Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 16 - 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 transwiki to Wiktionary. Requested here, although anyone with a Wiktionary account (ie. not me) is welcome to do so. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 12:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Potentially non-notable neologism. It was supposedly "popularized" just today. GlassCobra 00:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not-yet-notable neologism, conflicts with other prior graph theory papers (e.g. Probability Bounds with Cherry Trees, J Bukszar, A Prekopa - Mathematics of Operations Research, 2001). —David Eppstein 04:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. The cherry tree idea in the paper you referred to is distinct and different from the idea of a cherry I'm referring to in this article, so I don't see a problem there. Though it may indeed be not-yet-notable to more than 50 people. Crypticfortune 06:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
      • To clarify: that paper defines a cherry as a degree-two vertex together with its two adjacent edges, and a cherry tree as a graph that can be reduced to a single edge by repeated removal of cherries. This article on the other hand defines a cherry as a vertex with two degree-one neighbors. They are competing definitions for different kinds of subgraphs of graphs. I'm not arguing that the other one is in any way notable, by the way, but I think this is evidence that the graph theory community has not settled on a fixed meaning for that word. I could also point out that there is more support in the literature for calling your concept "twin leaves" than "cherry". But we shouldn't be reporting on terminology here until it's established; there's no point in trying to stay ahead of the curve. Even if this were established terminology, what more is there to say about it? —David Eppstein 03:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki->Wiktionary. I'm the initial author of this page, and I just updated the article with a citation to the paper where the term is used. But I see now that as a neologism it perhaps belongs better in Wiktionary rather than Knowledge (XXG) because (as far as I know) new and I can't find any other supporting sources specifically about this term. I'm pretty sure that this term will catch on, as it's helpful in describing a number of algorithms in bioinformatics and was picked up quickly and borrowed by 3 other presenters, but this still perhaps makes it more appropriate for Wiktionary rather than Knowledge (XXG). Crypticfortune 06:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 00:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable yet by any means. • Lawrence Cohen 01:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Transwiki to Wiktionary Either way, it just doesn't belong here because it's non-notable. I found only 19 ghits for Cherry + "Cedric Chauve", and only one appeared to be about this concept, although one pdf in French may or may not mention this concept (it doesn't appear to). Noroton 16:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki Excellent definition of a technical term, should be in a dictionary. Mbisanz 18:56, 24 September 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. Carlossuarez46 23:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Article was PROD'ed for lack of notability, but contested since article asserted notability stating that it received various awards and recognitions, although only reference is the article's website. So discussion is brought here. Mtmelendez 23:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - it appears to be an ad and appears to have copy violoations too. --BlindEagle 15:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I think the article is too small to be considered an advertisement, since stubs generally include the most common information of the subject in two to five sentences. It has one weasel word, but again, its just a 5 sentence paragraph. About the copyvio, can you elaborate? I didn't see anything worrisome at first glance of the article or the webpage provided. My main concern is notability, whether or not those awards and recognitions check out. - Mtmelendez 16:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply. Perhaps I read it too quickly. I usually focus on the numbers and sentences around them that get copied into articles. In that regard, there appears to be no copy violoations. But, honestly, it still reads like a quick promo ad. Perhaps it's just a summary of the home page of the resort. However, to me, that would still qualify as as an advertisement. You're right, the place truly isn't noteworthy either. --BlindEagle 16:51, 18 September 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 replace with Help (disambiguation). —Wknight94 (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

This page is a rambling dictionary definition with an irrelevant list tacked on. I really doubt that people going to an article on "Help" are interested in random links to Begging and Soup kitchen. Moreover, I don't really see a way that any decent article could be written on help; it's an impossibly broad topic. About the only thing that could be done with it are endless examples of how everyone in every walk of life can sometimes ask for help, and that doesn't make for a good article (see: "Often in sports people may call out for "Help" signaling that they need assistance from one of their team mates").

If this page is deleted, Help (disambiguation) should be moved to Help instead, and possibly some of the links on this page moved to that page's See also section. SnowFire 22:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Due to Quiddity's evangelizing for wiki-neutrality, I simply agreed with him by dropping the drive. But Quiddity doesn't seem happy until you follow his prescriptions, even if you go out of your way to implement a different remedy. For example, when he believes that an issue should receive more discussion and comment, rather than requesting such comment personally he may instead impose this as a responsibility upon someone else, and then at any point from then on may openly complain about that person for not complying with his "suggestions". I can't speak for others, but I find that practice needlessly annoying (and possibly a minor form of harrassment). If Quiddity wants more comment, then Quiddity should request it himself, rather than pressure someone else into doing his bidding. In this case though, I believe an RfC will simply be beating a dead horse. The Transhumanist 18:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Umm, admin Richardshusr was the one who suggested an RfC, I just seconded the recommendation. I also stated that I understood that the topic might merit special treatment, and that this article would be a useful example for said discussion. It's not my project, and not my fault you ignored it.
    If you feel that the page's current state is defensible, then defend it (or improve it); but please don't attack me. --Quiddity 19:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • And by seconding it, that made it your recommendation as well. But by complaining about my not doing your bidding, you have turned it into more of a command than a suggestion (the implication being "do what I want you to do or I will complain about it until you do"). But the rest of you should know that this is not the first time Quiddity has used pressure tactics on me. He has even resorted to threatening me to try to get me to do his bidding. He seems to forget that this is a volunteer organization, and that ordering people around is totally out of place. I don't take kindly to threats and other forms of coersion, and will speak out against them every time. Quiddity, please stop. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 03:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I was writing a personal addendum for the last 30 mins, and just posted it at your talkpage and then noticed your reply here. It works as a reply to this thread too though, so I'll leave it at that. --Quiddity 04:19, 19 September 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. Carlossuarez46 23:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ugly American (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Massive, MASSIVE COI taking place here. Also bordering on notability (probably not even there yet), and a very crappy article in general. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 22:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Dear Mr. Dihydrogen Monoxide:

A few facts for your consideration:

1) None of the zine's principals created the article; the article was created by a fan. I rewrote the article due to numerous factual inaccuracies, and I included in the initial draft an unusual postscript explicitly stating the possibility of a conflict of interest. I also stated that no one outside of the original participants could possibly have a sufficient grasp of the facts to present an accurate historical record of the zine. The postscript - but not the actual article - was felt by the administrators at the time to fall outside of the boundaries of Wiki's stylistic standards, and it was eliminated. Great care was taken to maintain a balanced perspective on the subject at hand, and none of the people involved with the zine or mentioned in the article have ever complained that its portrayal is innaccurate (which, admittedly, doesn't actually prove anything; a careful reading of the article, however, clearly demonstrates a rather straightforward presentation of both "positive" and "negative" facts).

2) The possibility that the zine is a promotional item is nil, considering the fact that it folded in 1999, and that most, if not all, of the bands mentioned (including those that included members of the zine) have also folded. Had you bothered to read the article, you'd note that it contains no promotional material whatsoever.

3) So the article is crappy? Really? Crappier than, say, the forlorn stub on Forced Exposure that's been sitting around since February 2005? Less notable than the ultra-obscure zine The Grimoire of Exalted Deeds, or the laughably obscure Riff Raff? Why don't you simply delete all of these articles while you're at it? As for the zine's importance, it should be noted that while Ugly American was indeed a highly marginal publication, it still managed to carve out its own distinctive (and yes, occasionally recognized) niche during the indie-rock explosion of the nineties. Whether or not marginal cultural artifacts are worthy of inclusion within Knowledge (XXG) is a separate matter for the administrators to decide.

4) I'd like to state for the record that the article Ugly American (magazine) had enjoyed a peaceful existence until the administrator known as Wizardman deleted a fair-use image without first posting a warning (despite his claims to the contrary). I openly challenged this deletion as being heavy-handed and thoughtless, and now, less than twenty-four hours after that confrontation, the entire article is being considered for deletion. If the other Knowledge (XXG) administrators have any integrity whatsoever, they should at least consider the possibility that these events are not coincidental.

5) If in fact the deletion of the article stems from challenging an administrator, please spare me the appearance of thoughtful consideration and grave earnestness, kick-start this kangaroo court, and delete the article immediately, along with my lengthy postings to Wizardman regarding his somewhat questionable practices. Personally, I feel that the article is unfailingly accurate, fairly well written and wholly comprehensive, but should the administrators still decide to delete the article, then so be it. Encyclopedias throughout history have been selective and exclusionary, and really, why should anyone expect Knowledge (XXG) to be different? Either way, Ugly American has left its own, small mark on indie-rock history, one which can't be deleted by Knowledge (XXG). J. Marlowe 00:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. The statement that "no one outside of the original participants could possibly have a sufficient grasp of the facts to present an accurate historical record of the zine" is an admission that it cannot be verified by reliable sources. The article does not provide any sources that establish notability, nor is a 13-issue personal project porno/hip-hop mag notable on its face. While it might sometimes be a good idea to let an article sit while someone looks for sources, it is clear that a lot of time has already been put in in that regard without success. COI or crappiness aside, this topic does not merit inclusion. --Markdsgraham 01:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Regardless of COI, notability isn't there Bfigura 17:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I am not sure that it is unverifiable, but it will probably take a careful look through printed sources in other magazines of the period. Someone associated with the magazine might well write it from personal knowledge, and not realize it ha been written about. DGG (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB and WP:NN. I would also like to answer a few of the

points made by J. Marlowe

1) I am not sure how J. Marlowe knows for a fact that a fan started the article and not someone from the magazine. In anycase, if no one outside of the original participants could possibly have a sufficient grasp of the facts to present an accurate historical record of the zine, then it could be possible that a wikipedia article is not needed for this magazine. First articles need to rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Second, all the information provided has be be easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge...something that you have claimed isn't possible.

2) I can't see how the article is promotional as the magazine in question is out of business.

3) You may be right about the other articles, however pointing at the dirt the other articles have on them does not mean that this article should have a pass. Those articles may deserve an AFD as well, however bringing up their shortcomings is not validate this article or help it in any way. If the magazine carved out a nitch, there should be newspaper articles, mentions on televisions shows or radio shows, or something to verify the claims made. Article fails WP:V


4) Please assume good faith. First you can verify by viewing the admin's contributions to wikipedia very easily to see if they did or did not create the warnings. Next, a user came accross the article and put it up for AFD. It's coincidence.

5)The article may be 'unfailingly accurate', but no adult can easily and reasonably verify the facts and claims made in the article. No matter how well written, and wholly comprehensive the article is...it still fails WP:V, WP:NN. Remember "Notability" is not a reflection of the mag's worth. The mag may have been brilliantly written, fascinating and topical, but it's not notable enough to ensure sufficient verifiable source material exists to create an article.

I have a few questions for Marlowe:

Has the book been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the mag itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience? This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books or magazines, television documentaries and reviews. I couldn't find any.

Has the magazine won a major literary award?

We use those as notability guidelines for books and it works well for magazines too. Can Ugly American pass those notability questions?--Brian(view my history)/ 23:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

4) - No, it's not a co-incidence. Wizardman didn't want to AfD it himself because you've flamed him in enough on his talk page. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • As I'm absolutely certain that the article on Ugly American will be deleted, consider the following to be a commentary rather than a vain appeal:

Rather than speculate on the possibility of behind-the-scenes machinations by the Wiki administrators, I'd like to address instead the two purportedly significant issues at stake: verifiability and notability. The issues are related to the degree that both rely upon the existence of a critical mass of what I'll refer to as "third-party" documentation. Within marginal subcultures like the pre-Internet indie-rock underground of the eighties and nineties, however, this documentation barely exists. While the era produced numerous zines that churned out reviews of contemporary bands, definitively comprehensive and "authoritative" features and interviews involving both bands and other zines (and their writers) are notably lacking. As a result, later literature dealing with the period is necessarily dependent upon interviews with surviving principals. These first-hand and often highly subjective narratives have frequently formed the very basis of various "official", "historical" narratives with regard to the bands of the period. The quintessential example of an authoritative usage of a first-person account is the "standard" media portrayal of Black Flag. Black Flag are arguably the most influential American postpunk band, and yet aside from the recordings, the only historical narratives that have offered substantial insights into the group have been first-hand accounts, the most overwhelmingly influential being Henry Rollins' Get in the Van. You'll note that the Knowledge (XXG) article on Black Flag is currently tagged with a note chiding it for its lack of sources. Much of the article's "factual" content appears to have been taken almost verbatim from Michael Azerrad's Our Band Could Be Your Life. Azerrad gleaned the contents of his writing on Black Flag almost entirely from interviews with band members and - predictably - Rollins' Get in the Van (and not, it should be noted, from the zines of the period, despite their somewhat misleading appearance in his bibliography). Since its publication in 1994 on Rollins' 2.13.61 imprint, Get in the Van, which is a personal diary of life on the road with Black Flag, has become the de facto historical narrative of the band in the absence of any other similarly comprehensive documents. Prior to the book's publication, Black Flag, lacking an overarching, "master" narrative or a compelling mythology, were regarded as just one among many marginal but influential bands of the postpunk era. Following the release of Rollins' self-published, self-mythologizing tome, however, Black Flag's perceived historical importance grew steadily as mainstream writers now enjoyed access to a persuasive, prepackaged tale that they could easily reference and build upon (in the manner of, say, Michael Azzerad). Rollin's subjective account, then, can be said to have been historicized, or transformed into an "official", "objective" narrative due to the dearth of other contemporary sources. A second, slightly different, example of this phenomenon involves the underground zine Forced Exposure. Currently, the Wiki entry on Forced Exposure is a mere "stub", and will likely remain so for the duration of its existence, if only because the two primary members of Forced Exposure - Byron Coley and Jimmy Johnson - have been generally rather tight-lipped regarding the zine and its cultural significance. As a result, anyone attempting to write about what is regarded as one of the most influential underground zines of the eighties has available only a superficial collection of facts discernable by any casual observer. Insights into the fundamental nature of the zine, however, must perforce come from either Coley or Johnson (which is likely the reason a comprehensive account of the zine has yet to appear in any source that I'm aware of). Ugly American, though obviously not in the same league as Forced Exposure, shares that zine's fate of being bound by its insularity to narratives that are inherently subjective (the consequence being a lack of "authoritative", third-party documentation). One of the general results of an overall lack of third-party documentation is that in the absence of first-person narratives, cohesive, historical narratives per se do not, for all practical purposes, exist. First-person narratives then, are absolutely, historically essential in situations where other, more substantial documentation is either limited or incomplete. But does the lack of "authoritative", third-party documentation of important - though marginal - art necessarily mean that such art should not be included in an encyclopedic forum? The answer depends on how highly "marginal" culture is valued within the forum itself. A culturally conservative view (such as the one taken by "Markdsgraham" who impugns the worth of Ugly American by calling attention to its "mere" thirteen-issue run, ignorant of the fact that even Forced Exposure ran for only eighteen issues over a similar period of time) will deem marginal art superfluous and irrelevant, as it measures artistic worth solely in terms of the extent of the art's dissemination and the corresponding size of its cultural impact. A more liberal view will deem both marginal and mainstream cultures as being complementary and inseparable aspects of a larger cultural dialectic, and will value marginal art on its own aesthetic terms, concentrating more on the nature rather than size of its cultural impact. Where Knowledge (XXG) as a whole resides on this ideological spectrum is debatable, but the encyclopedia appears to be drifting towards a slightly more conservative position as its stewards increasingly seek to elevate its status as a definitive reference source. The ideological positions of most of the administrators involved in this deletion case, however, remain conspicuously opaque, and consequently, I can only plausibly comment on the efforts expended in attempting to meet Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for "verifiability" and "notability" during the composition of the article, offering in the process a few generalized insights on Ugly American's cultural relevance.

