Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 19: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:00, 19 March 2007 editNagromtpc (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users10,969 edits fix link← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:22, 19 March 2007 edit undoBetacommand (talk \| contribs)86,927 edits Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/AaNet Next edit →
Line 94:		Line 94:
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Keeley Hazell}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Keeley Hazell}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Lithician Empire}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Lithician Empire}}
			{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/AaNet}}

Revision as of 15:22, 19 March 2007

< March 18 March 20 > Guide to deletion Centralized discussion

Village pumps: policy; tech; proposals; idea lab; WMF; misc

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Dark Light Project

delete Dark Ermac 13:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

List of most successful aircraft

A vague list with no criteria for inclusion or exclusion. There is no definition of success and the article seems to have an English speaking county / US bias. It's basically uncited and probably unverifiable for the aircraft listed. As a side note, it was prod'd but de-prod'd by an anon user and the initial contributor of the article is now indef blocked. Dual Freq 03:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I think that this is the beginning of a good encyclopedia article, but I think it needs to be expanded beyond a list and moved to title such as Historically successful aircraft. - Richard Cavell 03:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep It could be improved Crested Penguin 03:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment, I neglected to mention that the list is very subjective. For example, the Harrier jump jet is listed as successful while the History Channel also includes it in its Modern Marvels: Engineering Disasters 6 episode decrying its design flaws. A user on the talk page also questions inclusion of the C-130 based on its accident history. Additionally, due to the lack of a definable, concrete definition of successful, almost every aircraft could probably be considered successful in one respect or another or the aircraft would not have reached production. --Dual Freq 03:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, Inherently subjective list. Pjbflynn 03:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. COMPLETELY subjective list. --Calton | Talk 05:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unsalvageably subjective. --RaiderAspect 06:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete No salvation, inherently POV. /Blaxthos 06:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Mind-bogglingly subjective. Also, if this list is the MOST successful aircraft rather than just VERY successful aircraft, shouldn't it only have one entry? ;) FiggyBee 08:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Subjective; no attribution for definition of "successful" (do they mean most popular? Safest? Easiest to fly? Cheapest to run? What?) or for inclusion of aircraft. Also extremely biased towards American aircraft. --Charlene 09:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete - incredibly subjective and POV. -- Chairman S. Talk 09:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unsalvageably POV. --Mmx1 11:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete This article is inherently subjective and not NPOV. --Kyoko 13:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I believe a major problem with the current article is that instead of using a single measure of "success" and clearly defining it, it uses varying criteria that seem to have been arbitrarily chosen. The list would be better if it used a single criterion, such as "List of aircraft with the longest production runs" or something like that. Of course, lists like that run the risk of going against the idea that Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but that's for another time. --Kyoko 13:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, although weakly. Yes, there is a problem with the criteria for "success"; AFAIAC any aircraft that flies is "successful", since man will never fly. Were it moved to a list of aircraft produced in largest numbers I'd be inclined to keep it. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment That list already exists, and I don't think anyone has any problems with it. FiggyBee 16:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. How is this "mind-bogglingly subjective"? There are perfectly good criteria for "success" (albeit several different ones), and some are used here: most ordered and produced commercial airliner sounds successful to me. Clearly in need of cleanup, but a reasonable list. I see no problem at all with having several different criteria used; for example, "most manufactured", "longest in use", and "most profit" could all reasonably be thought of as criteria for success. bikeable (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete for insurmountable NPOV and OR issues. No objective definition of "successful" is possible. Otto4711 16:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
rename because of the above comment suggest that a type of POV may be perceived in the term "most successfull". I suggest the new list be called: "List of sucessfull and poppular aircrafts". Also, remove any information which is not properly sourced. ie.: If "airplane A is very successful/popular" (which means it is in the list) then there should be a quote/reference to who said so. This avoids a violation of WP:A. If we say, according to, a survey from ABC inc., Airplane A is very popular, then Keep that information. Prior to any deletion the relevant sourced information should be verified and transfered to the new list. Finally, even though popularity is subjective it is less a contreversial theme than successfullness. Nevertheless, popularity is sometimes harder to evaluate and is subjective. Ironically many wikipedians believe popularity is a reason for inclussion or exclussion. Water fuel cell is not that popular but it is an article. Also, sucessfullness and popularity can both be measured and hence are empirical. Empirical data is not subjective. It can be measured by a specific amount and devided by a common denominator to give specific stats. These stats should be utilised if possible in this list. I may be correct to assume that those who vote because they believe the issue is subjectivity that perhaps it was your way of saying "that there is a lack of emperical data or referencing?". --FR Soliloquy 18:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 18:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

comment:Objective criteria for inclusion is cited at wikipedia's rules here at WP:A. Properly sourced information should be suficient enough for inclusion. If Howard Stern says "I cut my pubes last night. My hairs were getting longer than my penis." Or the fact that "The world scares me." said Howard. Then I think, considering the good source I provided, it should be included in the appropriate article. Similarly, if the information is well sourced... ie.: Toy's R Us offers or did offer a helicopter and it is documented (note: this link is not a UH-61 helicopter) then it should be included. --CyclePat 19:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - The list doesn't need to be all-inclusive to be valid. Claiming it was all-inclusive would be a POV issue, but simply listing proably successful aircraft against various measures seems quite valid. Providing proper references to substantiate claims would make it acceptable. I do agree the title reads as horribly objective, but the claims made can be substantiated. (please note that this comment was unsigned the user who performed the edit can be found by clicking here)
Delete Definition of "successful" seems subjective; numbers built? Best airmiles to accident ratio? Exceeded expectations? I really can't figure out a way to rehabilitate this even by renaming. Pig_dialogue 19:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete it seems that the aircraft in this list are either: In service for many years, or produced in great numbers, or both. Perhaps this could be made into List of aircraft in service for 30 years or more and/or List of aircraft produced in largest numbers --rogerd 20:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 20:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete but I have no problem with 10 different lists of the form List of most produced aircraft which would focus on other measures of "success". Pascal.Tesson 20:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - too subjective. Metamagician3000 09:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was Delete. --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 10:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Extended Aftermath Entertainment family

Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is no proof that any real relationship, a side from being signed to the same label, exists to be considred an "extended family". Ted87 00:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Nominate and Delete --Ted87 10:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep The article appears to be just that (just what is says it is) so as not to be indiscriminate. Recommend contacting the sole author via his her talk page to justify sourcing. Navou / _contribs 00:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Nominator said it: indiscriminate collection of information. YechielMan 00:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. /Blaxthos 06:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I don't understand how this is indiscriminate. It very clearly specifies who should be included. -- Chairman S. Talk 09:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Coment - Where is the proof that this is such an "extended family" worth mentioning more then any multiple labels signed under one parent comapny? --Ted87 10:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for AFD before attempting sourcing, or tagging as such? Navou / _contribs 13:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge and Delete to the various labels listed in the article; you could, with equal justification, list every bluelink employed by Time Warner. And it's certainly appropriate to file an AfD on an article where the criteria for deletion have little to do with sourcing. RGTraynor 15:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment I mean come on. Where is the relationship there between Lil' Murda and Aftermath Entertainment? Lil' Murda is signed to Young Bucks label, who is signed to 50 Cent's label who is signed to Dr. Dre's label (Aftermath). And this is a so called extended family? Nevermind that Dre will probably never meet Lil' Murda (we are never definite about the future), but this article is nothing but a bunch of loose affiliates. No family is ever applied. Why? Because it doesn't exsit. --Ted87 07:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This is too fancrufty. There is no point in having an article about "extended Aftermath Entertainment family," or whatever. It's convoluted, serves no real purpose, and has the potential to spiral out of control. If an artist is signed directly to Aftermath, then they can be cited on the Aftermath article. If they aren't signed directly to Aftermath, then there's no point in drawing a correlation simply because they're merely associated with someone who is.Enotiva 06:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - No point of having this article, as Ted87 said, I don't see how guys like C-Bo, Lil' Murda, or Awesome Two are related to Dr. Dre's Aftermath Entertainment label. Maybe we should just add a list of artists who are signed to Aftermath, Shady, and G-Unit, but nothing else, no "Fyre Dapartment" or whatever, and just add that list to the Aftermath, Shady, and G-Unit articles as a section such as "Record labels affiliated with Aftermath". So then only add the artists that are ON Aftermath, such as Eminem, Busta Rhymes, Dr. Dre, etc. Or G-Unit, 50 Cent, Young Buck, Tony Yayo, Lloyd Banks, Olivia, and so on. --- Efil4tselaer 01:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete.--Wizardman 00:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Lenny diko

New, up-and-coming hip-hop artist. No albums released, though there's assertion from the fact that there are participation credits for some numbers as well as working on a new hip-hop group. Still, issues with WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. Possible WP:COI, but I find this doubtful. Dennisthe2 00:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Nothing notable per WP:MUSIC. Mwelch 00:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable and also, he is the CEO of non-notable companies. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)**
Delete per WP:MUSIC. /Blaxthos 06:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Dylan 16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Bold texterror have been Corrected. Lenny Diko has released an LP that was fully pressed. And the Violative Cause LP's barcode is 7553100167. He has worked with artists such as LuckyIam, Moka Only, Josh Martinez, DJ Moves, etc.... I think that with the notables up there removed his article is now ok (UTC)

Comment. Is the release on a major record label, as is required per WP:MUSIC? Just getting a record deal with any ol' body isn't sufficient. As for the "worked with" claim, leaving aside the issue of the perhaps dubious notability of at least some of those names themselves, the fact of that matter is that plenty of currently non-notable artists can truthfully claim that they've "worked with" big names. I don't care if he "worked with" Snoop Dogg, Diddy, and Jay-Z all last week. The fact remains that right now he's got nothing released that's notable, and no media coverage that's notable, so right now . . . he is not notable. But I do sincerely wish him the best of luck in changing that situation in the future. Mwelch 23:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Bold textthere seem be a lot of artists on here that have released on an Independent label? I will forward him your message of luck though thanks!

Comment. No problem. That wish is sincere. However, as far as there being "a lot of artists on here", see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Mwelch 22:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Lex (rapper)

Delete. Clearly not notable per WP:MUSIC. If the article has to tell you to "be on the look out" for someone, that's probably a clue right there. Mwelch 00:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. The "be on the look out" comment should be rephrased if it is kept. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per Crystal spam, and non-notability of the subject. ◄Zahakiel ► 01:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. /Blaxthos 06:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete promotion. Non-notable. Come back when you've sold some records. Wavy G 06:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Non-notable, and written a bit like a press release. -- Chairman S. Talk 09:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, blatant spam about an as of yet non-notable subject. RFerreira 02:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Phosphor (game)

This game is still in beta and I don't believe it has any reliable sources in order to meet attribution. Google brings up no reliable independent non-trivial sources. Wafulz 00:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. That screen shot is really cool! The text...not quite. :) YechielMan 00:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nominator, WP:ATT WP:CRYSTAL /Blaxthos 06:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as NN, fails WP:ATT. An indy game in beta for a year just doesn't cut it. RGTraynor 15:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Looks pretty cool, but lacking in sources at this time. Wickethewok 21:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

UH-60 Black Hawk in popular culture

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Violates WP:NOR, and indiscriminate information. Just a list of alleged appearances of a particular helicopter in films, TV, etc. No more significant than having a list of unrelated films that just happen to feature Porsche 928.

If there are any films or video games that are specifically about these helicopters, they can be merged into the helicopters' own articles. Saikokira 00:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify the reasons for deletion, in case anyone is under the impression this article only violates WP:NOR;

Original research, unsourced and mostly unverifiable
Indiscriminate information, just because a film happens to include a type of helicopter is not a significant enough feature to justify listing otherwise unrelated films together.
Non-notable, "films featuring UH-60 Black Hawks" is not a notable enough topic in itself to warrant keeping an article about it.

Saikokira 04:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete both. Unsourced, and that's not likely to change anytime soon. YechielMan 00:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per YechielMan. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - These articles are a part of a larger effort of the Rotorcraft Task Force to split off trivia sections from the helicopter articles. As for "unsourced", how is that possible? The film itself is the reference. (I've also noted this nom on the Task Force talk page) Akradecki 02:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. No, referencing a film violates WP:NOR policy. Saikokira 03:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - That's absurd! Please quote the line that you're referring to. You might want to re-read the very first paragraph in WP:A, which says: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source". Movies are published, and certainly are reliable insofar as what appears in them! So how in the world is stating what's in a movie is OR? Does that mean that plot synopses is OR? Not at all. A movie appearance is completely verifiable. I think you need to re-read the policy, and actually apply it properly. Akradecki 04:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Additional comment - Oh, and you might want to re-check your policies - WP:NOR has been superceded by WP:A, so you really shouldn't be citing it as "policy" anymore.Akradecki 05:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The page called Misplaced Pages:No original research has been superceded by WP:A, not the policy. WP:NOR is still there: section 2 of WP:A. I find your tone increasingly patronizing and aggressive, and I will not be drawn into an argument with you about clearly defined Misplaced Pages policy. Saikokira 05:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

NOR is not applicable here as there is no "new" interpretation involved. Films are "primary sources", but their use to provide descriptive information does not constitute OR. OR would only be applicable if there was unique and/or personal interpretation of the film, rather than mere description. As for a "patronising tone", your comments at User talk:Otto4711 about those who disagree with your position are not too friendly either. -- Black Falcon 06:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I use WP:NOR as a short-cut to WP:ATT, neverless, I still see this as violating WP:NOR, which states "Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. This includes unpublished facts" If somebody is making a claim that they spotted a particular type of helicopter in a particular film, then that claim has to be "attributable to a reliable, published source". A film is not a published source. Saikokira 06:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment How is a film "not a published source"? Is it because it's a fictional film? Are you saying that any film is not considered a published source? If it were a documentary film, is it still not a published source? You're applying standards that simply aren't in the guidelines. Akradecki 19:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Does this imply that no discussion of what occurs in a film can be had unless a major source has a complete synopsis of everything that happened? I think it'd be hard to justify applying this to Star Wars had nobody mentioned anything about lightsabers outside the film, etc. --Auto 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Both articles mentioned were created because the pop culture sections were getting too long in the main articles. As long as Wiki policy prevents repetitive deleting of cruft (WP:3RR]], allows concensus by to determine what stays in an article (when crufters outnumber serious aircraft editors), and admins interfere with efforts to remove the cruft by 3RRing those who take it out, then Wiki in effect approves of cruft. SO if cruft is allowed to exist, then why not in its own article? Makes just as much sense as anything else Wiki does. And while you're on the OR bandwagon, swing on over to every article on every movie or TV show ever made. About 98% of them are totally unsourced. So as far as entertainment goes, the OR rule is not enforced on Wiki. So it's kinda silly for you to use that argument here. I'm all for banning unsourced cruft totally (assuming the admins would actually enforce it), but until that happens, this stuff is going to be somewhere. It has just as much right here as in a serious article on an aircraft. - - BillCJ 02:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. "So as far as entertainment goes, the OR rule is not enforced on Wiki. So it's kinda silly for you to use that argument here." Articles violating the WP:NOR rule are frequently deleted, as anyone here at AfD will tell you. And it's not an "argument", it's a policy. Saikokira 03:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - But this doesn't violate NOR. When you refer to something in a movie, or in a book, the movie itself is a reference, and the fact that there's a wikiarticle on the movie shows that it's recognized as a notable reference as well. I also think it's rather ironic that you referred Bill to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as the second paragraph in that essay says, "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." Akradecki 04:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

CommentYes, it does violate WP:NOR. Films are a primary source and cannot be referenced on Misplaced Pages. All material in Misplaced Pages must be attributable to a reliable, published source.

Regarding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I couldn't be bothered to go into detail about why someone's argument is redundant, when that section (titled What about article x?) deals with the issue so specifically. No irony at all. Saikokira 05:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply Again, you mis-quote policy (and the outdated one at that). Regarding primary sources, they can be referenced on Misplaced Pages, the policy WP:A specifically says "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." Saying a Black hawk appears in a film can easily be checked by someone watching the film. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Akradecki (talk • contribs) 05:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Comment. This is getting ridiculous. Of course this list requires specialist knowledge. It requires a knowledge of what a UH-60 Black Hawk looks like for a start. It also requires somebody to have a copy over EVERY SINGLE film and video game on the list. And don't place your replies in the middle of my comments in this AfD. If you want to reply, add your comment below this previous one, I have just had to fix your previous reply. Saikokira 06:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Yet another grab bag of "Hey, guess what I saw in a movie/comic book/episode of The Simpsons!" list. --Calton | Talk 05:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This is an example of what we do take out every day from [[WP:AIR} articles. It was added to the F-22 Raptor article, and deleted by another editor:

In the game Command and Conquer Generals, the F-22 can be buyed at the USA Airbase, it weponary is, Four homing Air to Air Misiles or 4 Air to Ground Misiles, In Zero Hour it can carry Countermeasures in case of SAM misiles and can be upgraded with America Laser Misiles and Antibunker Misiles, also if you play as General Ganger, You wil gain the King Raptor, Which had six misiles instead of four,also it has an laser defence divise on its tail which permited misiles exploted on midair and don't reach the target, but it still vulnerable to Quad Canons and Gatlling Cannons.

Earlier today, I removed this from the RAH-66 Comanche article:

In Command And Conquer Generals, RAH-66 Comanche can be buyed at the American Airbase, it weponery is: one machine gun, four Homing Missiles and can be upgraded with rocket pods to get the ability of lunching a barrage of rockets. In Zero Hour, General Ganger can buy the ability to make all of his Comanches become stealth.

The first example was posted at lest 6 hours after I removed the second example. Please notice that there are no paragraphs like this in the UH-60 pop-culture article, because we have removed them (probably while still part of the main article). We do keep the article fairly trim, otherwise there would be many paragraphs detailing all sorts of stuff about the games, movies, etc.

