filter by extension).
If ALL File Manager entries are to be deleted, so be it, but it is unrealistic to selectively delete some, and leave others. --Ian 01:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP ~ ~ ~ Why? Because Windows Explorer needs competitors, ZTREEWIN is an offshoot of the greatest file manager ever (XTREE), bar none. Since XTREE is an historical program, it's offshoot must need to be cross-referenced. I have several hundred other reasons, but this one will do for now. SourDough.Deacon / SourDough Deacon 02:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all per iridescenti. This is no shameless commercial plug; each of those pages links to a page that lists its competitors(!), including even a feature comparison chart! Vor0nwe 09:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Altap and ZTree, weak keep rest. I think Altap has enough external links that I'm willing to say it's fine as-is; the others could be cured by citing a few independent sources. I do not see an advertising bent to the articles. —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 6 May 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 ABC Unified School District, merge the individual schools. John254 14:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

I also am nominating these related schools for the same reason (see below): Ibanix 23:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Carmenita Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aloha Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Melbourne Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Palms Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:Listcruft, WP:NOT and WP:V Ibanix 23:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep the school district. Abstain on individual schools. School districts (especially their taxing and spending decisions) are generally the subject of enough independent coverage to ensure that they meet notability standards. --Eastmain 02:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the district article, and add content by merging in the ones for the schools, which should be the usual way of handling most middle schools. Doing these merges does not require AfD. DGG 05:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the school district per Eastman and Merge the individual schools. Omit most of the trivial info in the school articles about their day to day schedules, the racial composition of the student body, the test scores, and names of administrators, since that changes frequently. Edison 17:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep district article, as districts are inherently notable as a rule of thumb, and merge elementary school pages into the district one. RFerreira 06:50, 5 May 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Founder of sorority with only 1 chapter at 1 university; nonnotable. NawlinWiki 23:35, 1 May 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. Daniel Bryant 09:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Non-notable. Their biggest claim to fame is their status as a visiting professor, which isn't enough Misterdiscreet 00:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep if improved (i.e. inline citations, reliable sources) by the end of the AfD. Should be deleted otherwise since unsourced articles about living people shouldn't be allowed to stand regardless of the person's notability. Though even being Joi Ito's sister (probably the main claim to fame) doesn't make you inherently notable, and I don't want to get into a debate about whether she meets WP:PROF, she has independent coverage, e.g. interview in Technology Review , so probably meets the primary biographical notability criteria. cab 01:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 03:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I have added her official website at USC, which is generally acceptable for details of careers in uncontroversial cases. Her exact title there is "Senior Fellow," not teaching fellow (which is ordinarily a temporary appointment). This is arguably more important than the Visiting Associate Professorship. It can be hard to find equivalent ranks for researchers. As might be expected, her personal website is very detailed and very professional in a sense not typical of academics, and it should be easy to add additional sources. DGG 06:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. —gorgan_almighty 10:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • keep. Perhaps she is not notable, but she is the most notable figure in anthropological studies of children's use of technology in cross national contexts. As for being a visiting professor... that is not something to be criticized as not being enough, her publication record and projects is what establishes her as a leading figure, not her title. --Buridan 15:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless references can be found and added to the article by the end of the deletion debate to show that she satisfies
  • comment all one has to do is look at her citation counts on google scholar to see her seniority and centrality in the fields she participates. that the proposer or other deletionists haven't even cared enough to look is problematic... AFD is not a process for encouraging article improvement. First you should mark the article for improvement, then wait, and then still do your due diligence before proposing deletion. I see no effort in checking to see if the person pass notability before afd. --Buridan 19:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • keep Mimi is an important cross-cultural researcher and I'm aware of her work in under-represented areas of children and technology (my area of research) and she's contributed to The International Handbook of Virtual Learning Environments which I co-edited. IMHO, she's a well respected researcher and academic... but obviously the piece needs to be developed and improved. BTW, senior fellows tend to be rather prestigious, though not as common perhaps in the US, they're common enough elsewhere. The designation of Professor is problematic itself because in Canada instructors in 2 year community colleges are called professors, where as at Oxford only the head of the department is entitled to use 'professor' I'm told. --Jasonnolan 19:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment It is really up to those who want to keep an article to do the research and to add the necessary references to the article, rather than scolding others for not each independently spending a considerable time checking "Google scholar" or Science Citation Index or some other data base to try and find the individual's publications, to see what research awards they have received, what review panels they serve on and whar journals they edit, what research grants they have received, and what influence they have had on their field. Thre are thousands of college teachers of varying title in the world, and most of them are so ordinary as to not deserve either an article or even extensive research to try and find if they have distinguished themselves. It really does not satisfy WP:N to say "I edited a book and I say she is distinguished" after the Essjay fiasco. Edison 02:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • CommentIt is really up to wp editors to learn some detail about an article before proposing it for afd, no? This I contend, is an afd that should be withdrawn, as at best the article should have been stubbed and marked for improvement, any basic effort to look into the subject of the article would show that it passes wp:prof and likely even wp:bio. AFD is not a tool to improve articles. --Buridan 11:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Withdraw the AFD when three people, including myself, have voted against it? If the subject of this article is as notable as you claim then what does it have to fear from an AfD? Misterdiscreet 15:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Three people who never looked for evidence are not three people who are attempting to build consensus, are they? they are merely projecting their collective lack of interest, or possibly this is just systematic bias, i dunno. the point of it is not that your 3 votes are not significant, it is that your 3 votes have nothing at all to do with notability. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buridan (talk • contribs) 16:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
        • No: its the burden of those contributing to the article to prove its notability. When I AFD a questionable article, I'll do a quick check, but I'm not going to invest time on something that is probably going to be a wild goose chase. If the article is truly notable then editors will support it and it will pass. And maybe those supporting its existence will rectify any shortcomings discussed in the process. As this particular article stands: it has 0 independent resources and in this state it fails all criteria at WP:PROF except maybe number 3 (does editing a collection of essays of unestablished notability count?). ccwaters 17:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
            • NO: it is the burden of the afd proposer to do due diligence before proposing deleting an article, if he or she is not comfortable with the quality, then we use those tags first. this proposer just flagged for afd. if this article had sat under an improve tag for 2 months, sure, i'd have no problem. it didn't it is just a spurious nominations. --Buridan 21:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
              • maybe you should go edit Template:AfD_in_3_steps to say: the AfD process takes two months to complete. first, recommend the article be improved. two or more months later you can nominate it for deletion. perhaps the only deletes that should be deleted without having to wait two months are ones that are good candidates for speedy deletion? Misterdiscreet 22:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
                • actually it already says somewhere that afd is not a means toward article improvement, which is why i suggested you should withdraw.--Buridan 22:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • if i withdrawal, i effectively invalidate two votes against this article. you might be able to get me to change my vote, but this afd is no longer mine to withdrawal. Misterdiscreet 22:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
                    • umm, i think you are misunderstanding the afd process. there are no votes. it is consensus. if you withdrew, there would be nothing to have consensus on. --Buridan 00:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Along with Henry Jenkins, she is one of the pioneers of the new media literacy movement; it's only a matter of time before her article reflects this. MaxVeers 01:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ito is a brilliant, widely-cited scholar on youth and digital media. I just added a reference to a BusinessWeek article talking about her work, and a recent MacArthur Foundation grant she received. - JustinHall 23:13, 4 May 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.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