With regard to the article's "verifiability", I and a few other contributors have labored to both exhaustively illustrate the scope of the zine's wider cultural associations, and locate and provide any and all third-party documentation available on the Internet (said online documentation by definition constituting an incomplete record, precisely because the zine folded just prior to the transition of the fanzine per se into an almost exclusively Internet-based medium). As for Ugly American's "notability", the zine had substantial connections to a number of influential and critically lauded - but likewise highly marginal - musicians, writers and zines, and these connections - whatever their "worth" - have also been documented to the extent possible. While I know that Ugly American's cultural impact was small, I also know that the zine is recognized within admittedly esoteric circles as having carved out a unique and somewhat cultish niche, in the process creating a disproportionately large impact upon the small number of readers who felt a kinship with the publication's acid-addled combination of aggression, surrealism and dark humor. Am I able to prove this point beyond what's already been documented within the article? No. Does anyone outside of a handful of fanatics and weirdos actually care about the zine? Probably not. Do the marginal artists who have been associated with the zine - no matter how fleetingly - themselves merit inclusion within Knowledge (XXG)? Well, I'm sure that they'll find out soon enough. And if Knowledge (XXG)'s deletion of the Ugly American article isn't necessarily a damning indictment of the forum's cultural and historical ideologies, do probing questions regarding the philosophical basis of the notions of "verifiable content" and "notability" that are being used by the administrators in establishing cultural worth still need to be asked? Absolutely. Overall, this particular deletion case seems to raise more questions and present more dilemmas than it answers or resolves, and in the final analysis, the only irrefutable truth to emerge from this morass is that the tediously predictable parting of ways between Ugly American and Knowledge (XXG) will do little to diminish either the cultural influence - no matter how small - that the zine exerted, or the joyful madness that it wielded. J. Marlowe 02:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Brief comment - it may be true that the combined effect of WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:NN is to exclude "marginal" cultural history because nobody has written approriate sources dealing with that history. Nevertheless, it remains essential to Knowledge (XXG)'s usefulness that content be verifiable. Read that policy to see why. --Markdsgraham 05:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was Keep--JForget 00:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

This article seems to mostly list different "bushisms", and really doesn't seem to be anything more then a repository of quotes, and a lot of speculation. Not much fact to back it up, mostly references transcripts and other quotes. --HALtalk 22:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - Despite some referencing, it's still POVish and contains a good deal of OR. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 22:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep "Some" referencing? The references include books written on the subject. I don't know what more you want from references. There is a huge number of references - some entries have two! And there is a difference between the intention of the people mocking Bush over this and the content of the Knowledge (XXG) article. POV referes to the writing in the Knowledge (XXG) article, not what is found in the references. How would you write about racism in Knowledge (XXG) if the topic, and not the writing in the article was subject to POV complaints. The topic is certainly notable - ever watch David Letterman? He's been showing these in video clips every night for months. And the references - often multiple references for each article - speak for themselves. MarkBul 22:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm sorry, but this is in no ways deletable. First it is referenced a bunch, everyone of the bushisms is ref, often mutiply. 48 reliable sources on this small article certainly makes it meet WP:RS. Also this is a very common term. I'm thinking speedy keep. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
    Plenty of reliable sources - like links to Bush's transcripts and speeches. Those are certainly reliable, eh? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep For good or for bad, our President is a source of interesting quotes, and Knowledge (XXG) is the first attempt to verify that each one actually occurred, when, where and in what context. Because it's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, there is the opportunity for a Bush fan to put in intelligent "Bushisms" (I've not yet heard one, mind you, but I'm sure it happens!). American Presidents get a special pass on Knowledge (XXG).org and, unlike the quotable quotes that go into Wikiquote, every word of a President is subject to be reported and analyzed. There were plenty of Clintonisms too, of the "Slick Willie" variety (he didn't inhale and didn't break the laws of "this country" when he smoked weed in England, didn't have sex with Monica in the sense of intercourse, etc.). Knock yourself out. Mandsford 23:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Article is referenced, not just to the quotes themselves but to books and articles that define the term itself, so there are no verifiability or original research issues that I can see. Confusing Manifestation 01:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and close as a frosty treat While I'm not at all a fan of the actual list of Bushisms which in my opinion leaves too much open to original research and attracts vandals, this term is very well defined and very well used, and as such, belongs here. Too little time has transpired since the last AFD for this to be anything but a speedy keep. I suggest that dissenting editors instead spend their time trying to keep the list of Bushisms under control, which is bound to be a full time job. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - now a widely known term and phenomenon, regardless of what party/political persuasion. -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep There have been books written on Bushisms, to say nothing of the wealth of web material. Strong keep (and cleanup as needed) Bfigura 17:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. — RJH (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Is this a joke? Just last week I was at a party where a friend brought out an animatronic toy statue. It did nothing but spout off famous bushisms. Burntsauce 17:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe that the Other Bushisms section is just too much, and should be trans-wikied to Wikiquote under Bushism, which should satisfy (in part) the concerns of most users wanting to delete. I mean, after discussing the article's characteristics, one or two direct quote examples is OK, but 17? Where will it end? Other than that, I believe the subject is notable, but only as a subtopic of Criticism of George W. Bush. It has a surprisingly amount of references, which check out per WP:RS. - Mtmelendez 19:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I rely on Knowledge (XXG) to provide up to date, relevant and sourced information about current culture. I understand that this particular topic doesn't seem NPOV to some people, but it is impossible to present many of these quotes and the person who made the statements in a neutral way because the quotes just are so stupid. Some things just are what they are. However, I hope that the Knowledge (XXG) will exist beyond this current moment and provide a sort of time capsule for the dark ages we are (hopefully passing through). Maybe this is not a proper encyclopedia justification, but I wanted to add my mustard. If my vote doesn't count, it won't be the first time. Saudade7 22:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I do not understand the implications by HAL and Dihydrogen Monoxide that the article is unreferenced, much less 'speculative' in any way. I find one, if not two sources for each quote sufficient, and much more comprehensive than other articles considered properly cited. If I have misinterpreted the argument established by HAL, please feel free to clarify details. While it may contain POV, there is a limit to how neutral such an embarrassing series of events can be portrayed. Even if the article would be extremely POV, is deserves to be re-written in NPOV as much as possible, not deleted. This topic, which documents the language usage of Bush, is most certainly notable, and quite similar to Colemanballs and Yogiisms. This article deserves to exist, and possibly should have a re-write to be less centralized on a list of quotes. Freedomlinux 02:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have only just come across Knowledge (XXG) and this is my first contribution, so I speak with limited experience. I was, however, impressed by the the neutral manner in which the article approaches an inherently partisan subject. As other comments mention it is very well referenced and at the very least not overtly pushing one POV. Coverage of this subject is always going to make George Bush look stupid and as a result make some people unhappy, surely this doesn't mean that Knowledge (XXG) should pretend it doesn't exist. If the the consensus is still for a more balanced article, then edit rather than delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.57.188 (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a bad faith nomination. The article is very well referenced, and the term itself is deeply entrenched in the American culture. --However whatever 19:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Update (I already voted to Keep). I should also point out that here in Paris, France, they sell (translated) books of "Bushisms" - it is, I assume, an almost global phenomenon to find interest in the fact that the leader of the most powerful nation in the world has difficulty formulating a sentence/thought. Saudade7 11:09, 21 September 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 --Anthony.bradbury 22:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-zealotry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completing incomplete AfD nomination. Page appears to be a WP:POINT masquerading as an article. Pure OR page about a neologism with no sources. Kesh 21:43, 16 September 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. -- Longhair\ 02:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Prodded by Indrian on September 13, 2007. I've rewritten the biography to remove conflict of interest issues and assert notability. I am not, however, sure if this cyclist is notable or not. Under Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people), an athlete is notable if they have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them). Greenwood rode in 2005 and 2006 for Recycling.co.uk, which is a UCI Continental team—the highest level of amateur team. Severo 21:39, 16 September 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 --Anthony.bradbury 22:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Non-notable independent election candidate. Alksub 21:18, 16 September 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 --Anthony.bradbury 22:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Prod removed. Non-notable artist and illustrator. Almost an A7 speedy candidate, but as there are references cited AfD seems more appropriate. The references seem to be primarily about her more notable father. David Eppstein 21:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - notability on wikipedia is established through multiple reliable sources. I don't see this here nor am I able find these in a Google search. -- Whpq 21:51, 18 September 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, without prejudice to a redirect as suggested by The Random Editor. Carlossuarez46 23:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Article is ambiguous Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 21:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 00:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Bad pun on Pele - Jerem43 16:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - it is just a definition with no subsistence, and it is the Wiktionary.


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

The result was Redirect to QuickTime. (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 12:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Content of page is duplicated by the QuickTime page, senseless, stub, etc. I see no reason for this stub to be kept, as it contains no unique information that it is not already in the QuickTime page. Should be redirected to QuickTime Josephberte-Talk 20:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge and Redirect to QuickTime No need for the player to be deleted itself, just make it a redirect to QuickTime. I would also be open to the Player content in QuickTime be moved to this article. Nate 20:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I meant redirect, I forgot about that.. Josephberte-Talk 21:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There's so little to merge that there's no real reason to. If someone wants to make a redirect or wants what's deleted then let me know. Wizardman 18:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Same reasoning as Articles for deletion/Erich Jacoby-Hawkins. Non-notable one-time failed candidate, editor again rebuffed request to merge into party/election article. Even less notable than Jacoby-Hawkins. Realkyhick 20:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Given that Jolley was indeed a candidate in the 2006 election, I merged him to the Ontario section of the Election article, per WP:BOLD. He should have a mention there, as he was in that election - whatever the fate of his article. Best, ZZ ~ Evidence 13:31, 25 September 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. -- Longhair\ 02:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Fails Knowledge (XXG):Notability (fiction)

Copy of article on a runescape wikia article link devoted to the subject which it pertains. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 20:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Also the following for the same reasons as nom:

God Wars Dungeon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
God wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected to Shared parenting, with some minor details from the original article added. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 12:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

With not a single reliable reference giving primary coverage to this topic, it looks (and reads) like original research. The topic only gets about 800 Google hits, so it would seem to be a rather fringe aspect of parenting. A reading list gives no books specifically about the topic, only generic sources, so it would seem there is also a lack of published material on the subject. VanTucky 20:10, 16 September 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 --Anthony.bradbury 23:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Non-notable radio hobbyist, only an amateur, never on a notable show. Contested prod. Alksub 20:00, 16 September 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: Article was deleted. Non-admin closure. GlassCobra 01:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Seemingly non-notable filmmaker with no sources. IMDb's only hit for "the complex" produces a film directed by one Jennifer Lane. Nothing to here to satisfy WP:N. Tx17777 19:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete per G7 - the author has blanked it and I've tagged it as such. Blair - Speak to me 22:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Even before the blankin, the individual didn't meet WP:BIO.--JForget 23:45, 16 September 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 --Anthony.bradbury 23:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

George Gregory Buttigieg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability. Person in question seems to be just an author of no particular importance. Article also lacks any kind of references, although that's not a surprise since a search on google only yields 15 results. I added a "Proposed for deletion" template but it was removed immediately by the author of the article (who seems to be the person in question), without giving any explanation. Marcus1234 19:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

So any published author and/or "Knight of Malta" is notable enough to have an article on wikipedia? Do you realize there are over 12,000 "Knights" in the world? Should all these people have a wikipedia article? In that case I can add two family members of mine (or maybe not!). Marcus1234 20:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The only award he (supposedly, since it's not even referenced) was the "Rediffusion Gold Star" award. How is this notable? Marcus1234 10:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • SUGGEST KEEP I am so surprised Marcus 1234 is so antagonistic to an entry on a well known fellow countryman. How many Maltese people are leading doctors in their medical field, knights of malta, have been decorated pro Merito Melitense,have represented their country in the medical sphere; are plenipotentiary ambassadors of their country and have published both medical and fiction articles or books? How many of the 12000 world wide knights exhibit all features ? Shall I forward photos and photocopies of the SMOM annuaire? Or copies of published articles and books? My case rests. I planned other entries but it seems that the process may be biased in certain directions. I apologise for removing the delete template - I am new to Wiki and di not do it out of malice, but it seems that no leeway is given to beginners in this game.