Regarding the "indiscriminate listings" comment, we remove the RAH-66's "Incredible Hulk" appearence about once a month, and there is a lengthy discussion on that talk page regarding why the appearance is non-notable. While I have not personally vetted the list on the UH-60, I have vetted other lists, and it looks as if this list has been vetted too. THe Blackhawk is a popular icon, as has made many appearences. COuld a few onf the ones in that list be removed? Probably, but I've not seen all the movies on that list, so I don't know how significant their apperances are. - BillCJ 05:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete - wikipedia isn't the place for a list of this nature (unencyclopaedic). /Blaxthos 06:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete both per multiple precedents including but not limited to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Piano wire in popular culture, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon references or spoofs (2nd AfD Nomination), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Who in popular culture, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aerosmith in popular culture, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rush in popular culture 2, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aleister Crowley in popular culture, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/IKEA in popular culture, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/References to Calvin and Hobbes, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Swastikas in popular culture (second nomination), and especially Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Semtex in popular culture, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of appearances of C96 in popular culture, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring Mini cars and many more. A collection of every random sighting of a particular helicopter in any movie, TV show, video game or whatever with no regard as to the importance (or lack of same) of the sighting. Otto4711 06:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious you guys have a vendetta against pop-culture lists, but you don't care a wit if the same items are listed in the main aircraft articles, even though, according to you, the items themselves are OR and indiscriminate. It bothers you more that there's a list of the items on a separate page than the fact the items exists at all. For whatever reasons, you just don't want pop-culture in list articles. That's fine, but at least admit that's your real issue. Stop PRETENDING the real reason is OR, because it's obvious us to those of us who deal with the issues everday that it's not! If it did bother you, then we'd see you in the edit histories of aircraft pages, fighting the good fight against OR! Meanwhile, serious aircraft editors fight against it every day without your help. A fight that will become even harder if you succeed in taking away the only real compromise we have with the crufters - the only semblance of peace in this never-ending war against cruft. But that doesn't matter to you guys, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. - BillCJ 07:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because people will persist in trying to include extraneous information is not a reason to sanction it. These lists are inherently OR because they require looking at primary sources, in the abscence of anyone REPORTING or STUDYING these things. Another issue is the fact these lists can NEVER be complete, a list of every game, movie, show and book that includes a given aircraft is not only interminable, but utterly useless. The other problem is determining what is, or is not, a reference, a problem I've addressed other places, but one I feel is a serious issue. A quick look through these various lists will turn up the idignation of many editors; either 'that's not a reference!' or 'they missed ...' Nothing will ever convince me these lists are proper encyclopedic material unless they begin to take WP:OR WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection and WP:V seriously. Strong delete Wintermut3 07:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. If anything on these pages was actually significant (and sourced), then I'd say keep, but it isn't. Then again, anything that was actually significant would be in the main UH-60 article rather than being split off. FiggyBee 08:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete - this kind of crufty, indiscriminate list is exactly what Misplaced Pages doesn't need. These things could theoretically go on forever, with no guidelines for what should be included and what shouldn't. In addition, who actually would ever find this useful. -- Chairman S. Talk 09:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge all instances of appearances where the appearance is so frakking important to the plot/storyline/event that the work/movie/game could not exist in its entirety without the helicopter in question back into the main article(s). Delete the article and the rest of the references... I believe a mention and a wikilink in its own article is sufficient. -- saberwyn 11:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Wintermut et al. Aside from the numerous other considerations cited, I'm militantly disinterested in the assertion by BillCJ and others that it's necessary to create these crufty, unencyclopedic, unsourced, POV lists because otherwise main articles would be cluttered with the "information." Who says? If you think a series of articles you monitor are being deluged with crap, revert the edits. It's no different from any other WikiProject subject to trivial bombardment of one fashion or another. Nothing in Misplaced Pages policy requires us to accept every single unsourced hunk of crap triviality. This is the moral equivalent of we over in WP:HOCKEY complaining that we needed to make a List of NHL players wearing CCM brand ice skates just because some folks decided they just had to identify CCM wearers. RGTraynor 15:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete as per several of the arguments above. Strongly concur with RGTraynor in saying that "The main article would be too cluttered" is not an explicit reason for the creation of new garbage articles. When your home becomes cluttered with junk, do you build a new room to contain the junk? No, you clean up the mess. The notion that subsections of an article ought to be forked out in to their own articles is valid when the information is encyclopedic in its own right. Just because it is there in the parent article does not mean it belongs in its own article, however, and an otherwise pointless "List of appearences of X in popular culture" have absolutely no encyclopedic value! If any of these "appearances" are somehow significant to the development of X's article then they can be merged back in under a heavily trimmed section, but a laundry list of "Hey I saw it in this movie!" is a waste. Arkyan 15:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

AGAIN - I have NO problem deleting genuine cruft from main articles - I do it EVERY day. THe problem is that repeatedly deleitng the same information that a user keeps putting back in leads to revert wars. I don't want ANY pop culture items in ANY aircraft articles at all, on purist grounds, but that does not mean that genuinely notable appearences are not encyclopedic, and should not be mentioned somewhere. But if I keep removing any pop culture items from aircraft articles, eventually some stupid admin with his head up is rear is going to think I'm revert warring, and you morons won't be around to back me up. Yes, the list here is too long; someone dropped the ball in watching it. However, the PROPER soulution is to trim it back as far as possible, and add cite tags. THat is the PROPER way to deal with unsourced material, if thet were GENUINELY what you guys were interested in. But again, you just DO NOT LIKE pop culture list articles, no matter how well-kept they are! Air Force One in popular culture‎ is a vetted, trimmed, well-kept article, but one of you still AfDed it! SO DO NOT GIVE ME THIS GARBAGE ABOUT absolutely no encyclopedic value! - JUST BE MEN AND ADMIT YOU JUST DON'T LIKE THE LISTS! PERIOD! But please get of your stinking policy high-horse, stop harrassing GENUINE EDITORS who actually want to make decent articles. If the page is OR, TAG IT! But you are WRONG to AfD it without allowing editors a chance to improve the article FIRST. - BillCJ 16:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to step in at this point, BillCJ, and suggest you read WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:CONSENSUS. Challenging the masculinity of other editors, and general incivility is inappropriate behavior that doesn't advance your cause. I also point out that the PROPER solution (to quote you) is the consensus reached by AfD discussion. /Blaxthos 16:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

By "men" I meant "adults", as that was my intention. I wansn't challenging there maasculinity, but challenging them to act like adults. SHEESH! - BillCJ 16:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I to assume then we are all supposed to kowtow to the editors who revert changes intended to restore an article to meet policy and guidelines? A small subset of editors who persist in adding content that does not belong does not constitute consensus. If you remove material from an article and they put it back, then take it out again. If you're worried about WP:3RR then try to resolve the issue with the "warring" editor. If that doesn't work then bring it up on WP:RFC and try to get a consensus there. If they persist in disrupting the article by adding content in spite of the consensus reached there then escalate the issue further. I don't see how "giving up" and allowing these editors to add content that fails to meet Misplaced Pages standards is the right answer. Arkyan 16:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

We do ALL of that! THese pages are the aftermath of removing material that should not be here already. While the UH-60 page does look like it has not been vetted in awhile, no chance to vett or cite sources has been given. None of you are "assuming good faith" on the creation of these pages. They were not made by the crufters, but by serious aviation editors. But WP:OR is not the real issue here! If it were, then the page would not have been AfDed FIRST - an OR notice would have been added to the page instead. The real issue is that you don't like pop-culture list pages! - BillCJ 16:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I'm confused - first you admit that this is the aftermath of removing material that should not be here yet argue for including it in its own article? Then you accuse us of violating "assume good faith" and then call in to question our motivations? Regardless, none of what you are doing here is helping to make your point. The article either belongs or does not, denigrating the rest of us doesn't change that. Arkyan 16:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no, the aftermath is the good material, we delete the bad. please, give us some credit! this uh-60 page has not been edited in a while, that is apprarent. i didnt even know it was heare till an article i work on got AfDed too, and i saw this was listed also. - BillCJ 17:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Darn, you beat me to it, Arkyan. That being said, I'm bemused at the notion that standing up against material we feel violates policy and otherwise does not belong here, as opposed to meekly surrendering to a single rogue user who insists on unencyclopedic edits, is the behavior being characterized as unmasculine. And that being said, BillCJ, do you really think it's constructive to scream at us because you think we don't like pop culture articles, when you admit yourself you don't want pop culture references in the articles about which you yourself care? Never mind WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA, if you're creating articles for no better reason than to keep junk out of your own line of sight, that's a WP:POINT violation. Moreover, the policies we cite make no reference as to the credentials of the creators. An unsourced, unreferenced article filled with unencyclopedic cruft isn't alright just because it was created by a so-called "serious aviation editor." Were that the case, we'd certainly be guilty of the caprice of which you accuse us. RGTraynor 16:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

i'm EMPHASISING, not SCREAMING :) i won't use caps anymore just to be sure i'm not misunderstood again. my point is, if you think it's unsourced, tag it! that's the usual way of handling OR issues on Wiki. but again, that's not the issue here, as you have agenda against pop-culture list articles. i don't mind cited, notable pop-culture references in aircraft articles; i can point you to many such pages. but many of these pages are very long, and when you deal with a popular aircraft, such as the uh-1 or uh-60, those lists begin to overwhlm the rest of the article. we split off other sections that become too long. why should pop-culture lists be handled any differently? should we keep a long pop-culture list in the article just because some people don't like the lists on their own page? that doesn't make sense either.

all i ask if that you give us the "courtesy" of having a chance to address the issues first. you have the right to AfD an article, but i'm just asking that you "assume good faith" and talk to the editors first, to give us the chance to address the issues. i'm not accusing you all of deceit, but of singlemindedness. you want to get rid of unsourced pop culture cruft. that's great! i do too! but the question is where do we put a long list of notable pop culture references? it seems you want to get rid of those pages too! if you keep challenging thess pages, we'll soon have to have separate articles for the specs, the history, the users, the variants, and all that will be on the main aircraft page will be the intro and the pop-culture list. that doesnt make sense either. again, i'm not ever talking about keeping the bad cruft, but notable items. had a noticed bewen placed on the page, i might have spent yesterday and today addressing those problems, rather than trying to defend the page's existence. - BillCJ 17:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is simply not content worthy of an encyclopedia article... any notable information can be inculded in other places -- we don't need a crufty article like this (as this AfD is illustrating) -- WP:ATT/WP:OR are just the finer points (no need debating them when the whole topic is cruft!). /Blaxthos 19:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per RGTraynor, Saberwyn et al. Unencyclopedic information is unencyclopedic information, wherever it comes from. EliminatorJR 18:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per WP:A.

Article is automatically sourced by mentionning the films (primary source). (Though this could be improved by adding a reference section and following WP:CITE and using easybiblio maker.

The information is a good collection of information pertaining to the UH-60.

Films using UH-60 is a notable enough subject to have an article. What is interesting is I could probably add a .ogg video conference of a discussion we've had with the one of the producers which answers some of the questions regarding the Cost of renting? How the filming was done? How to rent? You will also notice that the article mentions popular culture. So that includes radio, games, toys (toy manufacturers), shops, etc... --CyclePat 18:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You are presuming, absent any ... well, err, attribution, that all those movies which supposedly have UH-60s in them actually do. RGTraynor 22:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - just a collection of random facts of no encyclopedic importance, fails WP:NOT#IINFO]. Merge whatever is of encyclopedic importance into the main article, but delete this content fork. Moreschi 21:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete Misplaced Pages articles are not lists of loosely associated topics also fails WP:ATT and other reasons stated by Blaxthos, Wintermut3, Otto4711, Arkyan, RGTraynor, et al. (and what a lot of discussion over a pointless cruft list!). Croxley 22:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Moderate Keep This article keeps trivia away from the main helicopter article (just like Talk:0.999.../Arguments keeps objections away from the main talk page (although that page does not contain possible original research and is not an article)). It references movies as sources without interpretation (although people should verify whether the helicopters in the movies are actually UH-60 Black Hawks). Eyu100 00:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 22:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as simple listcruft. Any inclusions of the helicopter in popular culture that are notable can be included in the parent article, any non-notable entries are, well, nonnotable and blatent listcruft. -M 02:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep It is listcruft, yes, but its role is to move this kind of content out of the main text. On current Misplaced Pages there are two options: (1) either to have this cruft in the main article or (2) to have it in a leaf article like this. The second solution keeps WP better, not perfect but better. Pavel Vozenilek 15:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that kindof circular logic? If it's listcruft then by definition it has no place on wikipedia. /Blaxthos 15:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Or Option (3) - edit it out of the article. I still await a reason for keeping this article better than "It's too much trouble." RGTraynor 16:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's a reason: Despite what some call "cruft", the fact that a type of helicopter has an impact on popular culture is significant. The Blackhawk isn't quite the icon that they Huey is, but it's getting there. Face it, how military objects impact society and culture can't be ignored (hey, there's whole sciences, ie "sociology" and "cultural anthropology" about this stuff). Akradecki 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, if this helecopter actually " has an impact on popular culture" there would surely be documentation in sociological journals. The fact of the matter is that this is just a list of pop culture references -- not a demonstration that it has any sort of impact on popular culture (which it does not). /Blaxthos 20:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I disagree with you, as do, I believe, some other editors. I think the real point is that this should be debated on the article's talk page, not at AfD. Before bringing this to AfD, things should have been discussed there, first. Akradecki 20:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as unencyclopedic--Mmx1 18:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - So many excellent reasons to delete, but none to keep. Masaruemoto 01:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete coooooool discusion, delete wins the day tho --Zedco 11:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Section 2

comment to above: The above sub-paragraph is to help divide this AfD for perusal and editing reasons. I couldn't find my comment in this long debate so here is my comment to my previous statement and reply to the above question from RGTraynor. I am not presuming, absent any attribution, that all those movies which supposedly have UH-60s in them actually do. Those movies are documents in of themself and generally, for those people that stay to the end of a movie at the cinema, you can see the credits. Those credits will indicate what type of vehicles where used in a given movie. Perhaps you are confusing original research a synthesis of because A (image of UH-60) and B(image of UH-60 in movie) then movie has UH-60. I don't know but, according to me such a synthesis would and should be pretty obvious and no different than the commonly accept idea "the sky is blue." Perhaps there is a mix up here on the interpretation of what wikipedia is and is not. A movie is a generally considered a reliable source of information, in fact it is the primary source. Nevertheless here is a link to a secondary source which states which movies use a helicopter. And here is a published comments, which has been peer reviewed, that state that there was a black hawk in this movie. --CyclePat 21:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

CP, besides your misunderstanding about WP:ATTribution and primary vs. secondary sources (which tends to indicate notability), this is simply unencyclopaedic content. If it were truely notable (and actually impacts popular culture) there would be true reliable secondary sources (peer-reviewed sociological journals, in this case) talking about all the impacts of thus-and-so helicopter on popular culture. Obviously there are no such articles because it has no relevance in popular culture -- this is, as most have pointed out, list cruft and is not appropriate for wikipedia. Hope this helps clear this up. /Blaxthos 22:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Those links are, frankly, a waste of our time. All along the keep-proponents have been pushing the notion that this article is necessary because it lists (in theory, accurately) the movies in which this particular model of helicopter appears. Now your purported attribution is a simple linksearch on IMDB for "helicopter?" This is just painful. RGTraynor 04:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetical list of notable science fiction films

Violates WP:NOR. Article states the "criteria used for this list are, in order of importance: box office, awards, reference on other "best-of" lists, widely acknowledged influence", etc. That's "in order of importance" according to the opinion User:Avt tor, the creator and only contributor to this list. Avt tor has compiled it based on his own mysterious formula, while referring to such "reliable" sources as IMDb users' ratings.

WP:NOR states that unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material... (including) interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Misplaced Pages must already have been published by a reliable publication.

Also, a pointless duplication of a topic fairly well covered in List of notable science fiction films. Saikokira 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete because the list criteria are arbitrary and a better list exists. YechielMan 00:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. A better list exists so this one should be deleted. — Pious7_Talk 00:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The chrnonological list is too large, cluttered to the point of not being very readable, includes a lot of not-very-noteworthy films. It's not a substitute for this list. Avt tor 20:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Not only does a similar page exist, but for an alphabetical list, you're better served with a category. Also, you're better served without the POV/OR. Award winning films, yes. "Notable" ones, no. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete; notability in this case is arbitrary. --Mhking 01:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not to mention List of science fiction films, which contains 1953's "Cat- Women of the Moon". Misplaced Pages has covered the field pretty well. Noroton 02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC) (corrected that title Noroton 02:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)}
Delete POV, original research, and fan taste. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information--PrestonH 02:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. There's that "notable" POV qualfier again. In fact List of notable science fiction films should be renamed. Anyway, the article under discussion here duplicates this information, so it can go. 23skidoo 03:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:NPOV WP:ATT /Blaxthos 06:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete as per comments above, and all my previous comments on AfDs of this type. These lists are inherently OR and subjective. -- Chairman S. Talk 09:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
This should be, and most likely already is, a category. -- saberwyn 11:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Having a category is not necessarily a substitute for a list (the latter can have redlinks for expansion and can have references or provide some color, like year of release or receipts in the case of films). Carlossuarez46 19:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  - If this or similar contextual or "expansion" data was present, I would be more inclined to support the article in some way. It isn't, and unless someone with an interest in maintaining the article comes along and adds such data, I don't see how this list is superior to a category. -- saberwyn 20:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete notability and inclusion is subjective. Carlossuarez46 19:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete There is no use for an article like this. Acalamari 20:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep: Criteria are specified in the article. This article is a necessary introduction to the subject of science fiction on films. There is a category, which is unqualified, therefore much too large to be useful as an introduction. This article is an essential component of the article on science fiction, separated only to keep the parent article shorter. An article of this kind is needed. If someone has suggestions for more authoritative criteria, those can be discussed. There's no POV, OR, or "taste" here. This isn't a subjective list, just a compilation of cited research. Avt tor 20:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was Delete in popular culture, to borrow a familiar line. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Subterranean Monsters in popular culture

Indiscriminate information. It's not immediately clear what this article is specifically about. It seems to be 4 seperate articles about 4 unrelated species, from 4 different and unrelated films: The Descent, The Cave, an unspecifified film featuring "The Grue" (the Riddick films), and the Mimic films. Article needs to sent back to Subterranea. Saikokira 00:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge into the articles for their appropriate movies, split into separate articles, or delete if they don't fit in the main articles and aren't notable enough on their own. Right now, they're four completely unrelated topics. — Pious7_Talk 01:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete as unencyclopaedic fictional topic. /Blaxthos 06:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Pious7 hits the nail on the head. These are four completely unrelated topics, and should be treated as such. No matter the result, this title needs to go awat... far away. -- saberwyn 11:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and bury under a pile of monster corpses, fails WP:NOR. OMFG, where to start. I'm really coming around to the view that a title of "X in popular culture" is a sure harbinger that the article is crap. RGTraynor 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge any verifiable non-OR information to the appropriate film and delete per Pious. Arbitrary mishmash of species at least one of which doesn't even qualify as truly subterranean. Otto4711 16:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete There do seem to be a lot of "$x in popular culture" articles in AFD. Subjective by nature, just kind of silly. Not notable. --Auto 19:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I created the article following advice from Geoff B and I would like to point out its original title was List of Fictional subterranean creatures. Perhaps a renaming e.g. Subterranean monsters in fiction--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 12:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Salsa shark

I prodded this, but quickly discovered it had already been prodded. Anyway, I think it's unencyclopedic and has little potential for improvement. It is also an orphan, with no pages at all linking to it. - furrykef (Talk at me) 01:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Looks like it's basically an extension of a quote from Clerks. --Wafulz 01:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete I don't think it's notable and if it is, it needs links and more info. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)'
Delete per nom. /Blaxthos 06:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - i was going to say WP:NFT... but per Wafulz it appears to be a reference to the movie clerks. I haven't seen the movie, and i think most people who haven't would also agree that the article does little to establish notability of the topic. THE KING 09:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Throwaway line from a movie. I think it pretty much proves Misplaced Pages has already covered everything when people resort to writing about things like this. Wavy G 18:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it was a "resort" so much as a casual user simply thinking the line was funny and that, therefore, it should be written about. But whatever. :) - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Clerks (movie) - Richard Cavell 22:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non notable, I don't see the point of making sure that anyone that searches salsa shark gets clerks either. Lotusduck 22:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and do not redirect to Clerks or anywhere else. RFerreira 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete completely This really has no place whatsoever on an encyclopaedia. Suriel1981 12:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete this for heavenssake, honestly now. Burntsauce 17:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was Delete. --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 11:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Media and Development Communication

Only a couple of Bangladeshi private universities of dubious academic credibility offer the course, and only a couple of books written by non-notable Bangladeshi authors are available on the subject. Not good enough for a Misplaced Pages entry. Aditya Kabir 16:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep: How do you know that couple of Universities in Bangladesh, offer the course? And How do you know it's only written by Bnagladeshi authors? It's not the topic of some authors. It's related to Mass media and Mass communication as well as other media related topic. --NAHID 10:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Attacking me does not increase any value of the article entry. Anything written on any media related subject doesn't increase its value either. Aditya Kabir 15:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete No refs of substance - no evidence of notability NBeale 07:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 01:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Needs more info, but it notable enough and it salvageable. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, NN, fails WP:ATT. A directed Google search (minus Wiki mirrors and the single university in Bangladesh offering this as a major) shows exactly 39 hits. Despite Nahid's assertion, it is not up to us to prove that the article isn't notable or to provide sources. It's up to the creator and interested editors to prove that it is. RGTraynor 15:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Even reputable academic institutions make up vogue department or major names, and only few of them become standard. This is not yet one of them.DGG 00:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Yeah ... I bet it looks a lot cooler on the letterhead to be a "Professor of Media and Development Communication Sciences" than a mere journalism professor. RGTraynor 01:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha! That was a good one. Aditya Kabir 12:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Three references (from UK, US, and Bangladesh); fair number google hits. Not a super important article, but it meets the criteria for inclusion. A fine stub. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 06:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Would you try searching for my name with Google? "Aditya Kabir" (quote included) returns 1,010 finds, as opposed to 109 finds for "Media and Development Communication". And, I am cited on Websites from US, UK, Australia, India and Bangladesh (not including the hits returned from Misplaced Pages, Uncyclopedia or mirror sites), and that excludes the sites in vernacular scripts (i.e. Bengali and Hindi scripts). So, what would you suggest? May be I am notable enough have my own Misplaced Pages stub. Or, may be you shall rethink that an academic discipline worth an encyclopedic entry would have more presence in this world. The subject is question is hardly a discipline, but a rather fancy name for a journalism or media course. Not worth the entry. Aditya Kabir 07:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Astranimu