Regards to all Cyrus of Antioch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrus of Antioch (talk • contribs) 15:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC) — Cyrus of Antioch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep Notability seems to be there (on awards, etc.) If there's a question of how accurate the sourcing is, that's a cleanup issue, not grounds for deletion. Bfigura 17:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Changing !vote, see below --Bfigura 05:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • DEFINITELY KEEP If notability is lacking here I wonder who else has it! I have read articles about this man stating much more than is stated here. A few months back his face was plastered over the front pages of a number of magazines at the airport. He appears regularly on TV and his latest book is a knock-out! Does it take a martian to make it to Knowledge (XXG)!? LIONHEARTLEIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionheartleia (talk • contribs) — Lionheartleia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Wow, are you serious? Could you be any more transparent? It's amazing the lengths people go through to get a page on wikipedia. Marcus1234 07:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

TO ALL CONCERNED WITH THIS ARTICLE

I AM GEORGE G. BUTTIGIEG, THE UNKNOWING SUBJECT OF THIS ARTICLE. I HAVE JUST BEEN INFORMED ABOUT THIS ARTICLE AND THE ENSUING DEBATE AND I AM TRULY SHOCKED. LET ME POINT OUT THAT THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN WRITTEN BY A WELL MEANING MEMBER OF MY STAFF WITHOUT MY INVOLVEMENT OR PERMISSION,USING ONE OF THE COMMON E-MAIL ADDRESSES FOR MYSELF AND STAFF. I HAVE NO DESIRE TO HAVE MY CV BROADCASTED TO ALL AND SUNDRY ON INTERNET OR ELSEWHERE. ALBEIT THE MATERIAL IN IT IS NOT INACCURATE, I WOULD APPRECIATE ITS IMMEDIATE DELETION. IF DIRECT COMMUNICATION WITH ME IS WANTED PLEASE USE . THANK YOU —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrus of Antioch (talk • contribs) 21:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I am truly shocked how the notability of Dr Buttigieg is being questioned. If one looks up what wikipedia defines Notability, amongst others it clearly states and I quote “The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.” “The person has received significant recognized awards or honors”* “The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field”* and furthermore “The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors”* (Please find link below). Im sure that Markus1234 cannot deny that Dr Buttigieg does in fact classify in the above.

A Borg Swieqi Malta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.232.199.137 (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment I think the notability is however clearly borderline,and in this case, since he is not really a controversial figure, I would support deleting the article. I don't like to do it when its someone controversial trying to avoid a unflattering but honest portrayal, but that's not this case here. DGG (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


TO ALL CONCERNED WITH THIS ARTICLE

I AM REPEATING WHAT I HAVE STATED YESTERDAY. I AM GEORGE G. BUTTIGIEG, THE UNKNOWING SUBJECT OF THIS ARTICLE. I HAVE RECENTLY BEEN INFORMED ABOUT THIS ARTICLE AND THE ENSUING DEBATE AND I AM TRULY SHOCKED. LET ME POINT OUT THAT THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN WRITTEN BY A WELL MEANING MEMBER OF MY STAFF WITHOUT MY INVOLVEMENT OR PERMISSION,USING ONE OF THE COMMON E-MAIL ADDRESSES FOR MYSELF AND STAFF. I HAVE NO DESIRE FOR MY NAME TO BE ENTERED INTO WIKPAEDIA OR ELSEWHERE. ALBEIT THE MATERIAL IN THE WRITE UP IS NOT INACCURATE (THOUGHG INCOMPLETE) I WOULD APPRECIATE ITS IMMEDIATE DELETION. IF DIRECT COMMUNICATION WITH ME IS WANTED PLEASE USE . THIS E-MAIL ADDRESS HAS BEEN USED BY THE PERSON WHO REGISTERED AS CYRUS OF ANTIOCH, WHICH IS THE TITLE OF ONE OF MY SHORT STORIES IN MALTESE. I NEITHER NEED NOR DESIRE THIS PUBLICITY OR TO HAVE MY NAME ENSHRINED IN WIKIPEDIA. PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS WHETHER TO KEEP OR DELETE THE ARTICLE ANY FURTHER, BUT KINDLY DELETE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. I CANNOT SIGN THIS ENTRY BY MY USERNAME AS I DO NOT HAVE ONE, BUT PLEASE DO NOT REFER TO ME AS CYRUS OF ANTIOCH. I HAVE MADE MY VIEWS CLEAR TO ONE AND ALL. I SHALL NOT COMMUNICATE FURTHER ON THE MATTER. THANK YOU

GEORGE GREGORY BUTTIGIEG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrus_of_Antioch (talk • contribs)

  • Delete I know the person concerned personally and confirm the person's relative local notability within Malta. Yet the Criteria for Notability for Knowledge (XXG) are not met in my opinion. Maybe the author should consider translating the article and moving it to on the Maltese wikipedia. But please check the policy there before. Unfortunately there are several Bios on Maltese People which suffer from the same problem as this. I guess the ratio of Maltese people with entries on wikipedia to the population of 400,000 on Malta is on the high side. That is no justification. A cleanup is rather needed. --Inkiwna 21:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • delete Give the man what he wants. While you can find people with substancially less full bios "enshrined" on wikipedia, such effusive cataloging of the mundane dilutes the relevence of wikipedia as a relevant (as opposed to comprehensive) resourceDroliver 02:03, 21 September 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 per WP:CSD#A7. Mr.Z-man 19:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

no assertion of notability of any kind Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 18:51, 16 September 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 and accompanying speedy keep. —C.Fred (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Subject fails to meet notability guidelines as a physician and producer. No non-trivial sources to establish notabiity. Claims of notability as producer of an award-winning documentary. However, there is no substantial coverage to denote he himself won these awards. Notability is non-transferableSethacus 18:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Note The subject is welcome to participate in this discussion. However, his patients, friends, relatives or other SPAs ARE NOT, and neither is anyone with a personal grudge against the subject. Votes made by these parties should be discounted by the closing admin, per WP:COI.--Sethacus 18:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as a producer of three award-winning documentaries he would seem to pass WP:BIO. That doesn't excuse the lack of sources and the rah-rah tone of the article (denoting likely COI). When notability for creative professionals is derived directly from the work they produce, I don't think that "notability is not transferable" is actually operative. It is, because the guideline directs us to consider the notability of the work. --Dhartung | Talk 19:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep if (and only if) the awards claims in the article are true. I notice his IMDB awards section is blank, although that certainly doesn't mean the awards are false. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep too short of a time (a few hours) between nominations. Will 20:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 20:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP The sources for the awards, the press, etc are listed in the prior debate and are amply documented in clearly nontrivial coverage. I agree with the comments above by dhartung. When a film wins an Academy Award for Best Picture for example, the producer wins the award. I was intimately involved in the creation of those films. I don't quite get the point of sethacus' comments, with all due respect. I was not an extra in the periphery. Are all producers not notable? Who should be considered notable when a film achieves notoriety? Certain people play major roles in creating the film.

This whole debate began when "droliver" edited "Janet Law" off of the breast reconstruction wikipedia site. The bigger question is why is oliver incentivized and seems so entitled to portray himself as the wikipedia authority on plastic surgery. Has he published any peer reviewed articles? Has he authored any chapters in textbooks? I do not run around wikipedia editing a myriad of references to plastic surgery. His user name links back to a blog with an advertisement for himself. Isn't that conflicted? Janet Franquet was a patient that I had the privilege of caring for who had breast cancer. When her insurance denied coverage of reconstructive surgery, I did the surgery anyway, and despite being ill on chemo, she was instrumental in lobbying with the NY senator for a change in the law. She later died. As a direct result of her efforts, the Womens Health and Cancer Act was passed. This was only the second time in US history that legislation was passed to cover a specific illness. As a result of her sacrifice, this legislation was named The Janet Law in her honor. This received widespread coverage at the time. For some reason, oliver wanted this information removed. I felt obligated to respond and feel her name should remain attached to the law that was named in her honor. A US law was named for her and she well deserved the honor for what she did. IS that not notable? If there is an issue with my name being on the breast reconstruction website, then take it off, but her's should remain. As for this site, I was encouraged by an administrator early on to continue with it

As for the films I was involved in, they qualify for notability on many accounts according to the WK guidelines for film notability noted in the prior debate and listed below:

"From General Priniciples of Notability in WK, under film section: "The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release. The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking."

Concerning the films mentioned on this site they are notable per above:

-To date the films have been screened at numerous film festivals including: Tribeca Film Festival, Silverdocs, Woodstock Film Festival, LA Film Festival, Leeds Film Festival, Vienna Film Festival, Slamdance Film Festival, Asian American Film Festival, IFP Independent Independents at Lincoln center, Arizona Film Festival, etc

-To date the films have won such awards as: Tribeca Film Festival, Woodstock Film Festival, Slamdance Film Festival, PASS Award from National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Asian American Film Festival, International Arizona Film Festival; including best documentary at several festivals:

http://www.tribecafilmfestival.org/tff-aj-2007-awards.html http://www.woodstockfilmfestival.com/press/releases/2006_awards-release.htm http://www.slamdance.com/press/press_release.asp?article_id=556 http://www.nccd-crc.org/nccd/pdf/pass_winners_2007 http://www.asianamericanfilmfestival.org/public_documents/2007_wrap_release.pdf

-The films have been reviewed in multiple, national publications including, Washington Post, Variety, NY Times, Emanuel Levy, etc.:

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117933528.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042601569.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6623791.stm http://www.emanuellevy.com/article.php?articleID=2741 http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/357760/Beyond-Conviction/overview http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117931082.html?categoryid=31&cs=1&p=0

Tmwmd 21:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)tmwmd

Withdrawing nomination Not because of the films, but this which asserts that Dr. Wider worked with Sen. Alphonse D'Amato in the passing of the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1998, as suggested in the article. I suggest this link be added to the article and the article be proofread by an experienced editor for COI and other concerns.--Sethacus 22:09, 16 September 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 (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 12:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Cuisine of San Marino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is not about the cuisine, but about a cake that is in the cuisine Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 18:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for reference, so I don't look like I was being absurd, the article has been expanded now from what was just a description of one dish to what it is now which to me is a good thing and hopefully it will be expanded further.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 15:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry: comments are always assumed to be pertinent to the article as it was at the time they were made. There's a bit of a dessert overload currently (a bias inherited from the Italian Knowledge (XXG)) but that can be remedied. Gordonofcartoon 16:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
There's an English listing with some more at everyculture.com scroll down to the Food and Economy section) - not sure if it's sufficiently reliable a source in itself (there are some misspellings), but it gives plenty of leads. Gordonofcartoon 11:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. I'll have a look-see and might be able to pitch in. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - just on principle, every country, no matter how small, should have its own 'cuisine' article on Knowledge (XXG). Ditto every Italian region for that matter. The fact that the article may be a bit stubby is no reason to nuke it - you should think about the potential of the article rather than where it is at present.FlagSteward 11:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Every country, however small, is a potential subject for such an article, even if it only tells us that the cuisine of San Marino strongly resembles that of the surrounding area in Italy. The existence of a better version on the Italian language Knowledge (XXG) suggests that there is room for expansion here. The piadina looks good. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep for the reasons that FlagSteward stated. StaticElectric 19:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's a distinct cultural style and the nom gives no justification to delete an article about it. --Oakshade 07:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The subject and topic is notable, meets every single one of the general notability guidelines at WP:NOTE. Maybe it's just hard to find references because it's in a different language, but that's no reason to delete. Article just needs expansion; already tagged as stub. - Mtmelendez 19:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, following some excellent improvement work. Neil ム 11:02, 21 September 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. -- Longhair\ 10:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Non-notable restaurant, article written by an employee with no sources. CitiCat 18:34, 16 September 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. -- Longhair\ 02:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Non-notable footballer. Has never played in a professional league. Mattythewhite 18:09, 16 September 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

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

Non-notable software company. Infobox states they only have two employees. Notability not asserted or proven. No reliable sources OfficeGirl 18:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Keep (Nomination withdrawn without delete opinion) (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 12:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

American Community School at Beirut (ACS Beirut) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources, notability not asserted, I found nothing to show that this is a notable school. Brought here for discussion. OfficeGirl 17:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If it is that well known, and it is known to you, perhaps you would do us the favor of finding us some Reliable Sources providing substantial coverage of this school? It is not enough that notable people graduated there. Notability is Not Inherited. Thanks.OfficeGirl 19:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep AfD should not be used for starting discussions, thats what the article discussion pages are for, if you have concerns about the article put a note on the discussion page and add a tag asking for references etc, or you could do the work yourself, a quick search on Google would have returned enough useful links to see that AfD is not deserved. (I don't think there is a prize for getting articles deleted) A quick 15 minute search produced the following links: Lebanon, Beirut: American Community School, US State department page, ACS history prepared by ACS staff, English schools.org a directory for expats, 100th annivesary speach US Embassy Beirut, graduation speech US Embassy Beirut. Other items with regards the US community and the school can be found here. This school is also known as the "American Community School Beirut", "American Community School of Beirut" and simply the "American Community School", searching with different key words will likely return more hits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KTo288 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC) KTo288 21:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I haven't even registered a !vote. If you will place at least one reliable source showing significant coverage to this school on the article I will be more than happy to withdraw this nomination. I'm easy to please, really. OfficeGirl 21:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nomination Withdrawn. Thank you kindly to the users who have added reliable sources. OfficeGirl 11:18, 17 September 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/weak keep as a teaching method - Still needs revamping though. Non admin. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 12:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

hoax, no references on google found;prod deleted NeilN 17:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because hoax, no references on google found;prod deleted:

Mountain Pollenpeeper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yellow Pollenpeeper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Foliumaves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eoireitum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NeilN 17:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

*Comment I was able to find refs to the pollenpeeper fairly easily . Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete changed my vote based on below
Comment This says the pollenpeeper is fictitious, created to help teachers show how evolution works. NeilN 21:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
And there you have it; that's why I made a comment rather than a vote, figuring I wasn't qualified nor knew enough about the topic in question. But at least wanted to point out Just In Case, but your rebuttal seems clear enough to me. I'm going to keep my comment a comment, tho... Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but revamp. Now that you've found out, NeilN, that it's not a hoax but a teaching example, I think we should have it hear here to explain to people who might misunderstand it. I envision one article, probably Pollenpeeper, with all the others redirecting to it. The article would not have a taxobox; it would just go
Pollenpeepers are fictitious birds used to teach the evolutionary theory of speciation by adaptive radiation. They are given the equally fictitious genus Eoireireitum and family Foliumaves. A Web site containing their invented evolutionary history is available.<reference to PBS site>
One review says the Web site is effective for clearing up common student misconceptions.<reference to review above>

I'm not sure what the categories would be—educational software or something. Do we have a cat for fictitious organisms?

Maybe on the borderline of notability, but useful.

Thanks, NeilN, for mentioning this at WP:BIRD. —JerryFriedman 00:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe the article should be called Evolution: Darwin: An Origin of Species. All the fictitious taxa (which I believe I got slightly wrong above) would be named in bold in the lead. Certainly there should be a link to Evolution (TV series), which the site is associated with. —JerryFriedman 02:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way, Eoireitum does seem to be a complete hoax (no relevant Google hits, though it may be the parts of a Latin verb). —JerryFriedman 03:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Or Hawaiian honeycreepers, which is what the pollenpeepers are based on. That's a question for the people who created the Web site, not for anyone here, and I'm sure they have a pedagogical answer. —JerryFriedman 02:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - ditto to Casliber - MPF 22:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Changing my suggestion to redirects - In light of the above comments, how about a redirect to Evolution (TV series)? As Shyamal suggested, I added a sentence to that article that mentions the Web site, including the pollenpeepers. I think it's better for people typing "Pluvialas" etc. to get something, just in case anyone's confused by the site. I'd have been bold and replaced all the articles with redirects myself, but apparently you're not supposed to remove AfD tags until there's a consensus. —JerryFriedman 02:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. This seems like an education-cruft hoax. "Now that you found out." Whatever. There's nothing here that a REAL species example wouldn't teach. Actually, these articles are dangerous because children often aren't able to discern between fact and fiction. When they find out these are fictictious entries, the result will be less 'faith' in what they learn at school, and could lead to the erroneous assumption that 'creationists are right.' A fake article on evolution is NOT the evolutionist's friend. Moreover, it seems that whoever created these articles did so from a bad-faith perspective. The article, if it exists, should have been objective, and the first objective truth is that these ideas are 'fictional' and exist only with the context of a TV show. Yet, that wasn't done here. Instead, it seems what was done is a too-smug-by-half, 'gotcha' approach. Not funny and not constructive, and makes Knowledge (XXG) look bad.Ryoung122 09:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Whether this is a good way to teach evolution is not up to us to decide. Your criticisms on that point should be addressed to the people who created and maintain the Web site. In my opinion, criticism of this method of teaching evolution has nothing to do with whether these fictitious birds should have articles at Knowledge (XXG) or be mentioned in some other way. The possibility that people, especially children, might think the Pollenpeepers are real is, in my opinion, a reason to keep the articles here at least as redirects, so someone looking for further information will find out that these birds are fictitious. I agree, however, with your point that Knowledge (XXG) looks bad because of that possibility and the articles' being probably created in bad faith. So I'm going to do what I (and everyone) should have done and edit the articles to say they're fictitious. That way no one will be misled while this debate is going on. —JerryFriedman 15:52, 22 September 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. Carlossuarez46 23:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Harjinder Singh Khurana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is about a man in jail in India. I found it last week, full of original resaerch by synthesis about Indian anti-dowry law. The subject of the biography is himself not notable enough for a wikipedia article as per WP:N. There are two brief articles about this case in Indian newspapers, no books, no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.

In wikipedia's terms there is no assertion of importance/significance and no significant coverage of the subject (WP:N). And as far as I can see this article fails WP:BIO's guide for notability.

As a declaration I must note that I have made significant changes to the page - removing a link farm to sites campaigning against Indian ant-dowry law (that have nothing to do with the article and therefore violate WP:EL). I also reorganized and referenced the page. Two sections about Indian dowry law which had nothing to do with this man or his case were removed - most of that info already is in place at Dowry law in India. This diff shows the page before my alterations and this after them .

Unless or until there are secondary sources covering Harjinder Singh Khurana's life or case this article is just not notable enough for wikipedia.--Cailil 16:58, 16 September 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, whether debate is sport is (ugh) debatable, but given that no other individual winner (term loosely used because according to the article the school is the winner and this guy was a member of the debating team that did win for that school, but I digress) of these championships has an article indicates that the current viewpoint is these winners aren't notable per se and that's this guy's claim to fame. Carlossuarez46 23:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

delete- I move we delete Erik Eastaughs page, we can't have pages for the hundreds of winners of worldwide contended debating comps. Jembot99 15:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete for lack of substantial independent sources. -- Sethacus 18:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. The World University Debating Championships is notable. I think it might even fit the amateur competition at highest level requirement for sports. DGG (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • comment- where do you draw the line? World Schools and Worlds alone have about 150 winners who would need pahes. Then arguments could be made for winners of all the major competitions, like Australasians, All-Asians, etc, which are vastly larger than World Schools. Add in the best speakers for these comps too, and you're starting to look at a real large number of pages for "professional debaters"...JJJ999 19:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - This is not a proper "academic sport" at the highest levels - where are the training systems and so forth. And this only covers the English speaking world (mostly). If it was real academic competition, like the International Mathematics Olympiad, we would have teams from Russia, China, Iran, India, Taiwan, Korea etc, funded by government dept of science/education, nationwide talent identification programs, with professors coaching them and the host country would send Nobel laureates and presidents and prime ministers to attend the operning ceremony and so forth. And those countries would take it seriously to get a propaganda boost over their arch-rivals. This is just a bunch of uni students mucking about at lunchtime. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - per nom, per bananabucket. Sarvagnya 02:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • comment- while I agree with the sentiment, it is a little harsh. Former PM's DO sometimes attend ceremonies (Ted Heath in the past, or the Malaysian Education minister for eg). Some uni's, mainly the posh ones, do also get a nice subsidy. The Asian Tiger countries Govt's fund it alot, so they obviously take it reasonably seriously... however at its heart, it's a bunch of uni students having fun, and not a professional competition in that sense, or of sufficient note. NBI also hasten to note that I've nominated quite a few similar psuedo debating pages of fraud-noteworthy status lately, so anyone who wants to vote or comment on them to, they should be visible in my history, including Chris Erskine. JJJ999 02:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Being both a world champion and the president of a major national debating organisation makes him notable. Purple Watermelon 05:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable winner of marginally notable competition. -- GWO 06:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Blnguyen, I don't believe this guy has encyclopedic notability. This competition isn't of sufficient note for a winner or place-getter to be notable therein. Daniel 06:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per GWO. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. WUDC is a notable competition. But it's nevertheless and university tournament rather than an 'open' world championship. I don't think that winning it is enough to make someone notable enough for a page on Knowledge (XXG). Dorange 10:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • comment I don't denigrate other people's sports, though I may think of them as a bunch of uni students mucking around after school. Debaters do train and practice. And international doesnt necessarily mean including every country--there are obvious reasons why a debating contest would involve speakers of a single language. DGG (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but in stuff like the IMO, International Physics Olympiad, International Chemistry Olympiad, etc, all the communist countries + Iran, S Korea, Taiwan etc have already identified their training pool by age 12 and will segregate them into academy style education where they board and study only science and maths until they are 18 under the 24/7 supervision of professors. Even the Australian selection and training programs for Maths Science etc get $200k budget per year, are sponsored by major corporate bodies and airlines and whatnot, and Australia isn't even one of the cold-war type countries. This is what a person guunning for the real sport olympics would do, training for 4-6 hours a day, regimented sleep/diet regime for many years. This is not what happens at a university debate club, not even close.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Move to Strike- voting has gone on long enough, clear consensus to scrub it.JJJ999 04:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Week keep - this really revolves around the issue of whether debating is notable or not. If debating is notable, then it is appropriate to have an article on someone who has won a major, university level, debating tournament. If debating is not notable, then neither is the tournament or its winners. I feel that debating is marginally notable, even if one considers it a hobby and not a sport. That said, I am concerned that the article is unsourced. If kept, it needs to be tagged and sourced. Blueboar 14:32, 21 September 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 per WP:SNOW (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 12:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

2008 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Using Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Future NFL seasons as a precedent. WP:CRYSTAL should apply here. The entire page lacks sources, and many of the additions are pure speculation and difficult to verify. Pats1 15:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong KEEP -- The article contains verifiable information about the 2008 NASCAR season, but this has been "tainted" by the addition of rumor and speculation, and by the removal of references by vandals. Earlier revisions of the article were in reasonable condition, and at the very least the subject of the article warrants a stub. I will spend a bit of time cleaning things up. -- Scjessey 15:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Bad Precedent those were multiple articles, not one on the season, and crystal ball doesn't apply to notable events that are almost certain to take place, which is clearly the case here. In any case, there is information about the expected details of this season, which can be found from sources like ESPN, the AP and whatnot. This is a situation comparable to 2012 Summer Olympics or the next election in the US. Especially since the season is only 4-5 months away. 68.101.23.35 18:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This event is going to happen, and soon--why delete? • Lawrence Cohen 20:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article lists a future sporting event, and such articles, in my knowledge, that will definitely happen, have never been listed for deletion prior. As such, this article should be kept. WP:CRYSTAL, thus, is NOT applicable. Deleting certain rumor sections in the article should be done, but the article itself is not a rumor mill. --AEMoreira042281 23:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per aboveFrank Anchor 23:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There is enough confirmed info that it does not violate WP:CRYSTAL.--JForget 23:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • VERY STRONG KEEP. Agreed on all counts of above. Sources include ESPN.com, NASCAR.com and Jayski.com have been used for this article in question, and as such, are reliable in many cases. NoseNuggets 11:38 PM US EDT Sept 16 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:38, 17 September 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. -- Longhair\ 10:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Pinky's Daily Planner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - spammy article for a local business. The sources linked are blurb/directory listing sorts of things. There don't appear to be substantive reliable sources. Otto4711 15:39, 16 September 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. Carlossuarez46 23:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

delete-Probably made up. Would need references to verify the two people are the same. Also, not very noteworthy I am suspicious of any page that seems to be a debater glory bio. Jembot99 11:21, 16 September, 2007

  • Nope check here. Looking at the article, seems to be notable being well known nationally (having considerable attention which would just squeak WP:BIO because being notable in Canada) although I would like to see sources in order to assert notability. So i say Neutral Weak keep for now. I've notified Wikiproject Ottawa for this afd as well.--JForget 23:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This person appears to be notable just by the very few links I visited and could read about his life and career. The name is pretty common and brings back too many hits on Google to effeciently review all of them. --BlindEagle 16:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: If credentials add up and everything else is otherwise OK -- that is if there is no info. pertaining to anybody else with the same or similar name -- THEN he appears notable. Watchingthevitalsigns 13:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I understand your desire to rid Knowledge (XXG) of fluffy debater bios, but I think the musical career described in the entry justifies not making this part of the cull. Padraic 17:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • commentIf you feel that way I hope you'll vote to remove Erskine, with the ridiculous stack that's going on there to keep him, with the most tenuous of reasoning, not to mention the nonexistant "competition" of "world public speaking championships".122.148.218.27 21:38, 19 September 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. Delete and redirect. - Jeeny  07:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Daniele Donato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This entire article has been copied and pasted from Big Brother 8 (US)#Daniele. Definitely does not need its own page. Before this page was changed, "Daniele Donato" was a redirect to her bio on the Main BB8 page, which I will say again, is the same thing as this page. No reason for duplicate information, and she doesn't have enough notability for her own page. People will say "She will have enough notability IF...", and that argument is not acceptable, as per WP:Crystal. If this page gets deleted, the redirect will be reapplied. Rjd0060 15:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I redirected it. Yanno, being bold. Hope it stays that way. - Jeeny  20:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 23:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Unable to find reliable sources. Does not appear to meet notability guideline for films. See this Google search. JamesTeterenko 20:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

While it may be non-notable, there is some evidence for its existance on the community channel (distributor) website. see

--PyromaniacTom 21:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that it does not exist. See the IMDB listing here. The producer has not worked on any other film or tv show. I included that Google search as evidence for the lack of notability. -- JamesTeterenko 02:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 15:02, 16 September 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. Carlossuarez46 00:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Non-notable band per WP:BAND. No tours, no apparent charting singles. Discography of 1 Ep, 1 Single, 1 x Album. Author contested prod. WebHamster 17:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. This band seems to have gotten off to a promising start, and arguably meets criteria #11 of WP:MUSIC by going into rotation on Triple J, but I still come down a little bit on the delete side. --Groggy Dice T | C 00:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 15:00, 16 September 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 on deletion, okay to redirect to Gary Lenaire. CitiCat 03:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Cripple Need Cane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable band in general. The only criteria of WP:MUSIC that Cripple Need Cane meets is #6 (one member was part of Tourniquet). Delete or merge to Tourniquet (band). CloudNine 12:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was No consensus to delete. Carlossuarez46 00:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:MUSIC Notability and offers no more information than the main article, essentially making it a content fork. Seraphim 10:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. It may have charted and therefore it passes on one criteria of notability but that piece of one line information (that it charted) can easily be added to the album article. It's basically an empty article and it really doesn't have much of a chance of being much more. Album articles are used to write about this stuff. Seraphim 10:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:58, 16 September 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. Carlossuarez46 00:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Veemon Natural Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Wormmon Natural Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both of these pages are basically copies of the Wormmon and Veemon page. The changed evolutions are those of the authors original research who has been asked repeatedly to provide a source for these evolutions. Sorry if I have done this wrong but it is the first time I've nominated something. Trainra 03:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:53, 16 September 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. Carlossuarez46 00:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