Seems to be OR and NEO, only ghits are article creators forum posts, no references killing sparrows 01:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Even on the content itself, it's not good, and without ghits for notability, it's very bad. YechielMan 02:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:ATT /Blaxthos 06:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete under a fallen star. Fails WP:ATT, WP:NOR, dicdef. There are no Google hits that aren't from a bulletin board or Wiki mirrors, and there are only 39 of those. Ravenswing 15:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete not only is this gibberish, but it appears to be total OR. --Haemo 05:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was Delete without redirect per Starblind. --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 11:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Singapore Model United Nations

This is a non-notable Model United Nations of around only 300 students. There are dozens of Model UNs listed at Regional organizers and events of Model United Nations, some with thousands of participants for many decades, and none with an article. Delete worst case, redirect, best case. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Model United Nations. Merge content if it's useful. YechielMan 02:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per precedent at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Trent Model United Nations, individual model-UN student groups aren't notable. While I don't object to a redirect, I also don't see the point, as the main article won't have any info on this particular one, and it's only one of many. So redirect as distant second choice only. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a non-notable Model United Nations. Wooyi 04:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - as per Andrew Lenahan, I don't really think a redirect is appropriate. -- Chairman S. Talk 09:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I do not think notability is an issue with SIMUN. Notability is different from the number of actual participants. The host (French School of Singapore) tries to keep the SIMUN professional by giving out strict criteria in choosing the delegates and the chairpersons are all hand-picked plus voted. That's why it only has around 350 delegates. Please note that there are not many inter-school MUNs in Singapore, and almost all private, independent and international schools on this island-state are participating in the Singapore Model United Nations. For high school students of Singapore it is an honor to join SIMUN and the notability is across all schools and many notable media, as stated in the article. Also, many Model United Nations conferences that do not have an article does not mean that this article shouldn't exist. --Jingshen 10:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, or as a remote second choice redirect to Model United Nations. This is a Model United Nations that happens to be held in Singapore; the general article about MUN is sufficient to cover this topic. --Metropolitan90 15:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Model UNs, model legislatures, model city councils, they all proliferate like weeds and none have any real notability. We don't have articles for other minor LARPs, although there are many LARPs with many more players and which meet far more often. RGTraynor 15:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
KeepIagree that models of organisations do not have impact on the world but they are notable and should be respected. There are reliable secondary sources as said in article. With all the respect and my inexperience with Misplaced Pages egnlish, I do not really know what LARPS are, but I believe meeting often does not automatically qualify for notability. Singapore Model United Nations should exist by itself because of its uniqueness in location/venue, the participants, organisation, and the audience. It is significant as I have said many times in SIMUN publications that Singapore is an inward looking nation. It is important, especially for teenagers who are the future of our world, to understand what is going on outside. Singaporeans esp the young have only theoritical knowledge about UN and all educators want them to have practical knowledge and that's why schools recommend SIMUN and that's why SIMUN is so notable and highly regarded. SIMUN, being the only inter-school conference coordinated by Singapore gives the valuable chance for schools to work together. singapore has many difference educational systems such as GCSE and IB, etc. Students of SIMUN learn interactively with these people from different systems. The SIMUN discusses wider issues and more issues in depth than many more of them with thousands of participants. And more current issues are well. The issues for THIMUN and other big MUNs are usually set a year ago. SIMUN is more up-to-date with problems to debate such as Iran and the day-to-day management of the real UN such as the 2007 resolution of the UN charter. SIMUN is definitely unique and has its own value. The general MUN article certainly cannot cover that. Therefore I should urge Misplaced Pages to keep this article. There are not many articles about Singapore and none about MUNs in Singapore. Misplaced Pages, as an International encyclopedia, should include general issues as well as those that fit both international and locally, such as SIMUN. This article will do all good and no harm. If I were to make a big encyclopedia I would definitely include it. Strongly Keep. excuse my spelling mistakes svp I am not English native speaker. Dr. Cornu --Francois Cornu 13:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: You've made an eloquent case for why this program is important to Singapore high school students. You have yet to make an argument for how this article meets Misplaced Pages guidelines and policy for the inclusion of articles. We do not dispute -- nor is it our place to do so -- whether there is a need for Singapore's youth to understand the greater world around them. What we dispute is that this program meets Misplaced Pages's standards for an article listing. RGTraynor 14:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I think Dr Cornu had made very much of a point here. He answered why this program is notable; why SIMUN is unique and the article should exist by itself - why Model United Nations cannot cover the topic; and why this article should be kept on Misplaced Pages. Please list any other guidelines and policies that this article does NOT comply with and we will see. --Jingshen 23:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad you asked. Take a look at WP:ORG. First off, "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." All the sources given in the article come from the organization itself. "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." RGTraynor 01:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hellio as the coordinator of Singapore Model United Nations, I say this is an organzation, nor a company, product, etc. It is notable annual event with significant meanings as it combines the locality of Singapore with International schools and international concepts (i.e. the UN) to achieve alternative learning through experience and nationwide communication of international matters.--Francois Cornu 12:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. — Malcolm 17:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Roy C. Strickland

Subject is not notable per WP:BIO Mwelch 01:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Subject seems to have two primary claims to notability. Firstly, he ran for Congress as a Republican nominee in 1972. However, he did so in a distict in which it didn't even matter who the Republican nominee was, because the district was drawn so strongly in favor of the Democrat. The Democrat won with almost 70%. Not only did Strickland not win, but he didn't even come in second. So seems to fall short of the politician guidelines in WP:BIO. Secondly, there is this article in BusinessWeek about him. Definitely a quality secondary source. But per WP:BIO, if coverage in a single secondary source is not "substantial", then multiple secondary sources are required. Does the coverage in this article meet the standard of "substantial"? (Note: Strickland is quoted extensively in the Misplaced Pages entry, but judging by the listed sources, those quotes may simply be from personal e-mail exchanges between Strickland and the creator of the article.) Mwelch 01:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, the subject has only a marginal claim to notability and fails WP:BIO. This article is another production of Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs), who cites himself as a source in the article, creating a conflict of interest. The editor has created numerous articles on persons of local notability and some have been deleted, others taken to AFD. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO /Blaxthos 06:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, needs more than running a business and failing to get into Congress to meet WP:BIO. FiggyBee 09:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, Misplaced Pages is one of the premier places where a lot of people go for elections data and to learn about political figures. Even if this guy didn't win, this was still an important step when talking about how the Republican Party performed in Louisiana and specifically in this seat which would go for the Republican candidate a few years later. Also, the larger page for Gillis Long doesn't include all of the information about his challengers, something which would appear to be very useful to anybody who wanted to know about his actions during campaigning, given that he was a major politial figure in Louisiana's history.