It's a an extension for Firefox which hasn't been developed in 18 months, nor has the website been altered in that time. The software didn't leave beta stage and wasn't notable. The article while developed looks to have been written by the software authors before they dropped the project. Operating 00:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete No assertion of notability. Possible ad. (Last update on the "Dev blog" was July 6, 2006) OSborn 02:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good coverage in independent secondary sources exist. These secondary sources seem to be reputable blogs (all blogs aren't the same). I have added three such secondary sources, obtained from google. The subject appears to have faded away soon after launch. This should not count against its entry, as wikipedia is more appropriately about what verifiably was than about current trends. --SmokeyJoe 10:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Changed to Delete, as per MarkBul below. Didn't even get out of beta. Article is nearly all reproduction of primary information. Insufficient commentary. No real world impact. Secondary sources are not sufficiently reputable. No prospect of the article being improved. --SmokeyJoe 08:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The failure of the product to get out of beta does have some relevance to notability. Many products get a little buzz on blogs - few are chosen by users. Not every product is notable - Prince Elbow Macaroni isn't notable - as far as I know - and I've been eating it all my life. I dont' see how a failed product is notable without extraordinary and lasting publicity. MarkBul 20:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. I tried it some time ago. It has no users (chatters) and doesn't work properly.Szzuk 10:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per OSborn ffm 16:12, 17 September 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, national TV newscasters are noteable. Rlevse 15:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Rosil Al Azawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a non-notable fashion model. Third party sources all but do not exist: , and the only claim to notability in the article is from the subject's own website. Thus fails WP:V and probably WP:BIO. The Evil Spartan 18:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Subject is an Iraqi TV presenter with a (former? current?) following in other Arabic-speaking countries. Article needs would benefit from expansion based on non-web sources, but does not fail notability test. People with similar roles in other countries are written up in WP and have survived AfDs (e.g. Lauren Newton (TV star)). -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying "other stuff exists"; I'm saying the subject is already notable based on what we already know. I should have said the article would benefit from expansion, as I did not mean to imply that it will not be good enough to keep until it is expanded. I have amended my previous comment. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 23:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, national-level TV presenters are generally notable. The majority of sources are probably in Arabic, not English, and there are multiple transliterations between languages, so a simple search is generally not enough. Finally, misrepresenting a topic in order to jump-start an AFD is poor showmanship. --Dhartung | Talk 03:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you provide any of those sources? I would think that if there were such a plethora of sources, they would exist at least a little in Latin script (which French uses as well). Saying "other sources probably exist" is great, but we need some proof. The Evil Spartan 19:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gnangarra 14:40, 16 September 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. -- Longhair\ 10:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Legend II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Deletion material. WP:V cannot be met, the article has - so far - no notability, is a shining example of a crystal ball, no reliable resources, and - if no verifications are available - it might be original research. I don't think there's any reasons beyond that, but give me a hit if you have any more. WaltCip 14:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

this article should not be deleted since TR8 will be released (http://www.tombraiderchronicles.com/tr8/index.html) and this page will probably get updated soon with newly announced material. --sturm 15:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The article does not contain that reference. Even with it, I still highly doubt it would be encyclopedic material. Please read WP:CRYSTAL - Knowledge (XXG) is not designed to see the future. That's what gaming magazines are for.--WaltCip 15:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now Comment All other Lara Croft games turned out to be pretty notable, so applying WP:CRYSTAL here doesn't seem right to me. If no other info has been announced in maybe half a year (I don't know how long something like this takes), there is still enough time to delete it then. – sgeureka 16:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Then what is the point of of the "Future" templates if precedent cases have already shown that an article subject will be notable? I mean it's not like any of the other Lara Croft games were deemed too nonnotable to not have an article (I think; I've never played this game and don't care to look them up). The current article also doesn't involve masses of OR so I honestly don't see the problem here with leaving it like is it until it either gets more info or is announced to be a cancelled project (in the latter case yes, delete it, but that seems currently unlikely). – sgeureka 17:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The consensus usually is quite the opposite to what you're suggesting. We do have articles on future product / event. But in this case, there is no verifiable information and it is not certain to take place (read will definitely come out) as specified in WP:CRYSTAL. The article currently states (without reference) that a magazine claim to have exclusive scoop on the upcoming title. That's not even a preview of the product, but rather an announcement of a upcoming preview. It doesn't get more crystal ball than that. KTC 17:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, it seems I misinterpretated the source as an official website, but it seems it is just a fansite (can't tell for sure). I therefore withdraw my keep !vote. – sgeureka 00:37, 17 September 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 per Snow/invalid nomination - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez 09:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew Bible views on women (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  1. There are too many views on the subject.
  2. It has not been successfully cleaned up in over 3 years.

It's time to put it to rest. Thank you, Shir-El too 14:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment If you don't like the article, edit it to improve it. MarkBul 16:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Normally, I don't endorse a suggestion that the nominator try to improve the article, but it does not appear from the article history that the nominator has participated in any of the "clean up" efforts. Maybe this dog needs just needs a bath before you put it to sleep. Mandsford 17:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There are feminist academic types who make careers out of this stuff - there has to be library shelves full of books on the topic. "Too many views" makes no sense. "Not cleaned up in 3 years" isn't much better. Some articles don't attract attention. That doesn't mean they should be deleted. MarkBul 20:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mandsford. Can be fixed. Just needs attention. Bearian 14:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If you don't like the article, edit it to improve it. I entered the page with that intention; the title was interesting and it was listed for copyedit. Reading article and discussion page, it seems clear to me it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being imrpoved, Wikified or expanded to any worthwhile conclusion. "Too many views" makes no sense. Clarification: does this article focus on the legal, social, religious or other (name) view of women in the Hebrew Bible? During which period? According to which authority/point of view? Citing which sources? Would you like to tackle it? If anyone can make any headway with it I'll be the first to cheer! Shir-El too 15:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Old Testament views.... First time I've ever seen an article nominated because there was too much content. But at the very least the examples need chapter and verse. And of course every such example has been discussed, for the last two thousand years, so its sourcable. DGG (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article had not been categorized under the Hebrew Bible category. Now that it is, hopefully it will be more noticeable to writers in that area. --Eliyak T·C 01:45, 19 September 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. -- Longhair\ 02:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Originally a vanity/advertising article, despite having notab tags applied since April 2007, its notablity still has not been proven. Nominated for deletion as originally inserted by company, and notablity guidelines Trident13 13:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete.--JForget 00:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Contested prod. The article is an autobiography, unless I'm making a serious mistake, and the author is the editor who removed the prod tag. There are no sources provided, so I've looked and looked for his films and for any information about him as a person. I can't find anything. Maybe he's a famous Azerbajani director and I'm simply ignorant. KrakatoaKatie 12:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator. KrakatoaKatie 12:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete supposed filmmaker not on IMDB. Possible hoax too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified. The Western spelling of the name only gets 3 hits on google. It may be true, but "any reader should be able to check that material added to Knowledge (XXG) has already been published by a reliable source" is proving problematic. There's not really even much of an assertion of notability. (Per "creative professionals", the body of work needs something other than existence to qualify: independent reviews, awards, etc.) --Moonriddengirl 12:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I just searched a paid news database and came up with nothing. Scarykitty 15:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. The page on ruwiki ru:Нагиев, Мубариз Кудрат оглы is equally bad, and Googling in Cyrillic (Russified spelling, Azeri might be different) doesn't bring to light any further reliable sources cab 01:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletions. cab 01:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a hoax, but clearly unnotable. What cab forgot to mention: as in the English version, most of the edits to the Russian version have been done by "Mubariz Nagiyev", whose only further contributions to Russian wiki were to his own personal page, and adding a picture to two other Azeri subjects - both were deleted later as unsourced. And the user page says that this user is an Azerbaijani cinematographer and shows his photograph. Same thing with Mubariz Nagiyev in the English version. Googling on Azerbaijani spelling outside Knowledge (XXG) brings out 1 blog, 1 genuine article (I do not understand Azerbaijani, but I think I recognize "Ministry of Tourism"), 1 casual mention of the name in the biography of another Azerbaijani cinema man, and his name mentioned in a number of lists of Azerbaijani cinema people. Autobiography of an unnotable person with COI and SPA problems.--Pan Gerwazy 12:56, 17 September 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. Maxim(talk) 22:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Church of St. Joseph (West St. Paul) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable church. Fee Fi Foe Fum 10:28, 16 September 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. Maxim(talk) 01:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

This entry is from the heyday of the Eragon book and movie. I feel that the topic of this article is not notable. Outsources are fan sites. Thank you for your consideration. Fee Fi Foe Fum 10:09, 16 September 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 the Snowball clause. This is a hoax and nobody wants hoaxes on Knowledge (XXG). --Tony Sidaway 15:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Kaydon O'Connor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is bogus info. Google search brings back 0 results. Google search

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim(talk) 22:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

To explain a bit more, I feel that Bfigura's comment really establishes consensus. There has been sock/meatpuppeting in this AfD, so I have basically discounted SPA's here.
Hold Off Red (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable, and if this article still existed quote per here - "If you're going to make articles on every freeware game that's ever come out, we'd have Knowledge (XXG) full of those stupid flash games that you see on websites all the time." Likely to fail WP:SOFTWARE as it is quite close to Jumper in terms of notability, etc and comes from the same author. anger2headshot 09:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep If someone needs it, the information on HOR's all here for them. And the difference between this and "those stupid Flash games" is that this isn't a Flash game, and nor is it stupid. I don't see what the point of the "delete every indy game that doesn't appear on more than 500 different sites" mentality is. Someone somewhere cares enough to make the article, and other people, like me, care enough to read it. That shows some semblance to notability to me. 89.243.172.57 11:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment The quote was from the AfD for the Jumper_(video_game) article which has been deleted already. This game is also freeware and made by the same author of Jumper who is very popular mainly in the GMC. Another popular game within the GMC is Sapphire Tears which also has been since deleted. --anger2headshot 11:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment I'm not a big lover of the "If someone jumps off a cliff, I'll jump as well" mentality. Because similar articles have been deleted before, does that suddenly make it the right thing to delete this too?
If this was a game made by a 'proper' company, rather than a single indy developer, I'm pretty sure this article would be kept. 89.241.70.107 21:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - We are not a catalogue of everything that ever existed -- we need to apply some discerning judgement to our content (fails WP:WEB). /Blaxthos 12:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see what's so wrong with this page- it's helpful to new players of a game, and, personally, whenever I find any new game I look for as much information on t as I can possible get. I;m not sure if others do that, but if they do this would be a great place for them to find out.
Comment What does "readme" or "Help Contents" or "Instructions" mean to you? Knowledge (XXG) article? --anger2headshot 22:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Commeny Hahaha. Help files and readmes won't give a synopsis of the game, won't give seperate opinions on different aspects of the games. And, sometimes, just sometimes, the game doesn't come with instructions. I don't see the reason of deleting an article that some people find useless, because someone else thinks no one will use it. That's like a grocery store taking down a type of fruit because the manager thinks that no one will buy it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.188.21 (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP Say someone hasn't played HOR for some time (like me), and forget some game information. What are they going to do? Keep the article.

--24.225.171.245 21:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Say someone hasn't played Jumper for some time (like me), and forget some game information. What are they going to do? Wonder why the heck this happened. --anger2headshot 22:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP Just the other day, I wanted to see the Knowledge (XXG) article for An Untitled Story, a game that I had recently downloaded. I wanted to know more about it. And guess what, I didn't find it. I looked for Jumper, another game by the same person. Nope. Nothing. I come here. Ah, at least one article is still here. Unfortunately, it is to be deleted, like the others. And.....for what reason? I don't see any real reason here, other than "nobody cares about it". Well, guess what. I do, and probably quite a few others do to. You're saying that Knowledge (XXG) doesn't need more excess articles. Well, why the heck not? Does it harm you by keeping the article up? Some people will use it undoubtedly, even if the person is not you.

My two cents. This page's a keeper. --Dreamcat 19:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC) — Catkilller7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • KEEP If this article was useless, would this many people be arguing to protect it? This article should STAY.

--Cookinater 19:06, 16 September 2007 (PST) — Cookinater (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Why are there lots of people wanting this article kept? Because, PEOPLE ARE BEING TOLD ABOUT THIS PAGE RIGHT HERE. If fans of this game were not referred from that website, it would be much less likely for people to be voting like this. And I'm going to ensure this comment stays for an administrator to see. I have absolutely NOTHING against YMM, Helix Games, etc etc etc HOWEVER Knowledge (XXG) really does need content rules otherwise this place will be flooded with crap.
(Discussion'd because people who don't use View New Posts'd never see it otherwise.)
SAVE HOLD OFF RED
Anger2Headshot has turned traitor and put Hold Off Red up for deletion. The debate is leaning towards "Delete" so far, if you include A2H's inital call for deletion.
If we can get enough people here to vote Keep and give a good reason to do so, we can save the article.
If possible, try and improve the article as well to help the cause.
Also, people throwing about the fishing "WP:WEB" crap and A2H's "Oh well such a such a game was deleted, so it's only right we delete this too" is driving me nuts.
EDIT: I don't know if Knowledge (XXG) tracks where visitors are coming from, so try and copy+paste the link rather than clicking it, just in case they trace it back here and discredit what we've all said because of it =/.

--anger2headshot 03:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Now you're just getting angry. Besides- people aren't told what to to. We see that a page of ours is being deleted. Had I not cared, I wouldn't of clicked on that link. The original poster was bringing up a cause. Just because nobody was looking at this age when it first went up for deletion, doesn't mean nobody cares. This is exactly like saying a library in town should be destroyed because nobody was reading anything for a day.

Besides. Badwolf had obviously looked at this page in order to find it was up for deletion. 142.59.188.21 05:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment If they didn't care, people would ignore the topic. By the way, you're infringing on copyright by pasting that post. I doubt you asked Badwolf for permission? In fact, I KNOW you didn't.
As for the "Not a majority vote" template, isn't the point of this VFD that there're suppoedly not enough people who care? A majority keep vote would suggest otherwise. 78.144.105.89 23:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment I'm sorry, but I didn't add the template. And you can't copyright a stupid forum post. Oh OK, POKEMON. OMG ITS A COPYRIGHTED NAME OMG NINTENDO'S LAWYERS ARE ON ME OMG ARGH --anger2headshot 00:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Be mature about this here at least, even if you're going to carry on acting the way you are on the HC. And Badwolf typed up that post, Badwolf added the copyright notice at the end, and Badwolf did not give you permission to replicate the post here on Knowledge (XXG). It's copyrighted, and you're breaking Knowledge (XXG)'s stance on Copyright. I know you don't know enough about the law to actually believe it's copyrighted, so carry on infringing on the copyright if you want. You're the one who has to face up to the consequences in the end, rather than playing it safe. 78.144.105.89 20:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Hi everyone. Just a reminder: the last time I checked, there weren't any angry mastadons. Civility is good. --Bfigura 20:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If Nifflas, an independent game designer who is arguably not as notable as YMM, has his own Knowledge (XXG) page, why shouldn't YMM? If necessary, we should create a Knowledge (XXG) page for 'Matt Thorson', creator of the game, and delete this page. If this game in particular is not notable, surely the creator, who has made many games after and before this, is? --Ryx 22:12, 18 September 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. David Ruben 00:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sports car knee syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete as unverifiable. Zero mentions of this syndrome can be found on Google, nor any for the words "fuisz", "car", and "syndrome" together. ... discospinster talk 01:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment If the reference and support for this is in a non-google searchable medical reputable medical journal, using the criteria that it must be on google would limit the usefulness of the whole encyclopedia. Seems like many of the comments come from people that say they don't have it so it can't exist. Glad to see the much more valid list of large chested performers discussion below is going better for the contributor.Fuiszt 16:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment A quick glance at the creator's other contibutions leads me to think this is more likely WP:OR Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I have relisted this to allow better evaluation from experts on whether the added reference is appropriate enough to keep this article. --Bduke 08:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, rubbish. Sebi 09:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's a verifiable source to the syndrome: Time Magazine Issue June 6, 1960 , not a distinguished medical journal as Fuiszt stated. However, after 47 years there are no search hits to an apparently common medical condition given the amount of sports/small cars in the world? - Mtmelendez 11:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The issue is this: is the ref. in the article, "Massey EW, Pleet AB. Sports-car palsy. N Engl J Med. 1978 Aug 24;299(8):425" relevant? Would someone who knows about the issue please answer that. I was going to close this discussion. The consensus is to delete, but this late reference may demonstrate notability and support for the article. If it is a good reference, then the article should be kept in spite of the earlier majority to delete. --Bduke 12:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I have now, and I also see it has been deletion sorted to the medical list. --Bduke 00:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - The 1978 sports-car palsy article has been cited only three times (according to Web of Knowledge), including by an article entitled "The Trials Of Man—Unusual, Curious And Downright Embarassing Medical Conditions." SolidPlaid 12:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per everything above. /Blaxthos 12:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per SolidPlaid. Neologisms happen in the medical profession as well--quite commonly. These terms may have been variously proposed, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that they are in widepsread usage or accepted by any reputable medical organization. "Small car syndrome", itself a neologism, seems to relate to aggressive driving. --Moonriddengirl 12:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the condition described here does not appear to match Sports-car palsy (which might have some notability). This condition is about getting in and out of a small car. I found one description of sports-car palsy (the only one I could find - though it is from a discussion board and not a RS): "There is even one condition described in the medical literature, 'Sports Car Palsy' (New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 299 August 24, 1978) which is related to the gearbox of specific models of Triumph sports cars being adjacent to the footwell and convenient for the driver to rest the knee of the left leg on (RHD models only, naturally). The vibration from the gearbox affected the nerves in the leg to such an extent as to give rise to palsies in a sufficient number of patients for the problem to be isolated and described." This condition appears to be specfic to vibrations from certain cars. However, I cannot access the one medical journal that seems to address this issue. Denaar 14:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Relisted because a guy posing as Dr. Richard C. Fuisz has added an article published nearly 30 years ago in the New England Journal of Medicine? This is better than the TIME magazine article from 47 years ago, I suppose, but either "Fuiszt" is promoting a friend or he's another Dr. Fuisz promoting himself. And note to Bduke ... if you relist because someone added a reference "at the buzzer", you're going to find yourself (a) doing a lot more work and (b) being accused of unfairness, since there are a lot of other articles that have seen a lot more improvement than this since being nominated. If you want to save an article, look at the AfD for Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Pirate's Dinner Adventure (4th nomination)‎. I'm afraid, Bduke, that if you start trying to please everyone, you're going to end up pleasing no-one. Not being uncivil, just giving you some practical advice. Mandsford 17:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
We should not delete stuff unless there is good reason. It is reasonable to get an article in a reputable medical journal evaluated properly. I am not fighting to keep it as the guy in your example is. I was looking to close it and did not think that reference had been evaluated properly, so I relisted. Some other admin can close it in due course. --Bduke 00:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