Comment. Even if the article is kept, wouldn't most of the info it provides about his actions during campaigning need to be removed as original research? There is no published source for his quotes, just the article creator saying "He said this to me in e-mail." Mwelch 23:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep, Mr. Strickland was an early pioneer in the Louisiana GOP resurgence though he later moved to Texas. The article is well-written and has political information about the 1972 congressional election.It shows how Republicans did poorly in many of those races even though Nixon was winning 49 states at the top of the ballot.

````` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billy Hathorn (talk • contribs) 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Keep It has been generally accepted that major party candidates for election to the national legislative body are N. This may sometimes been problematic in the case of nations with multi-party systems, but in the US it is clear that there are two generally accepted ones. (Whether candidates from other parties are N might depend on the votes). That makes only about 500 defeated candidates every two years (actually fewer, many people run more than once) ; it also means that the people who do get that far are among the 1,000 most prominent politicians in the country. I think that is clear and undoubtable notability. Quibbling about the details of a career or how many votes someone got is irrelevant/That's for the election campaign, not for use. WP is indeed one of the places people go to for general information, and this includes politics--certainly it includes national politics. DGG 00:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. If that line of reasoning (WP:N is satisfied by being a major party candidate for national legislature) is going to be followed — and, at first consideration, I actually would not have a huge problem with that idea — then the politician guidelines laid out in WP:BIO should reflect that. It shouldn't have to be a matter of you (nor me nor anyone else) in a delete discussion claiming that it's "generally accepted". It should be in the guidelines. I'll see how this debate comes out and if that argument is accepted, I'll bring up the issue on the WP:BIO talk page for a possible change there. Mwelch 20:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. In researching the archives of the WP:BIO talk page I found three different occasions on which the issue of whether a losing candidate should automatically qualify for notability was discussed. Two of those three times, it being specifically identified as the losing candidate in a congressional election. All three times, the sentiment expressed was that the losing candidate should not automatically be considered notable. So I'd challenge your assertion that it's "generally accepted that major party candidates for election to the national legislative body are N". That statement does not appear to be true at all. If anything, it appears to be "generally accepted" that if the only claim to notability is being the losing candidate in a congressional election, then they are not N. See also the current deletion nominations of Doug Roulstone and Richard Wright. Mwelch 23:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As you say, to be discussed. and there is better, for we don't need this particular criterion here. DGG 03:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I just asked for input on a possible guideline change there. Mwelch 06:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep per DGG and Tommyduva Kzq9599 03:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep The problem with this article is that the sourcing could be better, but there is no doubt that multiple reliable non-trivial sources exist for the runner-up in a major election. Dhaluza 10:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. If such sources are found and cited, then fine. But no one has done so (besides the BusinessWeek article, which isn't even about his congressional election) to this point, and I'm not sure I believe there is "no doubt" that multiple, reliable, non-trivial, secondary sources (something about Roy C. Strickland, not just something that shows there was a name of "Roy C. Strickland" on the congressional ballot in 1972) and retrievable for someone who came in third in a virtually uncontested 1972 congressional election. And according to WP:ATT, the burden of proof, with regard to whether there are adequate sources, falls on those who wish to add or retain the article. So far, I don't see any proof of such sources besides that one article. So it still seems to me that as things stand right now, this guy would satisfy WP:N only if we accept the proposition, per DGG, that losing congressional candidates are inherently notable, even in the absence of the availability of those such sources about them. Mwelch 22:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Question? http://en.wikipedia.org/Gloria_Williams_Hearn -- Here is a defeated congressional candidate with a Misplaced Pages story, but it is only a stub. The Strickland story is detailed. Does Gloria Williams Hearn have notability other than her losing campaigns for office? Are full articles on Misplaced Pages judge more strictly than stubs?

Billy Hathorn 00:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. As far as her notability, you're correct. If there isn't any more to her than what that article says now, and no other WP:ATT-acceptable referneces to be found for her, then she's even less notable than Strickland. No argument there. But that doesn't necessarily make Strickland a keep (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS); I'd say it makes hers a candidate for deletion. The discussion as to whether losing congressional candidates should be automatically notable or not is still on-going on the WP:BIO talk page, so I'd hold off on nominating her for deletion pending that outcome. But if the outcome of that is "no, they are not", and if no one can demonstrate further notability for her article either, I'd absolutely say that one should go too. As for judging of full articles vs. stubs, everything that's presented as factual and could be challenged must be so judged. A full article, by its nature, though, has a lot more info in it that needs to be verified by WP:ATT standards. Since a stub doesn't say much, there's not much that might be challenged. A couple of pointers to official election results would provide adequate verification of almost everyting that's in the Hearn stub right now. In Strickland's article, however, there is a great deal of info who's only verification we have is either primary source and/or original research. That's why, even if we decide Strickland's notability as a Republican congressional nominee is sufficent for a keep, I still think the retained article would then need to be significantly gutted unless other independent, secondary sources about Strickland can be found. Mwelch 01:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete. Above the special notes about politicians at WP:BIO is the suggested inclusion criterion "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." Strickland would appear to be borderline with respect to this criterion. In fact, the statement in the opening sentence of the article "who was a pioneer in the development of the Republican Party in Louisiana" would seem to be in conflict with Strickland's repeated failure to achieve elected office. If some citation could be found that either indicated that Strickland's "struggle" helped to shape the state party (currently lacking) or if some citation could be found that could insert Strickland into the paragraph at History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party#Realignment:_The_South_becomes_Republican, that would suffice to support retention of the article, I think. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hitball

Prod contested by Teppix (talk · contribs) whose first 3 edits here have consisted of removing prod tags I put up... Content is utterly unverifiable. Non-notable game invented in 1998 and played solely in the hometown of inventor. No third-party coverage whatsoever. Pascal.Tesson 01:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I know I'm not supposed to say that, but I really have nothing to add. YechielMan 02:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Another article about a made-up sport by a small group of three or four users with few or no prior edits. Why does this sort of thing seem to happen so much? Wavy G 02:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete This should be speedied, SPA's removal notwithstanding. /Blaxthos 06:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:ATT, WP:NFT. I can't see grounds for a speedy, but this is just another insignificant local game. RGTraynor 16:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a perfect example of WP:NFT. FiggyBee 18:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete To date, 135 people have played ... "invented in 1998" Well, that about sums it up for me. Also, how do you get 13 years of champions when 2007-1998=9? Referencing a geocities page as the source of all this is not acceptable either. WP:(almost everything) --Auto 19:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per RGTraynor --phenz 21:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was Keep. Shimeru 08:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The Reformed Church of Newtown

Notability Chronos567 18:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

DeleteNot notable, only google result was the wikipedia article. Nenyedi Contribs_@ 21:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep An American Church that was 225 years old in 1956 is surely notable (if the claimns made are correct). However some of the content about its ministry today seems non-encyclopaedic. Peterkingiron 23:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not encyclopedic & like above observation only Google search result was the wikipedia article. Chronos567 02:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I'd like to say keep - a US church founded in 1731 is very notable - but there's no support online for that claim at all. For English Misplaced Pages the fact that they've disabled the Enlish version of their website makes it difficult. No !vote yet - I hope someone comes up with something. -- BPMullins | Talk 02:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I hope somebody comes up with something, then - but even if they do, it still remains that the article is rather spammy. --Dennisthe2 02:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 01:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

keep the chinese section of the website is sufficiently expansive (and has some enlgish material) to demonstrate that this denomination is at least real. based on the fact that the website is not functioning in a language i can read, it's difficult to determine whether this has anything notable to it or not. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Seems notable enough for an article. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete~~Vote changed, see below. --Dennisthe2 17:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC) The article reads as if it's advertising a church, and also rambles about what Newtown is at one point. It fails to assert any reason as to why it's notable. WP:CORP may apply, but WP:N definitely applies. I don't see anything that makes this church notable. --Dennisthe2 02:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Changing to Keep, based on the references added. Thanks for changing my mind. =^_^= The article is still spammy and needs a cleanup, so if somebody can get that, great. This does add one fact, though - the articles are subscription only. Is it possible to get a bugmenot on those? If so, so much the better. Also consider WP:LOCAL when cleaning up, by the way. --Dennisthe2 17:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep ~~Found several sources, haven't had time to add to the article, but~~ Added four article about the church from the New York Times which show it has been the subject of substantial coverage. ~~in numerous reliable independent sources in the past 275 years or so.~~They substantiate the age of the church, its special historic note of having abruptly changed to a primarily Chinese congregation, and the landmark status of the building. One of the nation's oldest congregations. Editing is a more appropriate response to arguments about phraseology than deletion of an article about a congregation/building which satisfies WP:N and WP:ATT. Notability is not a subjective matter or"ILIKEIT" versus "IDONTLIKEIT" voting. Multiple nontrivial coverage in reliable sources proves notability. This satisfies as well WP:CONG which is tagged as rejected. Edison 03:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: While I'm not !voting one way or another, there are several hundred religious congregations over 200 years old in New England, and I would very much hesitate to call them de facto notable on that ground alone. RGTraynor 15:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Historic church of particular historical note to the immigrant communities, as is now beginning to be shown with the references. Yes, it's possible that the article itself reads like spam, and this needs to be remedied, but that is not a reason to delete, that is a reason to improve the article. Robotforaday 16:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep historical churches of note, so long as they can be properly referenced. RFerreira 03:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This is an historic church; however, I think this article should be cut by 1/3 and improved in writing style.

Billy Hathorn 02:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - fulfils WP:CHURCH, which, despite its apparent rejection, is still helpful to guide us in a decision. It is an historic church that has prominent role in history of local immigrant communities. JRG 09:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This does meet church, but as the person above me stated, WP:CHURCH has not been accepted by the community as a whole. Even so, it still meets what I believe are our notability standards and satisfies non-trivial sourcing requirements as well. Burntsauce 17:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Christmas in Dharfur

Prod contested by Teppix (talk · contribs) whose sole contributions to date have been the removal of three proposed deletions I had put up. Per Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball, we should not have stubs about planned documentaries unless they are so widely anticipated that they already have received non-trivial third-party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 01:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Per WP:CRYSTAL, at this point, this film is not notable, and the article doesn't even make any assertions that it is. Mwelch 01:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Not only is the proposed documentary not notable, but, none of the three collaborators mentioned seems to be either. Keesiewonder 01:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Teppix about this on his/her talk page. Keesiewonder 11:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

weak delete per WP:CRYSTAL. the article will probably be recreated as the development phase progresses, as it seems perfectly notable in nature but simply too young to have generated any press. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, without prejudice to recreation - if, of course, the film comes into being. --Dennisthe2 02:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, agree with above ivan 20:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:CRYSTAL /Blaxthos 06:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Branding Iron

Stub article from April 2006 on a fairly low circulation student rag. No assertion of notability, and advertisement in tone. Prod contested because "the article is not harming anyone. Students from this school may begin to like Misplaced Pages and even consider editing Misplaced Pages more if they see their newspaper has an article of its own" Ohconfucius 01:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as advertising and studentpapercruft. Students from this school may begin to like Misplaced Pages... . Say what? Does that mean I'll start 'liking' the New York Times if they'll publish my articles? Sheesh! Eddie.willers 01:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That means you will start liking Misplaced Pages because it does not arbitrarily delete things which you think are worth mentioning in the biggest encyclopedia in the world and which don´t harm absolutely no one. You will start liking Misplaced Pages because you are free to make articles about topics which so far could not be part of a encyclopedia because they were made of paper and their writers didn´t have the time to write about it. A.Z. 05:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete. We'll just have to get by somehow without the editing skills of the students of University of Wyoming. Saikokira 02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? That those students could not help Misplaced Pages? That you don´t wish them to become users? A.Z. 05:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete -- Advertisement for their student newspaper. ~~Eugene 2x ☺ ~~ 02:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "advertisement"? The reasons anyone had to creating this article don´t matter at all. It can very well have been created as advertisement, but it is just some useful information about a topic people may or may not be interested in. A.Z. 05:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

- Comment with regard to A.Z's comments above. Firstly, I do not see the rationale behind A.Z. picking holes in the above arguments without stating his/her own position. Indeed, I would call such a stance vexatious - in that it adds nothing to the debate. Secondly, looking at A.Z's contribution history it would appear that he/she has a strong interest in LBGT matters and comments on the Reference Desk, but has largely stayed away from AFD discussions. Thirdly, the above comments all reference this article wrt to Wiki policies and/or standards yet A.Z. appears to take the position that all contributors to this AFD discussion are, thus far, in error. So, what gives, A.Z? Are you for or against this nomination and on what grounds? Let's see your colours. Eddie.willers 05:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  - It adds to the debate the fact that the arguments had holes. Users debating may find it interesting. I do. My contribution history has nothing to do with this discussion, so talking about it is really just chatting about another subject. Let´s chat: you got it right that I have strong interest in LGBT matters and that I stayed away from AFD discussions. That doesn´t really say anything about the deletion of the article on the Branding Iron. I am against the deletion because of the students of the University of Wyoming who may be offended by this deletion and really should be. A.Z. 07:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
'Delete WP:N /Blaxthos 06:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Due to lack of notablity. --RaiderAspect 06:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep because of the students. A.Z. 07:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment A.Z. I strongly suggest you review Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion. Misplaced Pages has no intention to become the source of all knowledge. --RaiderAspect 07:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  - I can see that. But letting this one article exist doesn´t imply the contrary. It´s just that one person bothered to create it and a few people may bother to edit it in the future and to make it better. And it is good that new users are allowed to start editing Misplaced Pages by creating and editing an article which pleases them and does not harm anyone whatsoever. A.Z. 08:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable group; article not properly attributed. Fails WP:ATT and WP:NOTE. Misplaced Pages is for things that have already been noticed by multiple reliable sources; it's not for getting notice in the first place. --Charlene 09:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as NN, fails WP:ATT. Like many other student newspapers, this one is worthy at best of a sentence or two in the main article. As per AZ's assertions, I somehow find Misplaced Pages a worthwhile place to visit despite its callous rejection of my own college newspaper, one from a university with much larger enrollment than UWYO and for which I was an editor back in the day. Misplaced Pages's policies do not, in so far as I have been able to find, make any reference to "U Wyoming students might be offended" as grounds to keep an article. Ravenswing 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletions. -- CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge with ((University of Wyoming)) this information is worthy of a short paragraph in the university of Wyoming article but not an article of its own Irate velociraptor 06:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

List of documentary films about the Korean War

Redundant list that doesn't actually link to any articles. Even if it did contain links, still not a notable enough topic (documentary films about the Korean War, not the Korean War itself) to deserve a list.

Keep - it may be short now, but has the potential to grow and be a valuable resource. Akradecki 04:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete If this ever came to actually have possible content (doubtful), it should be categorized, not an article with a list. I believe one can speedy empty / orphaned articles like this. /Blaxthos 06:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
If these could be expanded with information adding to the context (information about the films), then a weak case for keeping could be made. If this is not the case by the end of the discussion, delete, with secondary option towards categorisation. -- saberwyn 11:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless expanded per Saberwyn. Carlossuarez46 19:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep I'm this article's creator, and I do intend to expand this article (certainly there were more than three documentaries made about the Korean War). I don't feel that each of these films will deserve their own article (hence categorization would not work) and I think adding such a list to the Korean War article would cause clutter. If these concerns not reasonable for some reason, then I'll support deletion.--Daveswagon 03:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete non notable and can use sandbox to create a full fledged articleRaveenS 13:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Argument of Daveswagon is convincing.Biophys 03:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep list of docs about Japanese American internment. I have added more films, and will add more in near future, with links. It is an often-researched topic and would be good to provide resources for viewing. (sorry if I'm leaving this on the wrong discussion list but couldn't find separate page regarding JA internment discussion) TienTao 23:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Holds potential to become an encyclopedic list, and I too find the argument presented by Daveswagon to be convincing. RFerreira 16:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep for now unless expanding isn't possible. - Penwhale | 18:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was Keep. Shimeru 08:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Jay Solomon

This is a reposted page, originally at Jay M Solomon. I speedied this as a repost, but was denied because the original page had been speedy deleted and not subject to an AfD. The subject is utterly non-notable and is one of countless advocates for countless issues worldwide. Misplaced Pages is not a place to store your personal resume, and this article certainly looks like an advertisement. A G search for "Jay Solomon" bully (since the name is fairly common) yields less than 200 results. I can think of no reason why this page should be kept. Chabuk 20:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not notable, seems to be an ad. All google results appear to be ads.Nenyedi Contribs_@ 21:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

last time i checked, wikipedia is a place where people search for, and find information on a wide range of people, places and issues. this article certainly falls into wikipedia's raison d'etre. search wiki and you will find COUNTLESS other articles like this one. if you're going to delete one, you better delete them all. i think that would be a tragety for wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.161.175 (talk • contribs).

Articles are subject to general notability guidelines. Luke! 03:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is valuable and should not be deleted. There is no reason for it's deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.161.175 (talk • contribs).

what is with wiki all over the news these days? they're going nuts for accuracy... in the end, this just leads to useful information being deleted. there is nothing in the wikipedia deletion policy that justifies removing this article. the subject is relevant and noteworthy.

How could you possibly have a problem with demanding accuracy in an online encylopedia? NW036 22:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability not accuracy justifies deleting articles. Luke! 03:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

nothing. but you are not claiming that this article is inaccurate, are you? you're claiming that it has no relevance. that is simply not the case. check through wikipedia. you will see countless similar enteries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.161.175 (talk • contribs).

Comment - Many of which should be deleted as well. Plus, yes, I am arguing that the article uses weasel words and boosterism, a form of inaccuracy. Regardless, this page is not the place for a back-and-forth. Please make your statement/argument and allow others to do so without cluttering up the page. -- Chabuk 02:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I too agree that this page should not be deleted. Misplaced Pages is a form for information - all information; not just the information that certain editors wish to promote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.161.175 (talk • contribs)

It has to be notably verifiable information. Luke! 03:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm not certain if this is particularly relevant to the discussion, but the Toronto Star featured an article about Solomon in 2002. (Caroline Mulroney, "A former victim speaks out about bullying", 30 September 2002, E06.) I've found three other passing references in the "respectable press". CJCurrie 02:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Curious, do you have this paper? Cause the Star's online search feature only has the last seven days worth of publications. I couldn't find it via Google either (Keyword "Toronto Star" "Jay Solomon"). Luke! 03:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Search the archives - it's there. I don't think this is sufficient to qualify for an article though. Mind matrix 22:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep and cleanup. The subject is of some notable significance. GreenJoe 02:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The standard for WP:BIO is multiple independent non-trivial articles. Lexis-nexis produces six articles for "Jay Solomon" and "bullying". This need to be added to the several already in the notes, which would have been enough for the keep. Bucketsofg 02:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Filling in some of the holes would be a start. There are just too many statements claiming notability without sources ("lectured to thousands", "more well known anti-bullying experts", "respected freelancer", etc). It needs to be re-written for tone, and it needs to lose the resume attitude. But it passes WP:V and the letter of WP:N thats all thats needed. Keep - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep This entry follows both WP:V and WP:N and should therefor be kept. --207.245.44.227 12:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)K8De
Keep This article matches the rules and regulations set forth by Misplaced Pages for BIOs. If you want to clean it up, that's fine, but there is no justifiable reason to delete it whatsoever.--Labelboy 20:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 01:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hard to say right now. The article feels a bit spammy. Yeah, he's doing a good thing here, but...well, I like to think I do good things, but I don't have an article about me, now, do I? The references need some cleanup. For now, I'm going to Abstain, but I'm kinda waffling to a delete in its current state. Those who say keep, please, put some polish on it. --Dennisthe2 02:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Going with Keep per User:Labelboy's rewrites. --Dennisthe2 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - he's notable enough, in my opinion, for his article to be included. If it seems like the article is spammy, then rewrite it. - Richard Cavell 02:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - ive tried to do a bit of editing to make it less spammy. if anyone has other suggestions, please do the same. there are tons of mentions of him on google, so more sources could also be added. --Labelboy 03:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Good work on the rewrite, I'll consider that good enough. --Dennisthe2 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, as he has been the subject of newspaper stories, notability is not an issue it appears. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - seems to me there is a clear consensus... this article is very worthy of keeping here on wiki.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.161.175 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
Keep per Bucketsofg, a rather open-and-shut case if you ask me. RFerreira 03:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep no reason to delete this article. it's well sourced and relevant. kind of a no-brainer in my opinion.--Rubbish82 13:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was Speedy deleted by me. This article's author has a conflict of interest. There are insurmountable notability concerns. Also, the author states that he created this page to allow developers to work on the project. - Richard Cavell 03:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Quickimmigrant

Non notable software. No sign of any third-party reliable coverage. The creator of the page is the creator of the software and claims on the article's talk page "My goal is to make this CRM system open-source. This page is a step forward toward that goal. If this page be deleted it will be very difficult to make this great CRM system open-source." To put it mildly I find that claim to have little credibility. Pascal.Tesson 02:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Two lines explaining the software, and that's it. If you want Sourceforge, you know where to find it. --Dennisthe2 02:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Deport per nom. YechielMan 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete or Speedy delete, blatant WP:COI case to say the least. And attempting to coerce us into keeping the article in order to make the software open-source... that's a new low. What if poential "Quickimmigrant" users/clients see that? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was speedily deleted by Mike 7. --Elkman 02:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Beaner

Dictionary definition at best. jpgordon 02:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Eew, racist in its existence. Going Speedy Delete as an attack page. --Dennisthe2 02:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete. I was going more in the G1/A7 direction, but it amounts to the same thing. What's up with that non sequitir image? YechielMan 02:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Edward Kearns

No notability can be deduced from the article, no references are given (nor did I manage to find anything on the subject). —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Reads like a resume, feels a bit like COI. --Dennisthe2 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete A lot of little exploits, but nothing big enough to justify inclusion. YechielMan 02:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete no assertion of notability. /Blaxthos 06:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:N and WP:ATT and per nom. Orderinchaos78 15:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per the above. Kntrabssi 16:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment I deleted a paragraph per WP:LIBEL. No references are given, and it said that the subject attended a "School For Children With Dyslexia". The whole article was created by one user and may well be an attack page. It should in my opinion be speedied. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything in here that would indicate an attack page. Reading closely, there's possible WP:AUTO (or at least WP:COI), but no libel - and attending a school for dyslexic kids...well, ain't nothing wrong with that, especially if it's true. --Dennisthe2 23:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a lot wrong with including it without providing any sources, per WP:BLP. My attack page suspicion comes from the desperate attempts of an IP to delete the content/article . —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, OK, noted there. --Dennisthe2 01:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Rodney Fertel

Other than running for mayor of a large city, he doesn't seem to meet the notability requirements per WP:NOTE Delete Editing Maniac 02:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete for being a thoroughly non-notable gorilla-lover. Eddie.willers 04:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep & rewrite The mayorial campaigns, along with his wife's legacy makes this notable (if only B-class) and I'm sure we can get more proper sourcing. He was covered in the press over spans of decades. /Blaxthos 06:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as failing WP:BIO in spades. Only sixteen Google hits on a directed search . A single NY Times article referencing some crazy fellow doesn't represent "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." RGTraynor 17:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Major party candidates for the mayor of New Orleans would be notable--an outsider with 0.2% of the vote is not. DGG 00:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

List of video games involving China

Indiscriminate list: any video game "involving" China. First on the list is Civilization II, which has the Statue of Liberty on the cover, and according to Civilization_II#Civilizations China is just one of 21 different civilizations in the game, which shows how indiscriminate this list is. Saikokira 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - it seems totally indiscriminate. The list will be huge, too. - Richard Cavell 02:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - wholly pointless and indiscriminate list. --Haemo 05:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete This is the type of article which would be better served as a category. Pablothegreat85 05:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete You'd have to put almost every single fighting game in this list. JuJube 06:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete rediculous cruft. /Blaxthos 06:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
This list is going to become unmanageably long unless some kind of strict inclusion criteria is put in place, and users with an continual interest in the subject put some effort in to maintain that criteria. Unless this is done before the end of the discussion, delete. As a secondary, do not categorise, as the relationship between most of the current entries and China is minimal, and could very easily be substituted for another country. -- saberwyn 11:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom - hopelessly indiscriminate. Arkyan 15:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Hopelessly indiscriminate. We've deleted lists like these in the past, and more so with categories. --Scottie_theNerd 03:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Mallee Football League 2007 Season

While the league as a whole may be notable, the individual seasons are not. Mattinbgn/ 02:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages as they are subsets of the above article and as such non notable:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Ga rr ie 03:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Mattinbgn Ga rr ie 03:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete all - This is a small regional league. No evidence of notability is presented. I am happy to change my vote if proper sourcing on notability is provided. TerriersFan 04:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per comments above. /Blaxthos 06:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete all per snow. —Ocatecir 07:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Four votes in four hours is not enough to claim it has a snowballs chance. --Scott Davis 14:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep The main season page, but probably not the individual grade articles. Mallee Football League (South Australia) has a reasonable article, so there's not reason to believe the season won't too. Do we have an accepted AFD guideline for sports leagues? The US get excited about school football, which in rural Australia is a lot less important than the regional league. --Scott Davis 14:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree that the article on the league is notable and of reasonable quality and I would also agree that the clubs are possibly notable too, but the season is likely to be of passing interest only. A list of premiers and/or grand final results in the main article would be more appropriate. The likely quality of the article has no bearing on the the subjects notability and is not relevant. I suspect that this is an attempt to host an unofficial webpage on the league in breach of WP:NOT#WEBSPACE.--Mattinbgn/ 23:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. There is a policy on English soccer leagues which I understand maintains the first ten levels. The Mallee Football League would of similar notability to one of the lower leagues in that standard. However, the reserves and colts are not notable enough to warrant an article and should be deleted. There may be a case for the main article with brief summaries of the lower grades. In summary, weak keep main grades, delete lower grades. Capitalistroadster 01:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete - a rural football league in an area which covers less than 100k people. The league is notable as a social institution, but the level of sport is such that it is not notable as a sporting achievement. Grumpygrumpy 03:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Smart Choice

De-proded. An album yet to be released by a non-notable artist, signed by a non-notable label. Fails WP:A, WP:MUSIC & Misplaced Pages is not a crytal ball. -- Scientizzle 02:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete the way it is written sounds like it may be a hoax as per this line and not being able to find it on Google "It was released on her bestfriends label Big Hunna." Big Hunna is the name of the band, and the best friend's label? Darth griz 02:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 02:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - not notable. - Richard Cavell 04:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete nom says it all /Blaxthos 06:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete The author of this article has had his and his friends' material deleted before. This should qualify as recreation of deleted content (CSD G4). See and for examples of old Dolla Billz/Big Hunna-related AfDs. And the two authors, Big Hunna Entertainments and Jordan Star Records are sockpuppets of the already indef'd Jack tha Ripper. He's been adding vanity articles for some time now, and if I'm not mistaken, there should be more out there. Just search "Big Hunna" and you'll come up with a lot of vanity articles and even more vandalism. I've been after this guy for a while. Rockstar915 18:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

BBB (album)

De-proded. An album yet to be released by a non-notable artist, signed by a non-notable label. Fails WP:A, WP:MUSIC & Misplaced Pages is not a crytal ball. -- Scientizzle 02:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Richard Cavell 02:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 02:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Umm, Speedy? Is it any coincidence that "B (album)" was recently nominated and speedied? Wavy G 06:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- They were different albums by the same spamming sock puppet master... -- Scientizzle 15:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete speedy. /Blaxthos 06:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per my comments on Smart Choice. Let's squash this vandal/sock. Rockstar915 18:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was CSD A7 by Deiz (talk · contribs); page protected. Scientizzle 03:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Big Hunna Presents: Nickal Lachey

De-proded. An album yet to be released by a non-notable artist, signed by a non-notable label. Fails WP:A, WP:MUSIC & Misplaced Pages is not a crytal ball. -- Scientizzle 02:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Richard Cavell 02:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No article. Does this person even exist? Zero Google hits and no entry at allmusic.com (There is a Nick Lachey but that appears to be an entirely different person). Herostratus 02:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 02:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was CSD A7 by Deiz (talk · contribs); page protected. Scientizzle 03:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

B (album)

De-prodded. An album yet to be released by a non-notable artist, signed by a non-notable label. Fails WP:A, WP:MUSIC & Misplaced Pages is not a crytal ball. Scientizzle 02:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Richard Cavell 02:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 02:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ray-Ray (album)

An album yet to be released by a non-notable artist, signed by a non-notable label. Fails WP:A, WP:MUSIC & Misplaced Pages is not a crytal ball. Scientizzle 02:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment, Ray-Ray redirects to Characters in Drawn Together. 202.67.87.132 02:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 02:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete speedy ? /Blaxthos 06:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per my comments on Smart Choice. Rockstar915 18:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete an album would not deserve an article if the artist does not have one. Wooyi 22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete, no context or assertion of notability. --Core desat 07:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Artprocess

Reprod. Rationale was "non-notable site - forum has less than 50 posts on each topic". Procedural, abstain. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 02:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not notable Manik Raina
Speedy delete; so tagged. No assertion of notability in the article, and the web site hasn't changed my mind. Zetawoof 05:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete /Blaxthos 06:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was Speedy deletion by me. The article is unsourced, unverifiable, and likely a hoax. Its subject is not notable and the parts mentioned by Dennisthe2 indicate that it might well be original research and borders on things-made-up-in-school-one-day. Best just to rub it out. - Richard Cavell 04:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Huntological Determinism

This article is entirely unreferenced, and might be a hoax. John254 02:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete No google hits. Manik Raina

Speedy Delete According to the article, it "gets its name from a twenty-second century machinima series called Huntology". Yep, could well be a hoax, or alternatively nonsense :) EliminatorJR 02:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, though I can't justify speedy. (Sorry, EliminatorJR.) Note, too, that the series the article references specifically states that the series itself doesn't even mention the name. Leads me to remind us that we aren't for things made up in school one day. --Dennisthe2 03:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete term from a "twenty-second century machinima series". It's cruft... of the FUTURE! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan Airlines flight 3026

No sources, no proof that such an incident occurred, no Google hits outside of Misplaced Pages, likely hoax. Khoi khoi 03:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a hoax. I concur, two google hits - and not a one of them outside of Misplaced Pages. --Dennisthe2 03:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Needs better references than "I heard about this accident whislt in Baku, Azerbaijan." -SpuriousQ (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- "This article does not cite its references and sources. You can help by not citing 'I heard about this accident whilst in Baku, Azerbaijan' as a source." =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:ATT. No such person as "Mochome Lucheberg". Don't see route with flight number 3026 for Baku-Tbilisi either.. cab 04:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as an unverified hoax. No records of accident in September 2006 for this airline with any of the normal monitoring services. Eddie.willers 04:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
~~Speedy~~ Strong Delete I agree. It's a hoax. Pablothegreat85 04:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Hoax. Maxamegalon2000 05:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Another hoax. Grandmaster 05:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and someone should check the users other edits, it looks like he has messed with a bunch of other pages related to airlines, crashes, etc., under possibly 2 other usernames. --killing sparrows 06:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete I can find nothing to support this incident, and air accidents are big news no matter where they are. Ben W Bell talk 09:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - suspect it's a hoax. No reliable sources are given, and the article doesn't even specify the aircraft type. A check of the airline's web site reveals that they don't have flight numbers in the 3000 range. ~~If I'm reading it right, they're only in the 2000s.~~ I wasn't reading their timetable right - their IATA abbreviation is J2, so their flight numbers are all less than 1000. --Elkman 19:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Gotta ask, how were you able to extrapolate that from the IATA code? --Dennisthe2 19:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment But wait - Misplaced Pages says it's NOT a hoax! Be right back... Werthog 22:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Okay, fixed! Werthog 22:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Wow. I never noticed that before. It's obviously not a hoax, because somebody said it's not in a Misplaced Pages article. Guess that GIGO doesn't apply anymore, does it? =^^= --Dennisthe2 01:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as hoax but do not treat the Google test as gospel.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Interestingly, creator's userpage states that "I'm currently working in Helsinki, Sweden." Newyorkbrad 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete It violates attribution policy.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It is utterly incomprehensible these days that a large airline crash in of the magnitude this article claims, won't generate widespread media interest, no matter where in the world the crash took place. No entry in the aviation-safety database either . Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Basically, show the media coverage or bust. I'm a lazy researcher, but it's never too hard to provide at least one external link that says this stuff actually happened. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Also no luck searching Factiva and LexisNexis. Smmurphy 00:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - does WP:SNOW apply here yet? --Dennisthe2 23:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep I think I herd about during late October in a small article the British Metro newspaper. It was a medium sized Tupolev aircraft. A Georgian man, 2 Armenian kids and several Tartars also survived the crash. It was not a total wipe out as claimed! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.29.253.109 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 24 March 2007.

See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Khoi khoi 02:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was keep. Michaelas10 20:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

North Ballarat Rebels

Contested prod. Sportsteam competing in the under 18's age group of the TAC Cup Ga rr ie 03:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Ga rr ie 03:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Should probably include other teams in the same league. But I will wait on results for this AfD before going to that step.Ga rr ie 03:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep - Several notable players have played for the club. Should evidence of notability from third party sources be provided I would be happy to keep.-- Mattinbgn/ 07:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to TAC Cup (and the same goes for the other teams in the league). FiggyBee 09:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep this is a team in the league that many Victorian AFL footballer come from. Do we have a sports team/league/season guideline for AFD? --Scott Davis 14:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:BIO. We do, actually; a team in a fully professional league, or at the highest level of amateur competition in a sport in a given country, is notable. Does this team qualify? I won't register a Keep on a subject about which I know little, but if others assert the notability of the league, I won't register Delete either. RGTraynor 17:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment this team would be - at a stretch - on par with US college level football (however, college footballers recieve scholarships and other benefits). The TAC Cup (in which this team competes) is a feeder competition for the national Australian Football League (professional), and for the state's Victorian Football League (semi-professional). No indication is provided that the TAC Cup is a fully professional league. Ga rr ie 21:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The TAC Cup is a notable league with its grand final played as a curtain raiser to the AFL Grand Final at the Melbourne Cricket Ground see . This grand final is also broadcast live across Australia. Further, there is a significant potential for its players to be drafted by the AFL. Adam Goodes, a former player with the Rebels has twice won a Brownlow Medal for best and fairest player in the AFL. They are certainly equivalent to one of the top 10 leagues in English soccer. Capitalistroadster 01:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment no-one's saying the TAC Cup isn't notable. The question is whether that notability extends to the individual teams and players to the extent they should have their own articles. FiggyBee 12:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Several of us appear to think it extends to the teams. --Scott Davis 12:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Several = 2.(Scott Davis + Capitalistroadster) Ga rr ie 23:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, team in an amateur sports league. The fact that they've produced some famous players is not really relevant, for the same reason that we don't have a page on the club that Wally Lewis played for in the Under 3s division. Lankiveil 09:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
- He played for the Wynnum-Manly Seagulls - is that any more significant than the Ballarat Rebels? --Scott Davis 12:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Yes, it is; the Seagulls were in a league that was for many decades the major sporting competition in Queensland, so they're much more comparable to, say, a VFL team than an under-18s amateur club. FiggyBee 14:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    - And when he did play for the Seagulls, he was being paid to. Do we have any articles for teams he was not paid to be in? Ga rr ie 23:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Notable, and reasonably well known, club. Rebecca 08:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was Keep. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

List of television shows set in Las Vegas

This is what categories are for, Category:Television shows set in Nevada already covers this subject adequately. A sub-caegory can be created if necessary, though it doesn't appear to be needed. Saikokira 03:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - better done with a category. A list like this is too indiscriminate. - Richard Cavell 03:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Las Vegas. This list isn't that long. 23skidoo 03:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Too crufty to merge into Las Vegas. FiggyBee 09:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's a useful reference, and lists should be kept out of major articles as they spoil the presentation and break up the flow of the text. Hawkestone
Delete per nom. Deor 12:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Is the proposal of this nomination to remove every entry from Category:Lists of TV series by city setting? Also the Las Vegas, Nevada article is already too long. So while this list might be fairly short, it would expand an article that is likely too long already and still needs expansion in other areas that are also notable and not currently covered. Lists and categories serve different purposes and are not exclusive. Vegaswikian 19:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Avi 03:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This is what categories are for? A list serves equally well, so ... I don't see how that's an argument to delete. No reason has been presented as to why this list is inherently inferior in its ability to manage the relevant information than the category. In fact, this list provides additional information that is not present in the article. Also, I oppose merging this list into Las Vegas, as it would unnecessary clutter the latter article. -- Black Falcon 04:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Per the changes by Vegaswikian, each entry in the list now contains 3-4 columns of information that cannot be possibly reflected in a category. -- Black Falcon 17:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per Vegaswikian, I've touched up the article a bit and added another entry. Caknuck 04:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per improvements to list since start of this AFD. I think categories are more useful for this type of topic, but this is more than just a list of titles now. Croxley 05:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep This list doesn't seem to be merely a list, but includes information that would be lost in a category. I'd also point out that there are shows set in Nevada that aren't set in Vegas (Bonanza, above all, and the handful of shows set in Tahoe). --Charlene 07:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep It belongs in Category:Lists of TV series by city setting along with the other lists. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per reasons given by Black Falcon and TonyTheTiger. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Better off as a category than article.--Bryson 14:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep and propose instead deletion of Category:Lists of TV series by city setting. --FateClub 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Background history of the September 11, 2001 attacks

This article contains a lot of POV, unsourced nonsense. Furthermore, many of the bullet points have little to do with the attacks on September 11, 2001. The page is in need of some serious editing after which I do not believe the article will have enough information to stand alone. For these reasons, I have nominated the article for deletion. Pablothegreat85 03:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete or redirect to September 11, 2001 attacks or Al-Quida. The problem with these background information is that they are quite ambigious. If we have to strip out all the assumptions, then these backgrounds would actually be Al-Quida's info. George Leung 03:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It is speculative original research. --Ezeu 04:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep. As-is the article is an unsourced mess. However, it could be cleaned up by adding proper sources and weeding out irrelevant info. — Krimpet (talk/review) 05:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Never mind, looking it over again, September 11, 2001 attacks#Motive already covers the motives of the attackers in a more accurate and succinct fashion. Delete. — Krimpet (talk/review) 13:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unsalvagable POV mess. I don't see how it can be cleaned up now...maybe later it can be recreated, but this is unencyclopedic, has almost no sources, makes some spurious connections and not in keeping with WP:ATT.--MONGO 06:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Huge subjective element in working out which incidents are relevant background and which are not. Where reliable sources have claimed event X to be a factor, that would be worth mentioning in the article about the attacks. But this is simply the wrong way to present this information- the article is composed predominantly of OR and synthesis. WjBscribe 06:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Misplaced Pages has a rule against an article such as this, informally called "connecting the dots". It amounts to synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and is codified at WP:SYNT. MortonDevonshire Yo · 06:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per MONGO, Morton_devonshire, ~~Tom Harrison~~Strike as Tom has not voted. and NuclearUmpf. background history of the Sept 11 attacks is contained in other articles such as Al Qaeda and the September 11 attacks. The unsourced opening paragraph seems to conclude that the background of the attack is "US foreign policy with regard to predominantly Muslim countries and Israel in the latter part of the Cold War, the growth of radical Islamism, and prior terrorist attacks on the United States" and as such is original research. This narrow conclusion of the causes then becomes a POV fork to be critical of these presumptuous, unsourced "background" events. --Tbeatty 07:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete POV essay. WP:OR, fails WP:RS. --Folantin 08:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as POV and WP:OR synthesis. FiggyBee 09:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- Chairman S. Talk 09:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Misplaced Pages rules are not suitable for articles like this, where deciding what to include controls the message the article delivers (by showing readers a bunch of dots they can connect, per Morton). Unless we create new (article-specific?) rules, editors have to make decisions about what to mention or omit based on their own POV. No wonder the result is less than satisfactory. This is not a suitable topic for an article in any encyclopedia, and is an invitation to POV-warring in this encyclopedia. CWC(talk) 12:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete inherently pov essay Tom Harrison 12:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Undecided I'm undecided on this. Chapters 2-8 of the 9/11 commission report deal with "background' history, as well as some material that can go in the "planning" article. The 9/11 commission report also has extensive footnotes, which lead one to more good, reliable sources. Of course, such an article could be attractive to POV pushers, but at the same time if it can be made to work, with good sources and comply with policies, then it might be useful. I suggest maybe stubbing the article and even moving to userspace, until time if/when if can be brought up to acceptable quality and compliance with policies. I'm of the opinion that it's better we try making something acceptable out of this, so people have something neutral to look at when they search "9/11 + background" on google, as opposed to some of the other material that turns up in searches. As the article stands now, though it's no better than the other things that turn up in a google search. That's why I suggest stubbing it, and if after some effort it can't be made to work then delete it. --Aude (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Anything of use in this article has been merged into the main article. Nothing in the subarticle of any use. --Aude (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as largely unsourced and WP:OR. I doubt there is anything here worth merging, as this touches on one of the most well-covered subjects on the encyclopedia. Arkyan 16:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nominated. Wow, I don’t know which slams this article worse, this AfD or the article’s talk page. Yep, not worth the time to even attempt to clean this mess up. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge We can merge it into September 11, 2001 attacks--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment See Aude above. All of the useful information from this article has been merged already. This article has no value. Pablothegreat85 16:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - OR synthesis using selected "references" to put together a POV narrative. Moreschi 18:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
delete POV pushing, and little viable content. Does not accurately assess topic--Sefringle 04:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was Delete. utcursch | talk 11:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Rob Wolchek

Previously PRODded for lack of notability or sources; untagged without addressing either of these concerns; besides one instance of vandalism has not been improved for three months. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 03:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - by research sheds no light on the notability of this news reporter. Note: the creation of this article is the only edit contribution made by the editor since registering. Luke! 18:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep: The article, as it stands, is just a stub. References can be added to it. The only concern is notability. As of now, I did not find enough secondary sources discussing him. However, if the fact that he won 23 emmys as stated in the article, is really true, then he deserves an article. --soum (0_o) 10:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, As per Patstuart's evidence. --soum (0_o) 03:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete - clearly non-notable; the comment on "23 emmy awards" is totally misleading, if not false: they're local to detroit emmy's: . Thus no claim to establish notability. Patstuart 02:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete.--Wizardman 00:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Helium.com

Promotional substub on new website. ˉˉ╦╩ 04:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Only one source, which is a blog, and not WP:RS. Fails WP:WEB. Leuko 08:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 08:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

An extra source is added + Alexa information Kalvitz 16:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment And reverted, because the Alexa information given was incorrect by a factor of five. RGTraynor 17:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I'm not sure that I can consider Search Engine Journal to be very reliable for a source. --Dennisthe2 18:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The Alexa rank number was correct; it referred to the site's rank in the US. Kalvitz 01:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you accept Red Herring as a source then? . That article has a quote from a Research Director from Gartner. They have several other sources listed on Kalvitz 01:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Red Herring article reads like a press release, and the number 3 link you list is directly on helium.com - the use of which falls outside of our reliable source guidelines. --Dennisthe2 03:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- There apear to be a number of other sources online that have mentioned Helium. Alexa shows links from CNET, TechCrunch and ABCnews, as well as a vast number of bloggers. It also looks like they were invited to speak at DEMO 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.92.43.9 (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
Delete: as per everybody --User:Ahadland1234 23:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Street Fighter Nationalities

Pretty much a list of indiscriminate information. Most of this information one can already find on either an individual character or game's article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete I agree with the reasons for the article's nomination. This article is simply not informative enough to deserve its own page. Pablothegreat85 04:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:ATT, WP:NOR, WP:NN. Why do we need an article doing nothing more than listing the nationalities of the characters in a video game? RGTraynor 17:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. RGTraynor (above) is right, but I think the worst of it is going to be WP:NOR here. --Dennisthe2 18:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete: This info should be in each characters article and should also be listed in whatever main list of Street Fighter characters we have. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete already in the character articles. (It also repeats the old nonsensical "M.Bison is obviously Thai" crap.) JuJube 04:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Useless list; information already found in profiles. The list itself is incomplete and contains speculation and/or original research. --Scottie_theNerd 03:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was Delete. --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 11:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Callan

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Incomplete nomination by 69.244.98.171 (talk · contribs). His comment on Talk:Jonathan Callan was: "the comment by the author of the article above is signed Roboliberal. A quick google search of the keyword Roboliberal reveals this site, which tends to indicate that Roboliberal is Jonathan Callan, the subject of this article, and is attempting to write an autobiographical article while fooling the Wiki community into thinking he's just a fanboy." Procedural nomination, no opinion yet. cab 05:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete I would say that the information contained within the article does not sufficiently show notability. Additionally, the page is self-advertisement and therefore makes it an obvious candidate for speedy deletion. Pablothegreat85 07:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete, fails WP:BIO, WP:ATT, NN, possible WP:COI. This bit of inflated puffery talks big about his award-winning TV series (in other words, the pilot put on his college's in-house TV station), his award-winning screenplay (in other words, the award given out by the community theater that hosted the play), and his second award-winning screenplay (5th place in a competition that has ten Google hits ). Roboliberal seems to have a skewed notion of what constitutes "significant body of well-known work," "notable awards" or "regarded as important figure by peers." Misplaced Pages policy has in mind a slightly larger field than the theater community in Ithaca, NY. When Mr. Callan's acclaim comes from the New York Times theater reviewer instead of from his college newspaper, and his awards from the Tony nominators rather than the local theater, that will merit notice. RGTraynor 17:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No Delete Respectfully, I disagree on both counts for proposed deletion. Mr. Callan is a writer whom I work with on several IC-TV shows and is of extreme notability in the areas in which he writes. Certainly, the accusation that it is somehow self-advertisement is baseless and without proof. I have worked with the author but am not even a close friend, so in neither case does the article fit the criteria for auto-biography as laid out in the wiikipedia guidelines. After all, IC-TV itself (our campus TV station) has a wiki entry, so why not an entry on one of its more popular writers?