No hits on PubMed for any Fuisz RC, Time magazine article indicates just a letter to a journal which does not therefore establish that condition/name been generally accepted (i.e. fails WP:Notable). Likewise no relevant hits for "small car"/"small-car" to do with the knee. Close as per above consensus David Ruben 00:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete--JForget 00:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

List of secondary characters from Futurama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

By the article's definition, everything in the list has "little importance to the series as a whole." If they don't have notability in the fictional universe, there's no way they have real world importance. 17Drew 08:24, 16 September 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 concensus for deletion--JForget 02:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

I originally prodded this article but a user objected so here it is at AfD. As I implied in the prod reason, if the subject doesn't want a personal website and has indicated a need for privacy, and is not especially notable, we shouldn't have an article about him on an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Indeed I found this article because an anonymous user removed some negative unsourced information - I'm referring to the second paragraph, not the first. As I also mentioned in my prod reason, I found this article about him from a reliable source, the Washington Post - however, it's terribly out-of-date. The article is also effectively orphaned - by that I mean that it is not linked anywhere in Knowledge (XXG) besides in a list. I was going to clean up this article but I thought deletion would be a better option per WP:BLP concerns. Graham87 07:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep provided every single detail is meticulously verified and no non-notable details are left behind. (That's always a good practice.) This may never amount to more than a small stub and would perhaps be more suited to a few sentences in a larger list of child prodigies. Do a google search for gregory smith prodigy or something similar to get an idea of how the removal of this article would affect his privacy, something I am sensitive to. --Mud4t 09:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep though I'm sure the BLP1E argument will arise. This is an individual who was widely feted a few years ago when he entered college aged 10 and graduated aged 13, even appearing on NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw to announce his next move. Finding coverage is trivially easy. Since that time, however, he has apparently chosen to live more privately. Perhaps merge a brief summary to child prodigy and leave this as a redirect, in lieu of a "full" biography for someone who is only just old enough to vote. --Dhartung | Talk 09:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - As a childs right advocate, the notability approaches zero -- the only enduring notability (if one could call it that) is over the child-prodigy aspect... that it occured almost 10 yrs ago, and has had no lasting impact, makes me consider it isolated and possibly trivial coverage ("hey, lookie here" news). /Blaxthos 12:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per Dhartung, but into List of child prodigies. A sentence with a reference or two (the ones located by Dhartung would do nicely; the ones at the article are unacceptable for the purpose) in article should suffice, unless the individual does something else notable in the future. --Moonriddengirl 13:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep to Merge. At best, as it is borderline depending on how you look at it. • Lawrence Cohen 20:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep notability is permanent. But the article is really a mess in almost every respect. DGG (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Probably one of my weakest keep views ever, but hopefully this can be improved. If not, relist it again in a few weeks and see what happens. Burntsauce 17:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am neutral, but if the article stays it has to be cleaned up - i.e. comments in references section, POV, etc. Watchingthevitalsigns 12:56, 19 September 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 Mr.Z-man 14:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Erich Jacoby-Hawkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Canadian politician, running twice for the House of Commons as a secondary-party candidate. Article has distinct non-neutral point of view. Author has rebuffed requests to merge into larger article about candidates from this party. Only sources are self-published or published for him by his party. Simply doesn't meet notability for stand-alone article. Realkyhick 07:33, 16 September 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 under A1 and WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster 02:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Knowledge (XXG) is not a lyrics database. GlassCobra 06:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's have the strength to proceed to meet our destiny. Mandsford 17:36, 16 September 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 (non admin)({{db-afd}}) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 11:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Frances Gardner House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Francis Gardner Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All are contested prod articles on accomodation at University College London. None offers any claim to notability beyond being something along the lines of 'largest catered hall at UCL'. Delete unless anyone can provide references showing their notability outside of the ivory towers of UCL. Nuttah68 06:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Compress and Merge to the UCL article. This information is interesting to prospective students, which in my opinion is a good measure of why we need the information in Knowledge (XXG). But it does not justify a separate article. -Arch dude 16:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I challenged the prods as they seemed to be based on the assertation that halls of residence aren't inherently notable. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason but there are several existing categories such as Category:University_and_college_residential_buildings. I've made a note on WikiProject Universities. Paulbrock 17:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Noting that your reason is not valid does not in some way make it more valid or worthy of consideration. And I'm pretty sure that nothing exists that is 'inherently notable'. Things are notable if they meet Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines. Dlabtot 21:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Some halls of residence can possibly be notable. But I do not think many of them would be. It is conceivable that an article might eventually be split off from the University College articles for their halls of residence in general if there are enough of them and enough sources. Of the articles in the category, some seem to be such combination articles. And some of the others are notable for their historic status or as declared national monuments. And probably some should be deleted. DGG (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to hypothetical Residences at University College London. As DGG already suggests, individual residences within a university, just like departments and degrees and student clubs, generally do not meet notability requirements for organizations and these articles furthermore make no assertion of importance. However, I do not support deletion because the content should be included within wikipedia to ensure comprehensive coverage of a topic, but it does not warrant its own article. Madcoverboy 21:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge Delete or merge into the main university article. There is nothing notable about any of the halls/houses. KnightLago 22:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. After listening to the arguments, I'd say either merge to a residences article, as per Madcoverboy, or to the main UCL article. Paulbrock 13:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable outside the context of being one of the university's residence hall. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge these dormatory articles into one as per DGG's and Madcoverboy's reasoning. I don't have an opinion on whether or not redirects ought to remain or whether the articles should be just deleted, but I think it depends on (1) whether we can conceive of some reader searching for Schafer House or (2) whether there's some reasonable possibility that new information will one day come forth that a single dormatory will in fact be notable. Noroton 20:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - does not meet notability criteria. Also, the article also fails to assert that the subject of the article is important or significant. Dlabtot 21:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • mergeGiven the setup of the UL, I'm sure they have an interesting residence system, should be placed there. Mbisanz 07:36, 24 September 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. Maxim(talk) 13:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Mohammad Moustafa Haddara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This proseline is begging to be converted into an article, but I can't do it because I can't find an English source – not one. Google returned less than 10 hits, including AlexNewArtBot's COI lists. If there's no way to verify his notability, the article should be deleted. KrakatoaKatie 06:23, 16 September 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 User:Tone as a copyright violation. Non-admin closure Hut 8.5 10:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Notability cannot be verified. Most references given either don't work or link to someone else's information. Only remaining links are Myspace (remember, WP:YMINAR) and his own web site. Google hits are few and far between. I smell a hoax here, though I could be wrong. Realkyhick 05:57, 16 September 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. Maxim(talk) 13:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Speedy deletion was overturned at DRV. However, it should still probably be deleted for lack of notability, unless reliable sources showing that it meets WP:WEB can be produced. Eluchil404 05:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a Web site- WP:WEB shouldn't apply here. It's a computer program, and it makes a claim to notability- that it is the first freeware disk defragmentation program for Windows. It also appears well-sourced. Keep. -Toptomcat 06:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Now and even past the point when a final decision is made by this debate, this article should be retained, my argument follows. Although not fluent with Knowledge (XXG)'s contents guidelines, I am a fluent defragmentation enthusiest, and this non-commercial variant is significant in that its the first open-source free variation and through the only recent defragmentation comparitive articles via google and my own personal comparisons, this variation compares favourably. This article should remain at least until a true 'Comparison of Defragmentation Software' page is setup listing all known defragmenation software for each platform (Windows/Linux etc) as well as comparative attributes specific to defragmentation. Schitzn 17:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Would anyone object if I removed the AFD template from the article now that there are 2 notable references in the article and the relevance of the article is established? RitaSkeeter 13:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll take that as a "no" RitaSkeeter 18:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Only administrators can close AfD debates. -- intgr  09:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess this is going to take a LOOOOOONG time given the size of the egos involved?? Donn Edwards 16:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
AfD debates are normally closed in 5 days (see WP:AFD). This AfD page is huge already, so please keep irrelevant comments under control. -- intgr  21:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see why a product as notable as JkDefrag should fail the notability test when the latest literature on the subject predates the public availability of the product. Surely more time is needed before nuking the article? RitaSkeeter 22:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The reason for the number of references to the official website is because statements need citations, and the web site provides an authoritative source to verify the facts being stated. RitaSkeeter 20:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Blaxthos. There is absolutely no excuse for poor sourcing when it comes to software articles, as that's a subject with such an abundance of magazines, books, etc. Notable software would have plenty of reliable sources, this doesn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
So far I have added several references, but the biggest problem with the lack of noteworthy sources is that it takes the Computer Industry magazines about 2 years to do another defrag roundup, and no noteworthy defrag reviews have been done this year, unless you count the "Great Defrag Shootout" review, which is more comprehensive than anything PC Magazine has ever done, and their last review in PC Magazine was in 2005.
No books have been published on Defragmentation in 2007, according to Amazon
None of the books published about Windows Vista have mentioned anything other than Vista's own defrag program.
Since JkDefrag has only become well known this year, it's a bit soon to bemoan the lack of published sources, given the delay time in book publishing in general.RitaSkeeter 20:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment not entirely sure of deletion-worthiness yet, but it shouldn't have to fit the criteria under WP:WEB IMHO because it's not actually a website. Or a webpage. Other than the primary form of distrubtion (which is over the web), this software doesn't have much to do with the web. M1ss1ontomars2k4 19:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Why the rush to deletion? PLEASE can we have a stay of execution until at least the end of September? I can see no reason for the article to be deleted other than pedantic ones, especially when there are articles like Windows Powertools that are even LESS relevant.
I still don't understand why the fact that it is the first GPL-freeware defrag program that is good enough to be compared with the commercial defrag program DOESN'T make it noteworthy? From the software industry point of view this is highly noteworthy, IMHO. RitaSkeeter 20:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Unless you believe widespread, independent, reliable coverage is going to happen over the next two weeks what does a stay of execution achieve? The article needs these sources to establish notability, if you are unlucky enough that at the moment no one wants to provide coverage that is bad luck but does not change Knowledge (XXG)'s requirements. Nuttah68 20:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The proper response to a sourcing problem is to tag the article as unsourced, not to just nuke it. Just because a casual inspection doesn't find anything that looks suitable doesn't mean that someone dedicated to the article- or just someone who's dedicated to sourcing articles- can't dig something up with some more effort. If the article had been tagged as improperly sourced for a while without anyone doing anything about it, I'd endorse deletion wholeheartedly, but deleting now is premature whichever way you slice it. -Toptomcat 20:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. I have asked for more time in order to find the relevant sources. I see that a request has been made on the JkDefrag support forum for further information. Nuking the article (which has already been done once) was greeted with outrage by some users. RitaSkeeter 20:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This AfD process is a complete waste of time. I have personally reviewed 15 commercial and 16 freeware defrag programs this year, and JkDefrag is one of the best programs available. For some reason the Wiki admins seem to think that only the Diskeeper article should not be deleted. This reflects more on the ignorance of those wanting to delete the articles than on the noteworthiness of the products concerned. My reviews have been mentioned in two newsletters and on the "Security Now" podcast, but this isn't "noteworthy' because those sources do not appear in print. I guess we'll have to wait for the New York Times to do a review before the matter is settled. DonnEdwards 20:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Please- let's not get vitriolic. You have valid points that I agree with, so please don't sabotage them with your tone. -Toptomcat 20:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Apologies. I guess my frustration is showing because I happen to know something about the topic but the people who want to delete the article for the wrong reasons don't seem to want to listen to reason. I have put in a lot of work on the defragmentation and related articles in the past, only for the work to be deleted. The JkDefrag page looks like another example of heavy-handed deletion by non-experts. Who is the windows software/programming expert on WikiPedia, and why hasn't s/he been asked to mediate? I appeal to Ceasar! Donn Edwards 21:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
See, that's the thing. The whole Knowledge (XXG) process is designed specifically to eliminate the neccesity for Ceasars/experts to appeal to. If you can find a source that meets their criteria, whoever you are, the article gets left alone. Otherwise, it doesn't matter what kind of authority you are; you'll be ignored, and rightly so. This just isn't that kind of project.
So get to it! Double-check various sections of our rules with the review, newsletter, and podcast, and trawl like mad for other sources that may better fit our guidelines. It's this article's best chance. -Toptomcat 02:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that anyone who knows absolutely nothing about the topic can mark any article for deletion because they are picky about references, and they can waste other people's time by forcing them to find references even though the article is a stub. Rather than "contributing" by marking the article for deletion, why not contribute by doing a bit of research??? Now the JkDefrag article looks like superscript soup because of all the references. I hope everyone is feeling sufficiently SMUG. Donn Edwards 07:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It looks like a "superscript soup" because that is not how you're supposed to write a referenced article. Most of the references on it are simply useless. -- intgr  08:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the constructive criticism. We all feel much better now 41.243.174.82 12:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I would clean them up if there was a chance for the article to survive this AFD. -- intgr  15:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
....What? *weeps for Knowledge (XXG)* -Toptomcat 16:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Things I have learnt from the AfD Process (with apologies to How to Win Friends and Influence People)
    • Anyone can criticise, and/or delete, and it's easy to do
    • It takes a lot of effort to get the deleted item back, and to argue against the lame reasons for deletion
    • The original contributors feel insulted and/or frustrated
    • The critics feel smug because they pointed out the mistakes, even though they don't/won't have the time, energy or inclination to stoop so low as to actually fix things.
    • The article does not improve, if it survives at all. Those whose efforts are trashed think twice about contributing again
    • It takes absolute ages to get the AfD issue to go away, because no-one wants to admit they were wrong.

Thanks for nothing, and I'm glad everyone is being so grown up and gracious. FYA Donn Edwards 18:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The article was nominated for AfD because its subject does not appear to meet the notability guideline — the criterion being "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The purpose of the AfD is not to criticize anyone's work, nor to tell anyone to work more on the article. And the solution to the AfD is to demonstrate that the nomination does not hold. That is, demonstrate its conformance with the notability criterion.
The notability criterion is based on the existence of such sources. All that's necessary to resolve this AfD to indicate the presence of reliable sources, on this AfD discussion page, or in an "external links" section, or anywhere really. No, we did not ask you to turn the article into a "superscript soup." In fact, the addition of insignificant references (which only mention the program in one paragraph) only convinces people further that no significant sources can be found.
I would like to point out that you didn't even attempt to argue the subject's notability in terms of the notability criterion before resorting to irrelevant arguments about how lazy and smug Knowledge (XXG) editors are deleting your work because they don't like it. Is this the kind of constructive tone that we're supposed to learn from? -- intgr  09:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - the notability issue is resolved: there are 3 references that meet the notability guidelines. What other issues are still outstanding? WP:WEB not apply, since the article is not about a web site. Is this going to take long? Donn Edwards 09:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    Which are these three references? As far as I can tell, the only such article is the TechTarget one. I am not sure your "Great Defrag Shootout" conforms because it does not meet WP:RS: "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." I don't have access to the Computer Power User magazine; does it cover the program significantly? The title does not seem to suggest so. -- intgr  09:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Significant coverage in "Defragmentation freeware outpaces native tools in Windows" in WinComputing April 2007

JkDefrag 3.7 (named for its creator, J.C. Kessels of Holland) uses Windows' own native MoveFile APIs (the same subroutines used by DEFRAG itself) to do its work, so using the program entails little risk of data corruption.

The application is standalone; it can be run in any directory and requires no installation, so it can even be run from a removable drive as part of a portable software toolkit. Any mountable read-write file system in Windows can be defragmented with it.

Some of the program's more sophisticated features are the sorts of things you usually only see in defragmentation software you pay for. It allows you to move seldom-used files to the end of the disk, or force all files to move to the front of the disk (i.e., as a prelude to resizing a partition). The utility also moves all directory structures to the front of the disk, creates a free-space buffer at the front 1% of the disk, and frees up space in the MFT reserved zone whenever possible.

However, it does not perform any more advanced file placement than that, possibly because Windows itself (XP and Vista) has internal management for those functions. (It's been suggested to the freeware's author that JkDefrag be instructed to not move files that have been tagged by the prefetch optimizer, and he plans to eventually include this feature whenever possible.)

The program is both free and open-source; it's been made available under the GNU General Public License in both 32- and 64-bit implementations. Along with the Visual C++ source code, the author has also provided a DLL library that allows the program to be implemented from other applications. Note: To make the program's options a little easier to deal with, cohort Emiel Wieldraaijer has written a GUI command interface for JkDefrag called JkDefragGUI.

  • and in "Must-have Windows utilities for 20 essential tasks" in ComputerWorld and Network World Asia July 2007:

Disk defragmentation

Windows' native Defrag application, based on the long-running Diskeeper defragmentation program, has never been very good, although it's been incrementally improved over time. After Microsoft started including a native file-defragmentation API in Windows (starting with Windows 2000), many individual programmers stepped up to create defrag tools of their own.

A number of freeware defrag programs offer similar functionality. Of those, the best I've found so far is the open-source JkDefrag from Jeroen Kessels. It can be run in a graphical mode, from the command line or even as a screen saver. While I'm not a fan of file-placement options -- it's not always clear what kind of performance benefit they provide -- JkDefrag has a slew of them, including the ability to move the least used and least accessed files to the end of the disk. One flaw: JkDefrag doesn't preserve any files specified in the Windows prefetch layout folder, so prefetching will break if you use JkDefrag consistently. (This isn't fatal; it just might have an unanticipated performance impact.)

  • Mentioned in "Boxed Utility Blowout" in Computer Power User magazine September 2007 pg 66-68
  • Mentioned in Freeware/Open Source for Windows Weekly Summary by Todd Ogasawara on O'Reilly Windows Devcentre July 2007

Free stand-alone disk defragmentation tool

Defragmenting your hard drives is important, because doing so increases system speed and reduces drive wear by eliminating unnecessary disk read operations.

File are stored on your disk in sectors. The more compact your files are, the faster your disk subsystem can find the information and read it. So, naturally, the optimal storage pattern for any file is to have all of its sectors right next to each other.

That's where disk defragmentation tools come into play. Defrag tools rearrange your files so that they're stored contiguously. Windows comes with a built-in disk deframentation tool, but it's not the fastest one available, nor is it very flexible. In fact, you must run the tool as Administrator, which presents a problem for many users.

John Mason wrote to us about this problem and asked if we know of any disk defragmentation tools that are self-contained, can run from a flash drive, and don't require Administrator-level access in order to run.

John, I do know of such a tool. JkDefrag is a free, lightweight tool that that comes in three varieties. The first variety runs as a typical Windows desktop application, the second is a command-line version, and the third is a screensaver that defrags the drive when your screensaver kicks in.

Another cool feature of JkDefrag is that it defrags floppies and USB-based media, such as flash drives. If you're interested, you can also download the complete source code for use in Microsoft Visual C++.

RitaSkeeter 20:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


  • Keep - Having been through all this issue of notability on other articles I have been involved with I have seen it all before. An excellent article on a program which perhaps only now is becoming well known it should not be deleted at this stage. I myself have only just started using it, and it has only just been mentioned on Security Now. So reliable third party reviews are in short supply at the moment. Surely it is WP's policies that need to be changed, not articles such as these, otherwise we are stifling the very knowledge base which WP is aiming to generate. Dsergeant 15:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per sources listed above, wait for prior voters to reconsider the sources. -- intgr  18:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
How long does this take? A few hours? days? months? Please advise. Thank you. RitaSkeeter 20:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The typical timeframe is days. -Toptomcat 00:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

To quote from the Vopt AfD page: Another fundamental issue is that Knowledge (XXG):Deletion Policy -- Knowledge (XXG) official policy that requires "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion" -- seems not to have been followed here. The policy, which seems to have been completely ignored here, requires nominators to consider alternatives to deletion -- such as editing, tagging or merging the article -- before considering deletion as a last resort. Given that the article as it existed when nominated for deletion made explicit claims of notability and provided ample sources, there seems to be little justification for this clear policy violation. At a minimum, an explanation of the nominator's actions would be in order --RitaSkeeter 16:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The original nomination message was pushed downwards by some user's vote which is probably why you missed it; I have cleaned it up now (see the top of the page). -- intgr  21:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Plus, that's not really how things work around here. We assume good faith. I'm not sure why you are complaining anyway; the process is working in your favor. Just relax and let things play out. -- Satori Son 15:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm inclined to agree with Rita and others that the article now has sufficient notability from credible sources. Having experimented with the product I also personally feel it's notable enough to be included, not that that matters much. And not that I wish to start a great flame war, but if obscure episodes from Dr. Who in the 1960's are notable enough to have articles, then this particular software certainly qualifies. Holmwood 22:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per sufficient reliable sources that have been provided. The article is reasonably well written, nor is it an advert, nor is there any conflict of interest. -- Ekjon Lok 23:48, 19 September 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. Maxim(talk) 02:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Truthfully, my main problem with this article is that it's written by the subject and reads like it. In terms of Knowledge (XXG) policy, it's basically unsourced and probably unsourceable. P4k 05:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete Seems pretty clear that it meets the criteria under WP:CSD#G11. --Mud4t 05:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. OK, he sang in a band that put out one album, and he did some interviews for MTV News, and now he manages some artists. Accomplished, especially for his age, but since nobody has really written about him, unnotable. Fails WP:BIO, half of article would fail WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 06:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable bio. Keb25 06:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.205.40 (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete So he's a junket host-vegan-news host-talking head-animal activist-record exec-singer. Then why haven't I ever heard of him or think of him as notable through the lack of references? Pretty much you can reduce this to a ten-word article; Ryan Downey is a freelance journalist/indie label manager/artist. Honestly, reading this there's one thing he should do; take a freakin' vacation, he must be worn out! Nate 08:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or convert to stub. The subject is borderline notable, since there are ghits from MTV stories and interviews made by (not made to) the subject. However, the article was clearly expanded by the subject himself or someone close to him (the main contributor has the same name as his company). The Biography and Additional Facts sections are plain WP:OR and will never be verified, and its difficult to validate the appearances, credits and discography assertions (some may never be validated). The only sure salvageable piece is the intro, and even then it should be shortened per WP:A. - Mtmelendez 11:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. /Blaxthos 13:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete old-style vanity article of the sort we don't see very much anymore (that's a good thing). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Tagged ; meets WP:CSD#G11 . - Rjd0060 23:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I am unconvinced that this is really deserving of G11, but that being said, the WP:COI problems, that it is unsourced, and seeming vanity-page-like lead me to be convinced that it is certainly deserving of deletion. I am ignoring any idea of (non)notability. Nihiltres 02:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, it's been written by its subject and needs Wikifying, but I think there's a reasonable case that he qualifies as notable under WP:BAND criteria (4) and (5) given his discography (lead singer of a notable band, more than one album released). Bondegezou 17:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Notability isn't about what someone's done, it's about what reliable sources have reported they've done. In my experience it's pretty much impossible to find real sources about 90s hardcore bands (eg Catharsis) and I doubt Downey's band will be any different. If you can find sources for this article then more power to you.P4k 22:23, 21 September 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. -- Longhair\ 02:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Does not meet WP:MOVIE NeilN 04:23, 16 September 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 12:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Article appears to be a hoax. Information cannot be verified. Google and Knowledge (XXG) searches using "Carrownaclougha" link only to this article (which is orphaned). Previous CSD A1/A3 nomination was removed by article author after only five minutes. Article author's sole contribution to Knowledge (XXG) has been to this article. – Liveste 04:19, 16 September 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. Maxim(talk) 01:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Blessing Way (The X-Files) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An article about individual episode of a television series that does not establish the notability/significance of the episode, and in addition, does not even contain much information. Reads more like an entry on one of those sites that documents episodes of television shows. Calgary 03:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following articles (most of season 3) for deletion for the same reason:

Paper Clip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
D.P.O. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The List (The X-Files) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2Shy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Walk (The X-Files) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oubliette (The X-Files) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
731 (The X-Files) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Revelations (The X-Files) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
War of the Coprophages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Syzygy (The X-Files) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Piper Maru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Apocrypha (The X-Files) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pusher (The X-Files) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Teso Dos Bichos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hell Money (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jose Chung's "From Outer Space" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Avatar (The X-Files) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Quagmire (The X-Files) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wetwired (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Talitha Cumi (The X-Files) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Calgary 03:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete None of the articles have anything more than in-universe information. A subject that hasn't had significant coverage by secondary sources doesn't warrant an article. 17Drew 08:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject keep/delete all format of discussion "Jose Chung's 'From Outer Space'" has received a significant amount of secondary coverage () and some of the others may have as well. Nominating articles en masse like this makes it difficult to figure out what's actually notable.P4k 08:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject nomination - (effective keep all) bundling of all these episodes in one AFD prevents individual episodes from being debated on their merits. No opposition to re-nomination of questionable articles individually. /Blaxthos 13:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect all to List of The X-Files episodes. There does not appear to be sufficient information about the individual episodes to warrant separate articles so per WP:FICT a single "List of" article is the way to go. Otto4711 14:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep all. Unless someone changed the rules when I wasn't looking, individual articles for notable TV series are perfectly acceptable. If there's a lack of content, then that can be addressed in the articles themselves. Otherwise if you nominate these you may as well nominate the individual episode articles for Doctor Who, Star Trek, Jericho (TV series), Heroes (TV series), etc etc. And you can't just pick and choose which episode deserve articles. All or none, and if none then you need to push for a policy change unless, as I say, such a policy has come in when I wasn't paying attention. 23skidoo 17:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - It sort of did: WP:EPISODE.P4k 17:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Notability is not inhereted. Articles for individual episodes are acceptable, if they meet individual notability (and reliable source) guidelines. While I rejected this AFD simply because nominating an entire season en masse deprives us of the ability to discern properly notable articles from the fluff. /Blaxthos 23:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Another keep all as well, because they're from a really notable show that has had books published about it (some official, of course) and so sources should be no problem and nor should notability, especially when other shows reference these episodes. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to "Season 4 of The X-Files" or something like that, because a lot of these are just too short to deserve their own articles. M1ss1ontomars2k4 19:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. To all. Notable. • Lawrence Cohen 20:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and I think its rather underhand to change policy without widespread input and notifying the community at large.KTo288 21:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge or redirect into the appropriate list of episode article per WP:EPISODE. It is very bad form to mass delete a bunch of episode articles without attempting to merge them into a list. --Farix (Talk) 21:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment To those who advocate a merge, there is already a List of The X-Files episodes article which lists all of the seasons, and if you look at the section for Season 3 (not season 4 as I had previously written, I apologize for the error), you'll find that not only is most of the information in these articles included in this list, but in most cases the text is identical. As it stands, the mass of encyclopedic information is already listed here, adding even more uselessness to the individual articles, which on their own are not notable. Calgary 02:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Why aren't they notable? Significant secondary coverage exists for at least some of them.P4k 04:39, 17 September 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 of the debate was speedily kept as rewritten bio substub. FCYTravis 06:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Vanity nonsense FCYTravis 04:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 00:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Article cites Uncyclopedia and is a non-notable internet meme. Spryde 11:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 03:34, 16 September 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. -- Longhair\ 02:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