The case comes down to one of notability. I have fufilled at least three out of five of the notability criteria: recieved notable awards (cited), regarded as an important figure by peers (cited), has created a significant body of well-known work (cited). I would welcome suggestions on how to demonstrate the other two criteria, but there are honestly few authors that have statues or monuements of them built, anyway. And no one cites a problem with *their* wiki entries. The lack of a secondary source (such as a non-fiction book about the author's work) is one that I could find numerous wiki-entries on authors to support in contrary. Many articles on semi-popular modern authors fail to meet this requirement. I would like to remove the tag for speedy deletion, honestly. I welcome other opinions however.

-Roboliberal

Delete, but I'm going on WP:N and a side order of WP:LOCAL. It's my opinion that Roboliberal needs to also assert why Mr. Callan is notable beyond local theater stuff. In short, can we get more sources that assert better notability? If so, I will change my mind. --Dennisthe2 18:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - A wee bit of digging. I've no beef with the notability of the ICTV site, seeing as it has won numerous awards and serves 26,000 homes on Time Warner basic cable in the county in which Ithaca is located. By the bye, that awards list? Callan does not appear. The broadest possible search of ICTV's website has only four hits for Callan, one as being on staff in the spring of last year, three pertaining to the one episode that he wrote. A search on the Cornell Daily Sun's website doesn't turn up any hits, despite the citation of an article purportedly about the subject . RGTraynor 20:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So we have a primary source that shows that he's employed (or has been) at ICTV, but no secondary. --Dennisthe2 17:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct, although I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of ICTV's website. He's listed as a generic "staff" person in the spring semester of '06. RGTraynor 17:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Object to DeletionI object to the notion that the subject in question is not notable because he hasn't had a write up in the New York Times. There are plenty of television and comics writers who have never once had a write-up by either the New York Times or any other national paper who warrant (and have) wikipedia pages. Likewise, I will point everyone to the "notability page" for Misplaced Pages requirements which clearly spells out that fame IS NOT equivalent to notability. Mr. Callan is a well-known author in the Ithaca and Priceton communities and I believe I have established notability in this regard through numerous citations and articles. An inability to find a few of these clearly cited articles doing cursory google searches is not the fault of the subject. The world exists beyond the internet. And I'm not at all sure The Cornell Daily Sun makes an archive of even a majority of its articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roboliberal (talk • contribs) 21:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC).— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC). RGTraynor 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Do Not Delete I worked with Jon Callan on the IC-TV show Beyond and several other shows. He's practically a household name in Ithaca, NY. I can't understand some of these complaints. They are absurd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MikeGarland87 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC).— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).RGTraynor 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No Delete Jon Callan is a well-known author in the Ithaca area. His writing is followed practically with a cult devotion on our campus. He's a cool guy. How all he's done does not fit the requirements for notability has hardly been made clear here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DennisThapa (talk • contribs) 21:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC).— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC). RGTraynor 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No Delete Jon Callan holds a certain recognizable status above the typical college writer; he has several verifiable credits to his name. Callan has obviously just started his career, as evidenced by his works in progress, and I forsee this article being expanded in the next few months. At Ithaca College and the larger Ithaca area, Callan holds notability for his personality and writing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.76.93 (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC). — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).RGTraynor 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Do Not DeleteHe's well known here in upstate NY. I've seen him in the Ithacan and the Cornell Daily Sun multiple times. N8dogg74 22:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)n8dogg74 — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC). RGTraynor 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Do Not Delete These objections make no sense. I have worked as an actress on several IC-TV productions, and can safely say that Jon Callan is a highly respected and established writer at Ithaca College. He has also received awards and acclaim outside the college for his work. How does he not qualify as "notable"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vmayne (talk • contribs) 22:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC). — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC). RGTraynor 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Given the rather clumsy sequential nature of all these first-time users, perhaps Roboliberal would find the provisions of WP:SOCK useful reading. RGTraynor 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Do Not Delete I would like to mention that in addition to his notoriety in upstate New York, Jon Callan is also well known in central New Jersey. His short films and theater work are held in high regard by many authorities in the area, including Princeton's renowned McCarter Theater.192.152.243.19 22:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)anonymous concerned
Strong Delete. Google position is confused by "Jonathan Callan (artist)" (different person) ... Fails WP:BIO - references are not strong; article is over-egged. Springnuts 23:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete But he's a "household name in Ithaca, NY"! These sockpuppet votes made me laugh though - nice try! Croxley 23:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete nice sock-puppeting, but you're fooling no one. Fails WP:NOTE. --Haemo 23:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No Delete This will be my last post here. I find this entire argument ridiculous. Accusations of "sock-puppeting" most of all. You asked for proof of the subject's notabality, I have, in my mind, more than supplied it. Others agree with my positions, and wikipedia is meant to be a community foremost based on strength of argument in terms of inclusion, not percieved social standing. Whether or not those featured here are first time users are irrelevant. They have continued in making the case that the subject of the article is *INDEED* quite notable. Certainly, I have enough respect for wikipedia to know its not a vote. But I have registered my opinion. The facts and the citations more than speak for themselves. To disclude a writer of medium popularity who speaks to a large audience from an internet encyclopedia that has a substantially huge entry on LEGENDS OF THE HIDDEN TEMPLE is indeed insane. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roboliberal (talk • contribs) 00:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Comment You've already voted TWICE before as Roboliberal. Once at 13:41, and once at 21:48. And now again at 00:11. You must have become confused by all the other sockpuppetry in between. Croxley 02:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment What you don't seem to understand is that we need proof. Real proof - not comments from people who may or may not exist and who may or may not of heard of the subject. We simply cannot take your word for it. If he is really a household name, if he is held in high regard by those in the know, then that proof would exist. Bring it- real sources that anybody in the world can examine and say "yep - this guy is notable", and this argument will disappear. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Looks like we have another NUGGET Posse --Ron Ritzman 02:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete schoolboy and "writer of local acclaim". Nothing but LOCAL media coverage and LOCAL student awards, thus fails to pass WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 08:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Leaning towards delete because the article appeasr to describe someone notable within the SF-media field, yet it is a name I have never seen (TtBoMR) in the media material I "watch", here in the UK. I suspect that a writer "famous" in a small village in England (but not known in the US or Guam) would earn the same disdain, if I wrote him/her up for Wiki. -- 62.25.109.196 08:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Spacio-cide

Neologism, only example of use is POV, gsearch show no use outside of refs to neo creator killing sparrows 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - per nom, avoiding a neoligism that shows POV. Luke! 18:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete obvious neologism. The article even says the term "was recently (2005) coined" Croxley 23:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, NEO. Pavel Vozenilek 15:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

AIDS conspiracy theories

Honestly, do we need every crackpot conspiracy theory recorded for posterity? I don't even think this stuff is notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:45, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Keep. (Crackpot? I agree. However...) A well documented article that expounds on a section covered in Conspiracy theory. A well-enough known conspiracy theory that it probably deserves an article. Anyone searching on this theory will find more information presented in our one article than they would in a dozen random web pages on the topic. SWAdair | Talk 11:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep, crackpot I agree (refer to the page's talk..). However, an issue that has taken hold in South Africa as a significant problem (note Mbeki's remarks) needs to be comprehensively discussed and rebutted in the open. There are a vast number of significant AIDS conspiracy theories and they are verfiable and encyclopedic. This is not to say that the article is currently a good one. It is not. In fact, in my eyes, it is currently a competitor for the worst Misplaced Pages article ever. A new article must rebut every conspiracy theory and it must not contain ridculous statements about the military-industrial complex... - Aaron Hill 14:36, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
Definite keep. But I dislike the use of the term "conspiracy theory" because it has acquired a connotation that I think is disparaging and POV, so I'd like to see it moved to a better title. Everyking 15:21, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- What would you suggest? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - How about Origin of AIDS (Minority opinions) or something like that? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep it. —] 15:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. A notable enough conspiracy theory, and people need NPOV sources of information on these kinds of things. I think Misplaced Pages is just the place for that. ] 16:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Any chance this thing could be cleaned up a bit while we're at it? It hurt my eyes to read! Is there any way we could combine this with AIDS myths and urban legends, perhaps have them all thrown into the actual AIDS article? -- BDD
Keep. Even incorrect beliefs can be notable. However, as part of the cleanup BDD suggests, I recommend removing most of the red links, especially to individuals whose only fame is that they originated one of these crackpot theories. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Nutcakes, yes. But nutcakes with some currency in some populations. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but possibly merge with AIDS myths and urban legends. -Sean Curtin 00:52, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Merge with AIDS myths and urban legends into a Controversy surrounding AIDS article. Eric Urban 01:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I agree. - Aaron Hill 08:12, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, remove PoV. Widespread paranoid or crank conspiracy theories are best neutralized by objective reporting. Wyss 23:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Widespread theory deserving of its own page. --Librarian Brent 02:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Which one? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Regardless of "validity", this is a notable theory worthy of documentation on Misplaced Pages in a NPOV matter. ] 20:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep Spinboy 08:43, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Notable. --L33tminion | (talk) 21:44, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
Keep and merge with AIDS myths and urban legends. --MPerel 19:59, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
Keep Where else can you find about conspiracy theories, where they are presented as such, and not presented as the truth by some nutter? -- --PoleyDee 23:13, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"'Keep'" I disagree with the article completely but it needs to be here -- Wwahammy's vote. Wwahammy, you can insert your signature and a time stamp by typing four tildes: ~~~~ . It's especially important to do it when voting. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:44, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 00:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Physical economics

Original research. No secondary sources are cited and the ideas discussed do not appear in standard secondary sources on Economics. A Google search for "Physical Economics" mostly turns up references to the single paper cited in the article and to the Misplaced Pages article itself. Jyotirmoyb 06:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There are two papers cited in the article. Uncle G 18:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Google Scholar comes up with various uses of the term, a couple of which seem appropriate . The article has been the subject of some edit warring in the past, per talk. Perhaps there is an older version that is less scarred from these edits? Smmurphy 23:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Although the standard database on the subject , RePEc, lists 0 articles or working papers with the phrase in title or abstract, some of the GS hits are indeed real & I suggest the supporters of the article add them. The material in the article, as is obvious, is so undocumented and so close to OR that it is easy to see why it could have been taken as fringe social science--especially considering the reported but undocumented origin of the phrase. I removed the most obvious OR portion. DGG 01:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, I'm not sure the GS hits are talking about the same thing. Physical economics in the article seems to be talking at times about emphasizing physical/material capital and de-emphasizing financial market capital, while some of these articles talk about the relationship between physics and economics models.

On the other hand, van Lierop, Wal and Braat, Leon. Multi-objective modelling of economic-ecological interactions and conflicts The Annals of Regional Science Volume 20, Number 3 / November, 1986 p 114-129 mentions that the term is also known as Materials balance models and is used with some success in environmental economics in the 1960s and 1970s. Searching googling and GS'ing for that comes up with quite a bit of stuff, much of it fairly mainstream (this article right now is about a recent left-wing derivative of the idea). I don't know what people who have been editing the article think of that scholarship, but it seems to me that the bulk of the article could easily focus there. That would bring up the question of a change in title("Materials based models in economics"?), which might actually lead to this article being recreated as a discussion of the more recent, radical assessment of the subject. Smmurphy 02:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, there is a relevant ArbCom ruling on one of the major proponents of the radical version of this theory, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche. Again, I haven't been active in the article, and don't want to change it fundamentally, but the LaRouche issue makes me want to completely rewrite the article, depending on the outcome of this AFD and the comments of those active in the articles talk page. Smmurphy 02:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete. Physical economics is real. LaRouche is nutty enough to ruin ideas by association, but he didn't invent physical economics. Why the desire to delete a decent article on a topic of intellectual interest when wikipedia has thousands of pages of trivia on every cartoon character ever? Openman 09:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete or rewrite completely The article as it currently stands is not what physical economics is. It is on applying scientific methods to economics, which is a different topic RogueNinja 15:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be confusion between econophysics and physical economics, which is especially understandable because the article itself is confused. My understanding is that physical economics is a term sometimes used in the field of Industrial Ecology to differentiate between the real physical economy of matter and energy and the financial economy. It seems however that the LaRouche people have hijacked the words as googling for "physical economics" turns up mostly LaRouche garbage. Adding to the confusion, the LaRouche stuff looks like a pasted together amalgam of real concepts from Industrial Ecology, Econophysics, and other fields mixed in with their own absurdist ideas such as building railroads under oceans. Google "biophysical economics" the wikipedia Biophysical economics article is very sparse but imagine it minus the bio. Since physical economics seems too much a larouche concept, perhaps the best idea is to redirect the article to "industrial metabolism" or "industrial ecology" as they are what physical economics should refer to. The Materials based models and Material flow analysis concepts are tools used in industrial ecology, among other subjects.

PDF of "Approaches for Quantifying the Metabolism of Physical Economies: A Comparative Survey Part 2" Uses the term "physical economy" with an industrial ecology meaning.

industrial metabolism is perhaps a better term for physical economics

larouche babble for comparison

A PDF of "Energy quality and energy surplus in the extraction of fossil fuels in the U.S." That uses the physical economics concept.

PDF of "On the History of Industrial Metabolism" Gives an interesting history of concepts related to physical economics.--Openman 09:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless it can be shown that this concept and its terminology is not perculiar to Lyndon LaRouche and his followers. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox! --EMS | Talk 03:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Needs more references per WP:ATT to stay. I took a crack at reading the source cited in , note the mere 41 ghits for this journal. Given the low web presence of this journal and the extraordinary poor copy editing, I find it hard to believe that this is a mainstream scientific journal. - Aagtbdfoua 03:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

List of fetish clothing manufacturers

Non-encyclopedic listcruft, filled with links to non-notable companies. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Leuko 06:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - directory of external links. MER-C 11:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#LINK. There's already a category for the few of these that have articles. —Cel ithemis 12:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Edison 13:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete list of external links, covered by WP:NOT. Only a couple actually have articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Violates WP:NOT. Pablothegreat85 16:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete collection of non-notables, if they were notable, the same thing would be accomplished with a category for distributors that had valid wikipedia articles. Lotusduck 20:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete CSD A3 - no content other than external links Croxley 23:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
delete fails WP:NOT#LINK point 1. Suriel1981 11:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Expunge linkspam. Ohconfucius 03:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was speedy deleted by ChrisGriswold . Michaelas10 13:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

FNFL (American football)

fancruft, probable self-promotion Rama 07:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No claim to notability. Mwelch 08:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete and tagged as such. AFD nominated by article creator!! Home fantasy league - no assertion of notability; no GHits; no sources. TerriersFan 12:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment : I am not exactly the creator of the article: I initially deleted this text to set a redirect from FNFL to Forces navales françaises libres ; this action was contested by the creator of FNFL, User:Leelad93. See . Rama 12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was Delete. --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 11:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

John Stember

You can search his name in any of the items below to confirm the validity of his claims.

http://movies2.nytimes.com/mem/movies/review.html?res=9A05E3DB163DEF34BC4D52DFB667838A669EDE http://imdb.com/title/tt0807065/ http://www.amazon.fr/Te-Hine-Manea-Polyn%C3%A9siennes-fran%C3%A7ais-anglais/dp/2909790320 http://www.fashion-planet.com/sept98/features/sephorarocks/sephora.html http://www.search.com/reference/Gia_Carangi http://www.vickimarch.com/clients/marchv/pages/experience.shtml http://www.tahitiphilatelie.pf/details_timbres.php?annee=2007&id=152&chglangue=us http://www.answers.com/topic/carey-lowell

Comment: Great, but that's just a laundry list of long lists of photographers amongst which he is mentioned, a production he was in, and so forth. We get (and do not dispute) that the guy exists. We dispute that he is a notable photographer. Our advice is to demonstrate how Mr. Stember fulfills the criteria of WP:BIO, especially the following pertaining to "creative" individuals:

* The person has received notable awards or honors.

* The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.

* The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

* The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

* The person's work either (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument (b) has won significant critical attention, or (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance.

Until that happens -- and even IF that happens, this is still going to be a vanity article that could fail to pass muster on that ground alone -- Calton's characterization of the subject as a "journeyman" photographer looks spot on. RGTraynor 19:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Blatant self-promotion / advertising. Prolific name dropping but are there actually any links to anything that references the guy? -- RHaworth 07:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you try checking: www.google.com / www.imdb.com / www.johnstember.com / or contact any of the people mentioned for references. We are not trying to promote but simply inform which is what we believe an encyclopedia is for unless you think otherwise. We have taken exactly the same format as used on many other pages including john's ex-wife's carey lowell. if your response is so negative why don't you try offering some advice ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Stember (talk • contribs) 08:09, March 19, 2007

Well, Carey Lowell is actually famous, what with starring in movies and TV shows and all. Oh, and establishing bona fides isn't our job, it's yours. --Calton | Talk 09:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, unless something other than name-dropping backs things up, and perhaps not even then, since the CV looks like a journeyman fashion photographer CV. --Calton | Talk 09:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as NN. A directed Google search excluding Wiki mirrors and his personal website turns up just 26 hits . Plainly he was a photographer, but just as plainly not all that many people noticed. Article also violates WP:COI, given that User:John Stember is the creator. RGTraynor 17:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Frank and vinny

The result was Speedy delete A7 by ChrisGriswold. Leuko 08:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-notable webcomic. Article offers no sources as to why this particular comic is notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. —Ocatecir 07:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Agree with comments above. Robinson weijman 07:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete: No assertion of notability. Marking as such. Leuko 08:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Dreamtone

This band does not appear to be at all notable. Note that if this page is removed then the members' pages should probably also be removed. Robinson weijman 07:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - this turns out to be quite a walled garden. Added all the relevant articles, I think. MER-C 09:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks MER-C! Robinson weijman 11:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete all - unless attributable evidence of passing WP:MUSIC is found. If the main article gets kept, I suggest that all the articles on (former) members of the band get merged into the main one, we don't need those substubs. MER-C 11:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed Delete all. Robinson weijman 11:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per MER-C. Walled gardens are seldom a good sign, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete all Even though it is not a criteria for deletion, the user who created these pages is the webmaster of the website of this band. Raises some eyebrows to say the least. Could be just an amateur band of a couple of friends, really. Unless there are some references asserting notability they should be deleted. Baristarim 04:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Mircobowling

non-notable/unattributable neologism. Zero G-Hits. Leuko 08:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Might be a typo for "microbowling", but that search term doesn't turn up anything relevant either. Delete per WP:NEO unless sources are found. —Cel ithemis 12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete 'neologism' is putting it nicely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. "and there for is a advantage" - that's why it's not a good idea to create articles when you're stoned! Croxley 23:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- ...That and the fact that they misspelled the article title. Wavy G 01:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Could have been nominated for speedy, clearly inappropriate. WP:NOT a dictionary of pot-smoking slang. CMummert · talk 15:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would have loved to. Unfortunately, an admin took a narrow view of the CSD criteria, and neglected WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. Leuko 16:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 11:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Anatoly Kudryavitsky

Unsourced article. I get 358 Google hits for the name. The most salient claims to notability seem to be the awards but I am unable to confirm them from reliable third party sources (3 Google hits for "Robert Graves poetry award", 1 Google hit for "Edgeworth Prize for poetry"). No hits at Amazon.com for "Kudryavitsky", Amazon.co.uk has an entry for A Night in the Nabokov Hotel with a publication date this month and a sales rank of 1,036,009. Haukur 08:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Valrith 20:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
~~Very weak delete~~. On ozon.ru (main Russian online bookseller) there are 24 books related to him http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/258458/?type=305#305 In most of the books he is a translator (he translated a lot from W. Somerset Maugham, G. K. Chesterton, etc). There also a few of his original short stories in anthologies but no solo books he authored. I think it is bellow the level of WP:BIO Alex Bakharev 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. Thank you. Haukur 08:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep:My dear Mr Bakharev, the author has published every book mentioned in the biog. To state the opposite is sheer ignorance, or even worse. There's no place here for uneducated guesses, like yours. I've checked and double checked all the sourses and added a couple. All in all, the author published seven collections of his Russian poems with reputable Russian publishers; three of them with the Third Wave Books, the publisher of Joseph Brodsky. His English collection was brought out by the Kildare-based Goldsmith Press, who published Patrick Kavanagh, among the others. I am beginning to think that you're no expert in Russian literature, Mr Bakharev. Not yet. Generally, I am terrified by the prospect of authors being judged by people who know little about literature and seldom read books. Counting Google hits seems more important to some folks. If only they could count a wee bit better...User:Dreamcatcher9 03:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete. Not notable enough. In addition, this seems to be a case where the person in question has written his own WP:Bio. sample and another sample. --Camptown 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The article under consideration was written by one of the author's Irish publishers. The article you mention was written by Philip Casey, the well-known Irish playwright and poet, who is also the webmaster of www.irishwriters-online.com.User:Dreamcatcher9 03:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete - He doesn't seem very notable. Peace, ♣Tohru Honda13♣ 03:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- - I guess you can cast a !vote only once Alex Bakharev 07:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Changed to Very weak keep - there are published books, some are with reputable publishers. See no harm in keeping the article Alex Bakharev 07:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Author seems to be notable.Biophys 03:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable.Vlad fedorov 08:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Has an entry in Russian wiki - . Catchpole 11:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable--Sefringle 04:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Author is notable in two countries, Russia and Ireland. Can we say that about many writers represented here?--WickedPetya 04:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: user's fifth edit, the first outside his own userpage Alex Bakharev 00:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment: I thought the rule was not to attack newbies Alex. Yes, I am only starting here but have a look at my edits in a few months' time!WickedPetya 00:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Don't see the reason why it shouldn't be here Garcia-Fons 22:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Seems to be a sock-puppet, whose only edits have been today, to a string of AfDs. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was Delete. --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 12:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Aaron John Waltke

Here's fame for you: Aaron John Waltke is currently recognized as the Guinness World Record holder for the most t-shirts worn at one time by a single human being... No. really. Ludicrously trivial bid for fame. PROD tag added, but removed by creator on WP:INN grounds -- about which see also Matt McAllister and its brand-new AFD. Calton | Talk 09:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete I was just about to write that this is the most ludicrously trivial claim to fame I've seen in a long while... then I noticed the former holder of the same record, Matt McAllister has an article too. Misplaced Pages ain't the Guiness Book, folks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Misplaced Pages not being a mirror site for Guiness. Individual fails WP:BIO. Edison 14:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, probably also auto-biography. Mak (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge I am the creator of this article, and I have been in communication with User:Calton on this issue. I added this article because I thought it was relevant to the previous article on Matt McAllister. I am not making the argument that simply because both were included in the Guinness World Records that this automatically merits their inclusion in Misplaced Pages. On the contrary, Waltke has been featured in dozens of newspapers, film, television and radio programs regarding his record (as I cited in the article) as well as publications on the history of the t-shirt (also cited in the article). This includes an appearance on the CNN program of Glenn Beck's "Sick Twisted Freak", which gave him national exposure. If these grounds aren't enough, I have already suggested to User:Calton that perhaps a merged article would be in order for the record itself, which gained even more attention in the past 6 months because of Matt McAllister, the previous record holder. Matt McAllister became notable under the premises of a the Misplaced Pages definition of an internet phenomenon. The viral YouTube video of his record breaking that was uploaded in September 2006 (which is linked in his Misplaced Pages article) has been very widely viewed (nearly 3,000,000 separate views as of this writing) on the initial uploaded site alone since its inception. This is far more internet exposure than many other videos listed under internet phenomenon, such as Gary Brolsma, who has not one but two separate articles about him (the other regarding his Numa Numa video) and whose cited video has been viewed around 1,000,000 times. In addition to this, McAllister's internet popularity earned him a guest spot on the October 12th, 2006 episode of The Late Show with David Letterman, earning him further national exposure. Because the record which made him famous was broken, I thought this merited some mention at least in his article, and possibly another independent article for Aaron John Waltke. If the Misplaced Pages editors' consensus is that these biographies are too trivial to merit independent articles, then I would wholly endorse a merger into a general article about the record, but not a wholesale deletion of all mention of it.--GoodAaron 20:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What is this " I have been in communication with User:Calton on this issue" supposed to mean? I've already expressed my opinion, and to repeat the message I left on your talk page:

Be aware that the argument that "Article X exists, so my article Y should, too" is extremely common and complete non-starter: it's so common, in fact, the rebuttal has its own shortcut, namely WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I refer you to there.

The other article is equally a ludicrously trivial bid for fame, and having an article on the subject of this "record" as a whole is not any better. I've put a PROD tag there, too.--Calton | Talk 09:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Calton, please try not to become defensive. I only meant that I had contacted you about contesting the article. What I have tried to illustrate above is why WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which openly admits that it is neither an official policy or guideline but more of a "matter of opinion", is a bad argument to use here. I will try to clarify this as best as I can below. As for the label of "ludicrously trivial bid for fame", I know of no other way to engage that kind of arbitrary assessment than by laying out my reasoning as rationally as possible as to why it is not "trivial" in the terms of notability.

Accepted Premises:

1.) A Misplaced Pages article is eligible for deletion if it is not found to meet notability standards.

2.) The achievement of a Guinness World Record alone is not enough to meet notability standards.

3.) According to the above Misplaced Pages Editor consensus, Aaron John Waltke may not be eligible for notability as an independent article.

4.) If Matt McAllister can be found to meet notability requirements, it is possible that Aaron John Waltke could be merged into the McAllister article as relevant information.

5.) The Matt McAllister article may be eligible to meet notability standards on the grounds of the Misplaced Pages category internet phenomenon.

6.) The notability standards of the Misplaced Pages category internet phenomenon are ambiguous, because there are no minimum quantifiable standards in place to define that category.

7.) If there are no quantifiable standards in place to define a category, then there is no other option than to rely on examples of precedent to define that category.

8.) Other undisputed examples within the Misplaced Pages category internet phenomenon include Gary Brolsma. Matt McAllister has received just as much exposure (as measured in the quantified number of views) with his World Record viral video as Gary Brolsma (see above). On these terms of notability, the two articles are analogous.

9.) Matt McAllister has also appeared on The Late Show with David Letterman for his World Record viral video. Gary Brolsma was mentioned in the New York Times Entertainment section for his viral video. On these terms of notability, the two articles are analogous.

THEREFORE: Since the Matt McAllister article appears to be eligible for notability on terms of the Misplaced Pages category internet phenomenon, and much of the information in the Aaron John Waltke article would be relevant as an addition to the Matt McAllister article, the McAllister article should be retained and the Aaron John Waltke article should be merged with it.--GoodAaron 00:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Aaron, please try not to become verbose and nonsensical: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS was pointed out to you to stop the complete non-starter that is the "Why does HE get an article and *I* can't" argument: been there, done that, got a closetful of t-shirts. You'll note that my response to your original WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS claim was to immediately slap a {{PROD}} tag onto the other article: if it's been removed, Matt McAllister is coming to AFD, too. That should be a tiny hint as to how convincing I found your argument to be.

Also, trying to imply that there was some sort of negotiation going with your completely meaningless "I have been in communication with User:Calton on this issue" in an attempt (it seems to me) to mislead readers was particularly irritating. --Calton | Talk 08:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

GoodAaron removed the PROD tag, big surprise, so now we have Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Matt McAllister. --Calton | Talk 08:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Matt McAllister ⇒ SWATJester 10:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete it's in Guinness if you want this information, fails WP:BIO easily. EliminatorJR 10:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Holding a random Guiness world record like this doesn't qualify, IMO, as notability. This will be a permanent stub, so it's not worth keeping. Mango juice 21:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Matt McAllister. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete - NYC JD (interrogatories) 20:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Inri Cristo

No assertion of notability, or how this particular nutcase is any different from any other similar nutcase. Stub since creation in November, 2006 and no sign of further development yet. If he's at all interesting, there's nothing that says so, or why. Probably should have just added {{prod}}, but I'm half asleep and didn't think of it in time. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete. self-proclaimed Messiah is not a valid assertion of notability. Cate |_Talk 16:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I still think we should speedy delete the article. Non notable: appearing in TV program doesn't make him more notable. There are to many self-proclaimed prophets, saints, messiahs, popes, king, emperors, etc, so per policy, I think it is a "standard job", that per se doesn't give notability. I need more assertion of notability and independent references to change opinion. Cate |_Talk 13:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
For Your Information - translation of the first paragraph of the Portuguese page into English via Babel fish:
Iuri Thais Kniss (Indaial, 22 of March of 1948), known as Inri Christ, is a Brazilian religious leader who proclaims to be the reincarnation of Jesus Christ. Popularly, Inri is seen as a humorística personality, having appeared in diverse programs of TV as the Program of the Ratinho and SuperPop where debate with other people, as the priest Oscar González Quevedo and Toninho of the Devil.
- Richard Cavell 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated in the disscussion of this article, Im nearly finished with my eglish translation of his biography, and i hope to have it included this monday. So keep this in mind and please wait patiently for the final product before you all make a final discission.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 16:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

YOU FUCKING PRICK, I JUST SAID I WOULD HAVE THE ARTICLE FINNISHED, GO FUCK YOUR SELF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.130.215 (talk • contribs)

What are you so excited about? The article is still there; bsnowball simply placed it in an appropriate list. If you put it into an acceptable shape before this discussion closes, it may well be retained. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Article lacts context, no discernable notability. Adm58 22:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Simon Abboud

This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Misplaced Pages:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it." John254 09:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Created by single purpose account, reads like vanity. Come back when Business Week or Forbes recognises him as "one of the best network marketers in the world" - until then, it's only crystal-balling. Assertions not supported by reliable sources: Zoominfo bio not considered reliable; ACN website article is a non-independent marketing piece. Ohconfucius 03:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete not notable- no secondary sources provided--Sefringle 04:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was Delete, not to question the site's motives, only it's notability as a Misplaced Pages article. Fails WP:WEB criterion. --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 12:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

400,000 Faces

Facebook groups, even large ones, are not notable. The references provided are not from reliable sources. DWaterson 10:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MER-C 10:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete any and all facebook groups, myspace groups, yahoo groups, friendster groups, msn groups, orkut groups, etc Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep The article is well-sourced, and fairly well written. Given the frequency of AfD noms for list and organisation-related articles, I wonder if a review is needed about the notability of user "groups" in general. If millions of people are part of a group, does that not at least give a group notoriety? While every group with 1,000,000 members may not deserve an article, neither do the many lists and collections of loosely associated articles. I think that a policy page dealing strictly with creation of "list" and "collection" style articles may be necessary, to reduce the number of AfD nominations produced daily.--Lostcause365 00:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep "any and all facebook groups, myspace groups, yahoo groups, friendster groups, msn groups, orkut groups, etc" - this is nonsense. Any group that is notable should of course be kept, simply because something comes from a social website does not in any way mean it is of 'less value' than a non-social website. This is an obvious speedy keep, apart from the fact 400,000 people are in this group, there are a number of google results, proving that it is notable. Thedreamdied 14:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This clearly doesn't fall under any of the criteria for speedy keeping. DWaterson 15:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Ryan

A senior minister of some church who has apparently self-published a two books. This does not appear particularly notable. Judged by the tone of the article, it is written by people of his church in conflict of interest. >Radiant< 10:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Valrith 20:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep and rename~~ Delete. Skip Ryan. Although there's no article for him yet, a far more notable Joseph Ryan was the president of the International Longshoremen's Association. As for this guy, it seems to me that a minister of a 5,000 member church would easily be notable. WP:COI isn't reason to delete, but should instead be a flag that extra attention to NPOV is necessary (as with inumerable wikipedia articles). It's a stub that needs a lot of work, that's all. Bobanny 20:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- His name isn't "Skip". His name is "Joseph". >Radiant< 08:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the guy. The convention on Misplaced Pages is to use the name the subject is most widely known as for the title (e.g., "Sting" instead of "Gordon Sumner"), whether or not it's their legal or birth name. If he's only called "Skip" in certain situations or by certain people, then no, that wouldn't be the one to go with. Maybe Joseph F. Ryan or Joseph Ryan (Minister). It's not big deal currently because this is the only Joseph Ryan article. However, if you hit the "what links here" button, you'll find there's a Joseph Ryan in the 1934 longshore strike, one in the 1904 Olympics, another who's an Irish-American mobster, and a Winnipeg Blue Bomber. Bobanny 15:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we need a DAB page. However, the fact that we need an article on some of those Joseph Ryans doesn't imply that we need an article on this particular one. >Radiant< 08:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it's a little off topic. But since no one who has an interest in the article is around, what else do we have to talk about? Seriously though, I did a little work on it, and I'm considering changing my vote. His notability seems more dubious than it did at first glance. Bobanny 10:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

He has a couple of published books and multiple newspaper articles so I don't think it has a notability problem, but still it needs some work I would think. Billymumphry 21:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed my vote to delete. Looking a little closer, the subject doesn't resonate outside a very localized church circle. He has 2 books, that technically aren't self-published, but if you google the titles, all they produce are websites trying to sell them. No reviews or indication that they provoked any interest beyond his own small flock, of which he is no longer the shepherd. He was the minister of a church with money, and that's why he was published. Newspaper articles? He wrote an editorial years ago in a Dallas paper. The same paper announced his retirement. Not much else. His controversial stepping down has been pretty much kept under wraps except for an announcement on the church website admitting that he's a drug addicted deviant, just another wayward sheep needing restoration by the church (which no doubt consists of purchasing non-notable books from Crossway publishing). No one outside the congregation seem to care or have noticed, or else are too nervous about incurring the wrath of the church by saying anything publicly (at least that's the impression given on the talk page). Besides that, he met with Bono, as have a kazillion other people. Looking at the article's history, Bono's "people" stepped in disallowing a photo of the rev and superstar from appearing on Misplaced Pages, which doesn't bode well in establishing notability. Bobanny 17:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Douglasbjordan 20:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was list as CSD g4. Non-admin close. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment – My proposal of speedy deletion for this page was based on an incorrect premise. Article was not recreated as Ozgod stipulated (content was: '{{db-repost}}Joseph Ryan (born 1970) is a photographer best known for his work with the Grateful Dead (1992-2001) and the reuniting of

Joseph Ryan

Article was recreated and fails to meet WP:Notability Ozgod 16:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not notable. A few film credits are not enough. Yechiel Man 16:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Nominated for Speedy Deletion per CSD g4. AfD template removed from page. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Kai-Ty-Do

Does not seem to be notable. Zero google hits, might be even hoax Alex Bakharev 10:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

delete in 7 days because articles lacks good referencing. I think notability is not the main issue. --FR Soliloquy 18:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it relevant that the title appears to equate, phonetically, to the well-known phrase "Katy do", as in "Katy see: Katy do" ? -- 62.25.109.196
delete I know google is not infallible but still... If this isn't a hoax then it looks like Original Research or even a vanity article. Suriel1981 12:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
delete WP:SPAM Peter Rehse 09:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Snifferanto

Page is about an obscure language which is a subset of Esperanto. Supposedly the grammar is still incomplete. It was invented last year, and the author or someone close to the project wants extra exposure here on Misplaced Pages. Two PROD templates have been placed on the page, one by me, one by someone else. Both have been blanked by the original author, without the concerns being addressed. -- Yekrats 10:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Fails notability. No reliable sources. --Folantin 11:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Unless veracity can be proved, I would tend towards categorizing this as a hoax -- Simon Cursitor 10:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
strong delete according to the small number of (self-promotional) Google hits, this is a "an invented language based on Esperanto". This is a self-promotional vanity article. The article contains the creators YouTube ID for goodness sake! Suriel1981 11:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, you aren't supposed to PROD something more than once. If a PROD has been removed in the past but you still want to delete it, you should bring it right here. -Hit bull, win steak 20:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per the first sentence "Snifferanto is a version of Esperanto created in February 22, 2006 by a Finnish Reform Esperantist, whose Youtube username is Snifcjo." Something made up someone at Youtube? Come on. Moreschi 12:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was speedy deleted, CSD-A11. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 20:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Umbrolly

Not notable corporation. If their business model is notable they should be merged somewhere Alex Bakharev 10:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - per CSD A12. Luke! 18:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Panclarkes

Not notable desert, only one ghit Alex Bakharev 11:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete - unsourced, so no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to establish the notability of this "desert" (sic). Delete unless sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton 11:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Hopeless. Doesn't even say what kind of food it is, just what's put on it. The fact that there's no Google hits is hardly a good sign either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:ATT. Even if it referred to pancake, it would not be a likeley misspelling. --Tikiwont 11:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect (no merge) to Pancake. I don't think it's necessarily all that unlikely as a search string; there are some abominably bad spellers out there. -Hit bull, win steak 20:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was keep Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Chaz (model)

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 11:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Valrith 20:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Multiple verified magazine appearances, multiple verified film appearances, multiple reliable, independent sourcing. Clearly passes WP:BIO. Dekkappai 21:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Dekkappai. -- Dismas| 22:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Dekkappai. —Disavian (/_contribs) 01:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep The article is verified, and the subject is notable. Acalamari 22:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The article and notability of the subject has only improved since the first nomination for deletion. RFerreira 17:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was Keep after rewrite and addition of sources. --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 12:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The Lama Foundation

Nominating two articles, which appear to be of the same organisation. The more recent one has been notability-tagged for 3 months, and the only activity since the tagging has been an act of vandalism and the reversion thereof. The older one has seen minimal activity since its creation, the majority of which being non-content edits.

My searches of Google find minimal information regarding the organisation, with 258 from 340 total hits first page last page, several of which refer to the "Laboratory Animal Management Association" (LAMA). The few links I looked at do not assert the notability of the subject, ~~and I cannot attribute any of the information through third-party sources, let alone find any reliable ones from my brief scan.~~ -- saberwyn 11:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Article is now print-sourced. I am changing my personal stance to neutral, but not withdrawing the nomination. -- saberwyn 22:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ - only source is their own website; no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to establish notability per WP:N. Per the nominator's remarks, it seems unlikely that reliable sources will be found. Walton 11:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Changed to Keep due to addition of multiple reliable sources. Walton 09:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - non notable organization. google link:www.lamafoundation.org gives nothing important. So delete unless the articles are improved and notability is asserted. Cate |_Talk 16:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Undecided if weak delete or delete. There are references (so verifiability seems ok), but I've still doubt that it is notable and encyclopedic. Cate |_Talk 18:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Has anyone involved in the deletion process of these article provided notice to the creator and significant contributors to the articles? This is considered civil under WP policies, although it is seldom honored in practice. If no one else does so I will provide the notice tommorrow , if I am able. Edivorce 16:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Seems at least moderately significant, and there are certainly enough sources to expand it, if someone's inclined. I'd merge the two into one article at Lama Foundation, and convert the other to a redirect. -Hit bull, win steak 20:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm working to improve the article right now. Please take a new look at it in a bit, to see whether the new version addresses your prior objections. -Hit bull, win steak 21:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, that's a little better. It could use some copyediting, but I merged the two into one article and added some sources. -Hit bull, win steak 22:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Commnent I didn't get a chance to send out notices until today. Too busy yesterday.Edivorce 21:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep article now properly sourced with improvement from Hit Bull. Edivorce 21:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Thank you Edivorce for contacting contributors. I don't know much about this place but have known two people who have been there and report its reality and good organization. Don't know much else. The only contribution I made was to give it a category, i.e. Spiritual Retreats. Looks much better since the merge and sources. Cott12 Talk 23:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Important to many of us ex-drugged-out-hippies.--Nemonoman 00:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. WjBscribe 09:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Malachi Foundation

Small non for profit corp. Does not appear to be notable Alex Bakharev 11:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep It's been mentioned in several CNN stories, as well as other outlets. Here's what a Yahoo search yields:

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-&p=%22Malachi%20Foundation%22 Rick Ross has some of them archived. Also, this article is only a day or so old--nominating it for deletion so soon is a bit harsh. Blueboy96 13:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Greg Feste is the founder of Malachi, he is also tied to numerous NFl players thru Champions for Christ and one of his companies purchased the Austin Wranglers. This is the first in a series linking all of these and is quite significant as many investors lost money. The article should be kept.Osakadan 12:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete while one editor metioned he might be notable, that editor did not provide any citations to prove notability. NOtability is still questionable--Sefringle 04:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you hold your horses. Some of us aren't in jobs ere we can just hop on line all day. Be patientOsakadan 09:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, see WP:AFD#Before nominating an AfD--many good articles start out in bad shape. I note that this article was nominated for deletion just under eight hours after it was created. This is far too harsh, and if allowed to stand would set a bad precedent. Blueboy96 01:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - seems notable. Artaxiad 21:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable on the face of it. The outside sources given simply mention it as one of his activities. The IRS form proves existence, but, if anything, tends to show the lack of notability-- the claimed financial amounts are way under what a notable foundation would need; though there is no fixed rule, this is beneath the level of common sense. DGG 03:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per DGG, sources prove existence but not notability. OhNoitsJamie 03:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability, doesn't meet WP:CORP. Really, what about this article shows that this outfit is at all notable? It collects money, it gives money away. Short of minutiae that you'd find in a financial prospectus, that's all this article claims. If this article is intended for a series on Greg Feste's doings, might it not be a good idea to start with creating an article on Feste first? RGTraynor 16:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Gentleman Spies

No evidence that this band is notable. Also, this article is not written in an encyclopedic manner, e.g. "After a succession of successful if shambolic gigs..." Robinson weijman 11:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:ATT; also note what links to it. (Or, rather, doesn't.) Ab e g92contribs 15:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as this subject is entirely unsuitable for an encyclopedia until some kind of verification can be found. Mr. Berry 16:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per the above two comments, plus the gut response: "Another band???" YechielMan 19:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Princess Diana Institute of Peace

Non-notable organization that has conducted a seminar, organized a dinner, and conducted some awareness programs. Fails WP:ORG. There are very few external links/references, which are trivial, and don't establish notability: is written by the Secretary-General of the PDIP, Rajkumar Kanagasingam. Image:Dianaincorporation.jpg is notice for application in a newspaper. says that it has conducted awareness programs. mentions it once, saying that it jointly organized a dinner event. Googling returns Misplaced Pages mirrors, except this, which mentions it once for the dinner event. utcursch | talk 12:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. utcursch | talk 12:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletions. -- utcursch | talk 12:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete: I'm a Sri Lankan my self, I never heard of this organization until I saw this article. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 16:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --vi5in 16:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Misplaced Pages is not a place for cheap propaganda.Iwazaki 16:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom, non notable organization with just 15 unique GHITS , most of the Wiki mirrors. --snowolfD4 17:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete According to the image included in the article it is a limited liability company incorporated in Sri Lanka. Non notable as all the hits you get is from mirror sites of wikipedia. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 18:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Question: Someone more knowledgeable than me will need to answer this: Is a Limited Liability Company in Sri Lanka like an LLC in the United States? That is to say, is a Sri Lankan LLC generally a for-profit corporation? --LastChanceToBe 18:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Reply : To answer your question yes it is, a limited liability company is a for profit organization that has to produce thier accounts to the auditor general/Department of Inland Revenue, every financial year or when requested. Furthermore the companies are registered by the government body "Samagam Medura" which means "Center for Companies" in Sinhala, it is mentioned in the image that this organization is registered with "Samagam Medura", it is required by law to publish an advertisement in a noted media if a limited liability company chooses not to use the term "limited" with their organization name and it should mention that they have permission to do so and the purpose of it. Hope this answers your question. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 06:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Note. I removed the prod as I felt this was a contentious issue given discussions elsewhere. AfD therefore seemed necessary to determine the fate of this article. I make no comment in this discussion. WjBscribe 00:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nominated. Springnuts 22:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:ORG and WP:N - there are not sufficient acceptable references. Ccscott 13:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete. Fails WP:ORG completely and it is not a notable organisation at all. I too am from Sri lanka and I have never heard of this organisation nor seen it mentioned in news papers. There are far more notable institutions in Sri Lanka rather than this so called "institute" of dubious notability.Kerr avon 16:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hpolizim Ïjaaja

Do not think this philosopher is notable. Zero ghits, might be a Hoax. Even Hpolizim gives zero ghits, very unlikely it is a Finnish first name Alex Bakharev 12:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete reeks of hoax, and even if true would be hopelessly non-notable: the "works" section includes only unpublished books. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nonsense. Why is a Finnish/English philosopher publishing in a (non-existant, as far as I can tell!) American journal? How did he "enter Eton" at the age of 21? It all sounds like rubbish to me. FiggyBee 21:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to FiggyBee: It is a Canadian University journal, Canadian "University of Ottawa" should not be confused with American "Ottawa University". There was a lot of confusoion on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruppenfurer (talk • contribs)

Okay, so you changed the university. I still can't find any evidence that the journal exists. Also, please sign your posts. FiggyBee 00:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, fails completely WP:ATT. --Tikiwont 11:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, unfunny hoax. Pavel Vozenilek 15:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Response to everybody,It stands to reason,that everybody for some obscure reason seems to think that this is some sort of a hoax. I can not respond to these accusations, since they are unprecise at best. I can only express my regret that this is the case. However, I have to add, that as a Canadian 4th year philosophy student(U of Ottawa)I felt proud to have shed some light on this interesting philosophical matter. This is my first contribution to Misplaced Pages and and I appologize for the lack of technical knowledge. Signed: Gruppenfurer.2:37, March 20

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Vilicus Society

2nd nomination. The last comment on the previous AfD discussion was made on March 1, and the discussion was temporarily closed pending further verification on March 6. A new Google search for "Vilicus Society"-Misplaced Pages results in 4 pages (still mirrors of Misplaced Pages, but they don't say so). Can we please delete it now? ... discospinster _talk 12:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete it had its chance. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Yekrats 14:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment I have no access to the refs listed, but if they hold up (with more than the current, '...legend has it...', then keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killing sparrows (talk • contribs) 20:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
Keep I'm a student at Edinburgh and I hadn't heard of this society until very recently. When I first came across this article, I thought it was ridiculous. Recently, I went to the university library. I could only find one of the books (Heckethorn). The book has a short entry on the society and Jacobite connection was mentioned. That said, it's a very old book. I don't know too much else, but there was another mention of it in the editor's comments in the student newspaper the other day. All in all, there appears to be some factual basis for the society. Mangrove22 20:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete very strong smell of hoax. No Google hits other than wikipedia mirrors, and the creator has made no edits other than to create this page and to add it to various lists of secret societies. If they've managed to keep themselves secret for 300 years, how come User:Theburgh and no-one else knows about them? - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable.-- danntm _C 03:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Gospel Way Outreach