I am concerned that this corporation fails to satisfy Knowledge (XXG)'s inclusion guideline for corporations. I don't often use the "Google test", but nearly all of the Google Results come from Knowledge (XXG) or mirror sites. JavaTenor 03:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was redirected per merge to List of professional wrestling slang. I've made a request at RPP, but it's unlikely. Non admin. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 11:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Very, very small subset of professional wrestling information that isn't notable enough to warrant an individual article. I propose that Parts Unknown be added to the List of professional wrestling slang without all the crufty lists. Then a redirect should be placed on this page for the entry in the list. Nikki311 03:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Megred articles actually can't be deleted due to it being a GFDL violation. A better choice would be requesting full protection of the redirect after the merger is done. That way the redirect can't be an article again and we do not need to delete the history. 69.156.205.163 03:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Reply, we aren't so much merging all the content, rather than just using a one sentence definition on the list. It really isn't a merge at all. Nikki311 16:00, 17 September 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 Acalamari 23:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

This appears to be an autobiography of a non-notable politician. As I am not a speaker of the native language, I cannot do any further research on Google, so I am putting it here for community discussion. Seems to be a somewhat minor bureaucrat. Into The Fray /C 03:22, 16 September 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 purge. DS 13:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoax. Was listed for speedy deletion, but, sadly, this is not a valid reason for speedy. David Eppstein 03:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Per Bielle, I'm adding Canadian Oil Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to this AfD. —David Eppstein 04:33, 16 September 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. Carlossuarez46 00:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The first version of this article was created as an autobiography in July 2006. It stayed uncategorized, orphaned and unreferenced for a year until it was speedy-deleted under CSD#A7 in July 2007.

The creator/subject of the article apparently discovered his bio had been deleted and recreated the article with only a few changes – and still didn't provide references or a single source other than his own site. Pure vanity. KrakatoaKatie 02:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was Merge with main article. Maxim(talk) 01:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Cure for diabetes mellitus type 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I came across this article while working through AlexNewArtBot's output of possible conflicts of interest in new articles.

I can understand a desire to centrally locate research into a disease or condition, but I have concerns. First, it's an invitation for spamlinks, and has the potential to become a serious COI battleground. More importantly, I think it's dangerous for Knowledge (XXG) to have an article titled "cure for disease X", despite the medical disclaimer. Our intentions may be good, but those intentions can turn around and bite us in the ass. I'm also wondering why this couldn't be covered in the Diabetes mellitus type 1 article in a "research into remedies" or some other benign title.

At the very least, it should be renamed – I've struggled to come up with a better name, but can't think of one – and claims of comprehensiveness should be removed. I'm uneasy about it, so I bring it here for discussion. KrakatoaKatie 02:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. First, because this particular core issue would develop into a long article – too long to be merged as a section in another article.

Second, once the medical disclaimer is there, this article has exactly the same chance of "turning around and biting us in the ass" as any other Knowledge (XXG) article on a medical issue. No one would seriously expect Knowledge (XXG) to render a cure to diabetes, so no legal or medical issue here.

Third, I really think the current name is good. There are at least two treatments listed in the article (the Edmonton Protocol and the stem cell treatment in Brazil), which already have reversed diabetes T1 in real patients, in the real world; So the wording "Cure for diabetes type 1" is not at all inaccurate.

Fourth, about the "spamlinks" and COI issues, that certainly is not what the article is meant for, and I, as all other serious Knowledge (XXG) editors (not to mention those particular users who actually have the condition), would remove any such unwelcome edits, just as they would be removed from any other article in WP. The possibility of stupid users doing stupid things should not, in any way, be a condition on the existence of a smart article edited by smart users. A.R. 15:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep but move (rename) to "Research for cure for diabetes mellitus type 1", since there is no cure as yet. There will be some who criticize this as a "catchall", or "potentially unmaintainable", but if it's an article that is added to every time there is some news about the search for a cure, it's a keeper. That's the strength of Knowledge (XXG), as an encyclopedia that can be updated as often as necessary. Mandsford 17:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 21:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strip down to shorter size and merge with diabetes mellitus type 1. It should be easy to summarise the content in a few sentences, with 3-4 references. I suggest that hypotheses should only be included if there is at least some experimental work going on to test their tenability. JFW | T@lk 08:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with main article. Bulbous 19:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge this is what the main articles are for. DGG (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and perhaps rename to something like "Research into cures for diabetes mellitus type 1". I see no reason to shorten the article. There's a lot of material out there about the various cures and research into cures. Whether or not anyone has been "cured" yet depends on one's definition of "cure" -- transplant patients for example can certainly be considered "cured" according to some very reasonable definitions. Possible future spam/vandalism doesn't seem like a good reason to delete a page. --Coppertwig 22:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. The main Diabetes mellitus type 1 article has a subheading "Curing Type 1 Diabetes", which then has links to pages of more detailed material. That seems a better way of handling this material, although "Treating..." may be better than "Curing..." there. Bondegezou 16:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • merge (bits and pieces) agree that this isn't really needing it's own entry. I agree with the concerns with opening cans of worms re. folk medicine, herbs, SPAM links, etc... that will proliferate around it. Droliver 01:50, 21 September 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 Acalamari 23:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sacred Fools Theater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Despite the article’s hyperbole (“Sacred Fools is one of the most prolific theater companies in the nation, if not the world”) it lacks national or international notability. And with Sacred Fools’ local scope it probably has little prospect of becoming notable in the future. --teb728 02:26, 16 September 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. Carlossuarez46 00:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Hi, it's Alex Sass here. Delete away if you like but yes the stated bio is true. If you wish to contact me im on . I find my inclusion in WikiPedia a little unusual to say the least! JakeTM is probably notable and perhaps the STM theories but probably not my own life. I believe the entry came from a journo I know after an article given when quizzed about the launch of GayCheltenham. The novel is still for sale so you could check that I guess on Lulu or Amazon. Im never sure if entry in this sort of thing is positive, negative or neither! AS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.63.51 (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have searched and cannot find any Reliable Sources giving any coverage at all to this subject, much less significant coverage. No sources are given in the article, but it says that he was mentioned in a gay publication. I have no idea whether that publication is a significant, reliable source, but we don't have the citation, either. There is a link to the gay community social networking site he founded. The article says he sold that, moved to Thailand and started writing a novel. Again, no reliable sources. And I see no notability. I think we need to DELETE. OfficeGirl 02:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. This was the closest I could come to a reliable, independent source, and it isn't even really about him, but about his then-website. Thus, no attribution of notability (or claims) to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 05:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Scarykitty 15:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I searched a paid news database and came up with only two references, one of which I added to the article (about the founding meeting of Gay Cheltelham in 2004. The other was a reference to a fundraiser. I doubt that organizing a meeting to which 60 people show up alone makes someone notable. However, Attitude magazine, which is notable enough for it's own Knowledge (XXG) entry, seems to be going defunct as I type, so it will probably be impossible to search the archives to determine whether the Entrepreneur award is credible. (I think it would be a reliable source and might establish notability). Scarykitty 16:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete , non-notable person. Christiantroy 17:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete – Does not satisfy the notability guidelines for biographies. The only thing that looks interesting is Jake TM; if it's notable, we should write an article about it, not its creator. — madman bum and angel 19:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as self-promotional and non-notable of course. It seem pretty weird when people create articles on themselves. Please try to understand that WP is not your advertising portal! -- Niaz 08:01, 18 September 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 Acalamari 23:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Trinity Episcopal Day School Baton Rouge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school, and nothing in the article is about the article topic. CitiCat 02:16, 16 September 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. Carlossuarez46 00:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

This article was created by Kreckler. It was speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A7 a few days ago, but Kreckler recreated it and asserts some notability in the text. I don't see any actual notability, nor do I see any actual verifiable, sources. It's likely a prod tag will be removed, so I'm formally nominating it for deletion. KrakatoaKatie 02:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Confirmed that he has a work in the collection of the National Gallery of Australia. Link added to article.--Ethicoaestheticist 18:14, 16 September 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. -- Longhair\ 02:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Jesus and comparative mythology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An obvious POV fork and little more than a jumble of unsourced & unrelated statements. Anything on this article which is well sourced and relevant can be easily merged into the main Jesus article. RucasHost 01:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Seems like standard comparative religion to me - people do this stuff for a living, and have for a long time. There are libraries full of such analysis of Jesus. And I seriously doubt another word will fit in the main Jesus article. It's not a great article, but that's another matter. MarkBul 05:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. What he said ^ . Edit maybe, but definitely don't delete. --Jammoe 14:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - there is no obvious POV fork here. This article is a normal comparative religion article, it needs a little clean-up but it's very well sourced and is plainly far too long to be merged back into Jesus (and that's coming from a Mergist Wikipedian). I can't understand why this was brought to AFD--Cailil 16:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - Reviewing the nominator's contributions, there is a strong pro-Christian bias and I am not entirely sure this was nominated in good faith. I think the article is pretty well-sourced with 27 footnotes. I am concerned, however, that we have Jesus and comparative mythology, Historicity of Jesus, Jesus myth hypothesis, and Historical Jesus, but given the long length of each I suppose it's understandable. Suggest a WP:SNOWball close. ←Ben 17:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per above. I agree that this shouldn't be merged into the main article. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. Mandsford 18:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't think it's apporpriate to go throwing all this into th emain Jesus article. BenB4 has a good point, however, about the multiple origin articles and a merge might be worthwhile. Crimson30 13:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable and well-sourced. This is a major theme of Joseph Campbell's The Power of Myth. Certainly, it needs to go on a diet. Bearian 14:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • speedy keep. this article has been bashed by both uber-Christians and uber-anti-Christians, because it takes a neutral stance. Jesus myth hypothesis is about the fringy notion that Jesus was just made up by a bunch of eccentrics. This topic is embraced by both sides, by the uber-anti-Christians because they buy it, and by the uber-Christians because it is so easily refuted as incoherent. Christ and mythology is too important a topic to be left to articles on fringe scholarship. --dab (𒁳) 16:16, 19 September 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. Carlossuarez46 00:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

ParetoLogic Privacy Controls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software by a company of questionable business practices. See RegCure and its AFD. Bahustard 20:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 01:43, 16 September 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. Carlossuarez46 00:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

An editor added {{db-web}} (It is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.), and another editor removed it. I've been a bit suspicious of this article for a while, not sure whether it's notable or advertising, so I'm putting it up to the wider Wikipedian community to decide here. --Icarus 01:43, 16 September 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. -- Longhair\ 10:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Dictionary definition; propose trasnwiki to Wikitionary. Blair - Speak to me 01:32, 16 September 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 me. J Milburn 11:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Completed AFD nom started by User:24.17.110.223. Possible nominated due to non-notabliity? -- Alan Liefting talk 01:30, 16 September 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. Carlossuarez46 00:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Ok it may be named for the inventor of the telephone, but the building (a local public school) is not notable at all and there are no sources provided to assert it. Delete JForget 01:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete No evidence of notability is presented in the article. --Icarus 01:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable school. Keb25 06:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete You gotta admire a school whose motto is "Believe you can't achieve!" Actually, history reveals that that was a clever bit of vandalism, and that's in an article that has a long history of vandalism. Bonus points for naming your team "The Knights" and avoiding all the obvious nicknames that one would expect from a school named after Alexander Graham Bell AND located in a town called "Ajax" (which, by the way, is a VERY clean and fresh town, with no caked on grease). As with many school articles, the students practice editing it as part of a class project that incorporates Knowledge (XXG). Suggestion to Principal Maertens.... userfy this to the school computer system so that it can be used forever more. Mandsford 18:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above. Lack of listed notability. - Rjd0060 23:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete as it seems non-notable. But if any strong citation can be shown, I will change my vote to keep. -- Niaz 08:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect our readers to Durham District School Board instead, as per our Knowledge (XXG):Redirect guidelines. Burntsauce 17:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nn school. Dannycali 02:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Generally speaking schools are notabile in the fact that they influence the thousands of students who enroll in them over time. My concern with this article is that the name of the school is not entirely unique. Consider, for example, this school. So, perhaps a better article would be one on school's named after Alexander Graham Bell, or a disambiguation page of these schools, or even a small section on Mr. Bell's page noting some schools named after him. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 15:05, 19 September 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 13:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

GlassCobra 01:06, 16 September 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 Acalamari 23:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

This article should be deleted per WP:N. The subject of the article may be unique and well meaning, per the comment of the author on the talk page, but that does not necessarily make it notable. WP is not designed for advertisement, even of worthy causes. Avruch 19:29, 14 September 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 Close - A misplaced redirect has now been converted into a stub. (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 11:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Pale-legged Warbler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The page Pale-legged Warbler, Basileuterus signatus, redirects to Pale-legged Leaf-warbler, Phylloscopus tenellipes, but a quick Google of the latin names shows that they are two different species. The page should be deleted until the species page is written

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Acalamari 23:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Only 723 google hits. Doesn't appear to establish notability of the website. M1ss1ontomars2k4 19:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I can't vote on this - I'm involved in the site. What I can say is that if you google for the preps that are listed (eg "condensation of phenols", "Dehydration of chromium(III) chloride", "dcc coupling" - all are important chemical techniques) SyntheticPages is one of the first hits. For the small community which it serves, it is important. Iridium77 19:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    Can you locate any reliable sources which have written about the subject? If so, I might be inclined to support a keep view. Burntsauce 17:35, 18 September 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. -- Longhair\ 02:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

24 (season 8) (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.

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

↑