Non-notable, orphan, importance tag since 12/06. TedFrank 12:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. A church. Old. No third-party reliable sources. Ab e g92contribs 15:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as this subject is entirely unsuitable for an encyclopedia at this time. Mr. Berry 16:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as just another church: see WP:HOLE. YechielMan 19:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete the faster the better. Artaxiad 21:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Alfred Sommer (aerospace engineer)

Delete article does not state individuals importance other than he owns a company and appears to have been started by the individuals son--Looper5920 00:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as this subject is entirely unsuitable for an encyclopedia at this time. Mr. Berry 16:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment It looks like the WP:COI issues extend to Del West. I'm not sure what to make of this, but it looks like these articles are a family affair. -- Ben 17:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Totally non-notable, patri-biography by son Mark Sommer. And I think it is obvious what to make of this and the entire Del West article, it appears to be advertising spam in violation of WP:CSD#G11. I've added a {{db-spam}} tag to that page. It is the work of multiple single-purpose sock-puppet accounts, each named similar to the son of the company president, our own subject here (see Special:Contributions/Marksommer, Special:Contributions/Marksommer1, and Special:Contributions/Mjsommer), along with a single-purpose IP Special:Contributions/71.106.51.37. Blatant adverti-spam, with no evidence of notability or secondary sources. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Del West is now listed below at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Del West, since an admin thought it did not quite meet the requirements of WP:CSD#G11 and would be better to go through AfD just to be safe . --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. Artaxiad 21:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete The article does not establish anything notable. (The company has to be discussed separately). What contribution to the industry did he make? What industry awards has he received? Are there articles in any of the appropriate business or technical magazines? Get the references in.DGG 03:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 12:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X

Windows vs. Mac was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-25. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discusson, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Windows vs. Mac.

Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-25. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discusson, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X.

Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X was nominated for deletion on 2006-10-14. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discusson, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X (second nomination).

Delete: When first nominated for deletion, the article was really long, but was a real mess because its content was very un-encyclopedically disposed. The discussion lead to a "Keep", since the article was still young (it was marked for deletion on its first day) and seemed to be possible to develop. Three months later, it was again nominated for deletion because the article hadn't gotten better in the elapsed time. The result was "No concensus", because some thought that it should be deleted, and others thought that it should be rewritten. Now, considering that we are five months later, and the article is in no way better than it was for the first and the second nomination (unsourced or dubiously sourced statements, unencyclopaedic content), I therefore propose it for deletion. There is no real contributor interested in making this article better with reliable sources, NPOV, and everything that an article as controversial as a comparison of two major operating systems need. The almost sole contributors to the article are anonymous users throwing in their opinions or ideas, regardless of whether it is encyclopaedic or not, or whether it is sourced or not. My opinion : this article is doomed to fail, as it is the subject of a religious war for many people, and cannot gather "facts" to make a real comparison of operating systems. I will never become a good article in my opinion. Dravick 04:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Good points, but if it's deleted I think someone will create a new article the next day on this topic. It's better to fact tag every unsourced statement and delete it if sources doesn't appear, I think. iNic 03:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep, although I do understand the issues raised by the nominator, the topic is real and nodoubtly can be sourced largely from reviews and comparisions that have been published widely. The other issues, namely that only anonymous user edit the article, and that it currently is a mess, are no reasons for deletion, however. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This article is problematic from the title forward. For one, we are putatively comparing Mac OS X which has gone through 6 major version changes over a period of 8 years, and the Microsoft Windows family of operating systems which has gone through 7 distinct operating systems and countless individual revisions. This is just dripping with confusion and leaves the reader wondering precisely what we are comparing. Comparison articles of this nature are further hindered by the fact that, while they are in direct competition, it is difficult to come up with objective comparisons as they run different subsets of software on different computer architectures. Combine these issues together and you really are comparing apples (hah!) and oranges. Furthermore, if you bother looking around for objective comparisons, good luck - it's about as easy to find neutral and objective comparisons between the two as it is to find fair comparisons between Republicans and Democrats - avoiding POV is hard. That said, I believe this article can be deleted on technical merit alone. Get rid of the unsourced information and you are left with "Some people compare Mac vs Windows. Mac gets less viruses." Sub-sub-stub and pretty much devoid of content. Arguments that there "should be more sources out there" and "someone could improve the article" are no longer valid - the nominator is correct in saying that the article has been given far more than enough time and no one has stepped up to bring it up to standards. Continually passing on the buck and relying on "someone else" to fix it is not a reason to keep it, particularly after so long. The article ahs had it's chance and lost. Time for it to go. Arkyan 16:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Just not something that is encyclopedic, even if it's verified, notable, etc. etc. Will anybody care in five years about this particular comparison? 15? Better discussed under an article of "OS Design Theory," or such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Autocracy (talk • contribs) 19:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
Keep - This article is verified, informative and useful for wikipedia users. Richard Cavell 22:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. "Comparison" is far too vague; it's easy to compare different versions of the same OS, but Windows and Mac OS are apples and oranges. Constant updates to each OS mean this article means this article will constantly be out-of-date and inaccurate. It's also full of OR, and impossible to source without synthesizing information to draw new conclusions. This is material for a computer magazine, CNet, etc.; not Misplaced Pages. — Krimpet (talk/review) 23:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with your conclusion, but a general comparison article of Windowses with Mac OSes needn't be constantly out-of-date, so long as it focusses on stable features. (Of course, such an article should make plain that it is a “big picture” article, lacking coverage of more changeable characteristics.) —SlamDiego 05:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, most of the article is OR and very vague. That and it's not really encyclopedic and is redundant as several OS comparison lists already exist. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep but Revise - The general purpose of the article is to compare the two operating systems, alike to how the Comparison of Windows and Linux entry does. Certainly, the information may be better presented in a general OS comparison article, but the comparison of Windows and the "new" Mac OS is worth it in either form. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 01:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Problem is this article doesn't compare any particular version of Windows with OSX. It's just says "Windows". That could mean XP, Vista, Longhorn, Server 2000, Server 2003, Windows 2000, Windows NT 4.... you get my point. Same goes for OSX. Doesn't specify which version of OSX. It could be anything from OSX Server 10 through 10.5. This article at MINIMUM, needs to be retitled and moved. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 01:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete — While no article should be deleted simply because it is and has long been bad, as other editors note above, Windows has had many version, while Mac OS X is essentially Mac OS 10.x. An article comparing all versions of Windows with all version of Mac OS could have my support; an article comparing recent versions of Windows NT with Mac OS X could have my support; but this article is fundamentally, irreparably broken. —SlamDiego 05:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete.--Wizardman 04:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Corn on Macabre

Fails to meet notability requirements Hoponpop69 23:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Pages nominated by Sigma 7

Corn on macabre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

delete-Hoponpop69 23:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, non notable alongside links to the page. Also nominated redirect to the page. At least it's unrelated to Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Torrey_Paquette --Sigma 7 14:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - They appeared at Krazy Fest alongside AFI, Dillinger Escape Plan (who they've played a number of gigs with, according to the last link in this comment) etc.(the band list is also here), and one of their members is formerly of Darkest Hour (Billups Allen), there's some reviews too. They also played at the US premiere of Citizen Toxie: The Toxic Avenger 4-K@ngie 03:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have edited the article to include these links and things-K@ngi e 03:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete if the peak of their career was playing at the premier of "Toxic Avenger 4" as the article states they can't possibly be considered noteworthy. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, aren't the facts that they've got band members from Darkest Hour, and that they played alongside Dillinger Escape Plan and AFI at Krazy Fest contributing factors towards meeting WP:MUSIC guidelines?-K@ngi e 04:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'd say no unless there's something notable about them - my sister's in a band with a member of Soft Cell, and supported acts from Duran Duran to Grandmaster Flash, and I certainly wouldn't consider her as meeting WP:MUSIC. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is sourced and consists of verifiable information. Does your sister's band have interviews, reviews and bios that an article can be constructed from? If so, write an article about her band, lol! Meeting some of the WP:BAND guidelines also indicates that even more sources can be found for this article, and thus can be expanded beyond a stub-K@ngi e 22:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Artaxiad 21:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete No evidence of WP:MUSIC notability. OhNoitsJamie 03:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was Merge this and GC-set into Closure with a twist and redirect thereto. Avi 03:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Cwatset

Unintelligible, probably with typos carried over from the original source, ; see Talk:Cwatset. Perhaps a new article should be written on the subject, but it would have to be reliably sourced and not nonsense. Quuxplusone 18:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete (nominator's vote). Datapoint: More than two-thirds of the Google hits for "cwatset" also contain "wikipedia".

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as copyright violation. Keep, having a second look, it appears not to be just a copy/paste. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. The article is neither nonsense nor unintelligible. The addition is done bitwise (so, 011+001=010, 110+110=000, 110+101=011, etc.) You can call this XOR if you prefer. A subset C of the set of n-bit words is then a cwatset if for each of its members c, there is some permutation π on the bit positions such that π(c+C)=C. For the example given in the article of a cwatset, C={000,110,101}, we may pick c to be the member 110 of C. We then have

c+C={110+000,110+110,110+101}={110,000,011}

and π should be chosen to interchange the first and second bits and leave the third bit alone:

π(c+C)={π(110),π(000),π(011)}={110,000,101}=C.

As for the relation between groups and cwatsets, the set of all n-bit words under bitwise addition (or XOR) is itself a group. If a subset C of this set is a group under bitwise addition, it will also be a cwatset as we may take π to always be the identity permutation. The converse is not true—{000,110,101} is a cwatset but not a group under bitwise addition. Spacepotato 08:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Without a reliable source, this is original research. Gandalf61 09:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Withdraw my vote, as article now has published sources. Gandalf61 10:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I agree with Spacepotato that the article is not nonsense (though it was badly written). I tried to improve the article because I was too lazy after researching the topic to write down exactly what I think about deleting or keeping the article. For me, this one is really borderline: there are sources out there but it seems to be a really obscure part of mathematics that has drawn very little interest in the mathematical community, and I doubt whether there are enough sources. Together with closure with a twist and GC-set, it forms a cluster of three articles with no incoming links. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I have added some references to the article. Although there hasn't been much work on this subject, there seem to be sufficient sources for an article. I recommend a keep for this reason. (~~As the nomination appears to have been based on a misreading of the article, I would move for a speedy keep, but that appears to be procedurally impossible at this point.~~) Spacepotato 04:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. As the nomination looks to have been made in good faith, I'm withdrawing my hypothetical remark regarding a speedy keep as inappropriate. Spacepotato 09:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge into wreath product, or delete. I agree with Jitse's evaluation of the facts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge into closure with a twist, and also merge GC-set into the same place. The new references seem to me (barely) enough for notability, but we don't need three articles on the same obscure topic, and we don't need to clutter the more important article on wreath products with this stuff. If we're to keep one of the three titles, closure with a twist sounds best of the three to keep to me. —David Eppstein 07:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - merge and redirect would be fine, too, but this paper (not exactly a paper, but...) seems to imply that a nice little history and applications section could be added, which makes the concept feel encyclopedic to me. Smmurphy 03:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fudokan

Non-notable, full of POV, pictures are NOT fair use, unless the user is the owner of Fudokan Serbia, in which case this may be a vanity page.RogueNinja 14:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
What are you saying about my club. Those are pictures i can use to put on wikipedia. The licence was given by my masters. - Snake bgd 15:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - both of these editors are disputing over adding this article to Shotokan - Alison 15:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, neither of us wants to add this article to shotokan. What you are probably thinking of is that he wants to add it to the major styles of karate template, one example of which is in shotokan. Based on the fact that I have no heard of this style in 14 years of training, and that google has less than 30,000 entries for it, I think it is certainly not a major style. That has nothing to do with the article itself though.RogueNinja 17:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

- - Then it OK you think that this article is not major styles of karate. Ok I don't think in same way. I will not add any more this article to the major schools, but then you will not erased this article at all because it is a karate school. That is also for my other article Heian Oi-Kumi, Taiji Shodan and Kaminari
    - Just because something is a karate school does not make it notable.RogueNinja 13:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Snake bgd 10:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

- My bad, thank you.RogueNinja 13:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Besides having many critera from McDojo (forgotten katas primarily), Snake is not consistent with his facts. He claimed on my talk page that the katas were made in the 19th century, but several of them are named after living people.

- - Sorry people but i don't unerstand what you are saying, maybe Taiji Shodan, Nidan and Sandan, are named by Taiji Kase but Heian Oi-Kumi and Kaminari are not. No matter I will proved that this school of karate is fourth in the world.

Snake bgd 12:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 01:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No significant context or real assertion of notability; no third-party attribution. The Google test doesn't seem appropriate here. Thirty thousand hits is actually quite a lot, but they seem to be mostly advertising. I couldn't find any reliable sources. Dekimasu よ! 02:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Avi 04:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete The article makes no attempt to indicate notability. There's no indication of how many schools/dojos teach Fudokan, how many practitioners there are or what sets it apart from the many offshoot martial arts of the last 30 years. Add this to the beastly mess that the article is, and I can't see much of a reason to keep it. Caknuck 05:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment if this gets deleted someone ought to take a close look at Ilija Jorga as well. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

For the time being, I've listed Image:Ilija Jorga.jpg at WP:PUI. Most of the other articles linked to Ilija Jorga were deleted by prods. Dekimasu よ! 04:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I'm not sure how regular martial artists measure notability among the "many offshoot martial arts," but in the Ghits I see sites from Serbia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania, Italy, France, Germany, Switzerland, Poland, the US, Russia, and more, which is enough to convince me that the topic meets my notability standards. However, I don't see anything from independent, third-party sources about Fudokan. --Groggy Dice T | C 04:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ponderosa Elementary School (South San Francisco)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are mere redirect pages:

Delete. This article seems to have been voted for deletion once already (Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Ponderosa_Elementary_School) but has been recreated. – sgeureka 10:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment The previously deleted Ponderosa Elementary School was not this school--it was the one in the Spring Independent School District.

Comment. I was unaware of that. Still, Special:Whatlinkshere/Ponderosa_Elementary_School_(South_San_Francisco) and Special:Whatlinkshere/Pondarosa_Elementary_School don't show any inter-wiki-linking except for the redirect pages mentioned above. At the moment, all references/external links are either statistical, non-independant or trivial. The school is non-notable except for being "the 2nd most attended elementary school in South San Francisco", which might still not be notable enough. – sgeureka 19:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete non-notable school. Carlossuarez46 19:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Possible speedy as G4, else delete, all sources are primary, no indication of notability. Seraphimblade 20:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to South San Francisco, California. Inadequate demonstration of notability at this point in time. Alansohn 03:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep as currently redeveloped. There are now multiple non-trivial third party sources to support this article. RFerreira 03:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I was looking to see if I should change position, but I see no secondary sources? There is the school's website (primary), its parent district's website (primary), a government report (government reports on a government organization are primary), a list of statistics (raw statistics are primary and also trivial), and another report which was produced by the school and district (primary). Seraphimblade 07:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  - To describe a government report about a school as a "primary source" in this context is, well, bullshit. RFerreira 17:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep references exist in current article, no valid deletion criteria given for AFD listing. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete There is no consensus that schools are or are not inherently notable. As such, notability has to be asserted and attributed in the article, and that is lacking here. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep This is already at Start class for the Schools project and it fulfills the Policies. There is no consensus on school notability, although you could visti the AfD for the other Ponderosa Elementary School and learn that "no schools are notable."--Hjal 07:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Soft keep -- This recurses (again) to the issue of whether Wiki includes schools per se, if so, which levels of schools are (and are not) deemed notable, and whether schools outside these criteria should be included when they have independent notability -- issues which, properly, need policy rather than endless discussion -- Simon Cursitor 11:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
'Delete. This is a good example of what is not sufficient for notability. The entire information is trivial list type data: locate, date of building, the number of playing fields, the scores on standardized tests, the 100% standardized "vision statement" the racial breakdown, the class schedule--that one keeps showing up & it still startles me--what can possibly be notable about the time that any school says the pledge of allegiance? At least it won't need as much upkeep as some, for it doesn't include the names of each teacher & the class presidents.

What would be the equivalent for a business organization? the size of the building and the parking lot, the names of the manager, the working hours, that they intend to make money, & when they were founded? - hopeful businesses keep writing such articles, and they all get speedied.

So what would be sufficient for a school? Really distinctive program or building or founders--famous alumni--test site for important eduational research--major news story for one reason or another. (If we were to accept the first school in each state as N, we might get a total of 100 US elementary schools.) Just the same criteria as for every organization. So why do we have these schools without anything to say? do we need a rule that WP is notaclassroomexercise?

- and, there are no independent non-trivial sources. Their website and the one for the district. The profile on Greatschools.net, which is about as distinctive as myspace, and references to where they found the test scores, the demographics, and the vision statement. Every one of these are trivial, non-indpenendent, or both. Even for those who think most or all elementary schools notable, there's still this problem about RS. The distinction for N is not which level school, but the individual school. This and below are the ones that fail. DGG 03:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This article fulfills attribution requirements and the subject itself appears notable enough for an electronic encyclopedia. Burntsauce 17:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. South City High and El Camino High are in the same districts as Pondo, and they have the same format, but they're listed for deletion. Derrty2033 23:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
comment I think you meant not listed, but they're every bit as formulaic as this, and just as deserving. Still I think it better to go one at a time, because some will be notable. DGG 04:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The article does not meet the criteria in the proposed WP:SCHOOLS. There are no good references. The fact that there are two high schools with articles is of no importance in this discussion. Previous consensus decisions in this area tend to keep high schools and delete other schools unless they show some significant notability. If the consensus is leaning to keep, then I would say Strong Merge rather then keeping as an independent article.. Vegaswikian 02:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Alkivar, etc. --Myles Long 18:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Alkivar, schools are usualy notable enough. bbx 01:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

R.O.C.K. Solid (book store)

non-notable John Foxe 22:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

comment has anyone provided notice to the creator of this article? He/she is the only editor besides an annon. It is considered civil for the initiator of the AfD to provide notice to the creator and significant contributors. This is seldom actually done. If the lister does not do this by tomorrow I will provide the notice if I am able. Maybe he/she can provide source to demonstrate notability.Edivorce 16:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
delete. I take responsibility for originating the AfD (incompletely I'm sorry to say), and I have now provided notice to the creator/significant contributor. This article looks like an advertisement, a "yellow page" listing.

Delete - no secondary sources; I can find nothing on Google to stand up notability, Bridgeplayer 22:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
comment Thank you user:John Foxe for providing notice. Edivorce 21:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The Handzy Show

not-notable web "show" JohnCub 23:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete hopelessly non-notable YouTube videos. The "special" described as a "the viewers favourite" in the article has been viewed just 97 times on YouTube, and only has 3 comments (2 of which are from the same person and none of which is more than 5 words). Others in the series fare even worse, with "episode two" having just 16 views. Considering some YouTube videos have tens of millions of views, this is just pathetic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence of notability whatsoever. DWaterson 15:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete You've made your point - go ahead and delete Jimbo91uk 17:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete I thought I better watch one so I sat through Episode 2, Part 1 and to say that it was dire would be a flattering comment. However, my delete view is based not on that but on the lack of secondary sources attesting to notability. Bridgeplayer 23:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As a comment, if someone hasn't watched the video, how can s/he tell if it qualifies for notability; if s/he has, how can they express an unbiased view ? Delete unless a verified review can be sourced -- Simon Cursitor 11:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was Delete. Avi 04:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Tyreke Evans

Subject fails WP:BIO, as he is still just a high school basketball player and has not "played at the highest level of competition" Thomas.macmillan 21:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. WP:BIO states "This list is only a guideline, and should not be used an absolute test of notability; each article should stand or fall on its own merits.". Subject has been featured in a major publication as being an "exceptional teenage athlete". Patken4 18:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. See User:Patken4. --Bender235 20:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Being in SI is nice, but not adequate on its own. Since the depth of coverage is poor and he has yet to play professionally, an article isn't justified. Valrith 20:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - many kids in many sports get profiles on their potential. However, notability comes from achieving something and so far he has not played professionally. Bridgeplayer 21:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete I draw the minimum line of notability for high school basketballers at the McDonald's All-Americans, and it'll be at least until next year before Tyreke can make that claim. A lot can happen to a prep sports star between now and then. Caknuck 00:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was Nomination withdrawn -O bli (Talk) 01:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Unique Party

Nominated for Deletion Reason: I dont see any real notability to this article anymore due to that the party totally failed in the election. And no one does really know if they even exist anymore. And Linda Rosing is out of party as a leader and only a member.--Matrix17 14:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Strangnet 15:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC) - even though they might not be active and their current media exposure is close to none and it's unsure whether they'll run in future elections the article still has historical value. Their existance in history can't be wiped away simply because they've ceased to exist.

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep, participation of a party in an election should warrant enough notability. As a second choice, redirect it to Linda Rosing. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Linda Rosing. I can't speak for Swedish politics but here in the UK we have dozens of one-person parties standing in general elections most of which are profoundly non-notable. A redirect allows the minimal details to be found and the article can be recreated if it becomes notable in the future. Bridgeplayer 21:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: i guess its best to close the discussion now. and just let it be on.--Matrix17 13:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was Delete. Avi 04:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

William Olin

Not notable → R Young {ł_talk} 13:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

A 102-year-old man who claims to be a WWI veteran, but for whom no proof has been offered, is not notable.→ R Young {ł_talk} 13:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. That would be stupid if his claim were to be proven in the near future, but the article was deleted meanwhile, Robert. Extremely sexy 17:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. He appears to be hoax (see surviving veterans of World War I). I will change vote if a reference appears. -- TedFrank 13:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay: reference coming up in due course. Extremely sexy 20:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete on basis of existing stub. However, if there's a verifiable source for the claim in his article, he's probably notable. --Dweller 15:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Will you change vote as well then? Extremely sexy 20:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  - In my opinion, it is only the claim in the first sentence that stops this article from being speedy deleted. That claim is what needs to be cited. If it is, I and any other reasonable Wikipedian would vote Keep. Hope that's clear. --Dweller 11:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Indeed so: if I were to find one, and I am looking for this. Extremely sexy 11:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Fails Misplaced Pages:Attribution#Reliable_sources. Will reconsider if/when I see the reference. Bridgeplayer 21:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Understood: I am trying to fulfill this. Extremely sexy 21:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I understand that this man claimed to be a WWI veteran, but no evidence has been produced, and, in fact, the claim is listed on the 'Surviving Veterans' page as UNVERIFIED.→ R Young {ł_talk} 03:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's right, but I'm still trying to find a reference though. Extremely sexy 14:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  - You're running out of time - AfDs don't last forever. --Dweller 15:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Damn: I'm working on it as fast as I can, but don't they (just joking)? Extremely sexy 15:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Challenge of Qur'an

This article appears to exist only to promote Islam. Not encyclopediac content. Zazaban 18:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Per above. Zazaban 18:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. What a mess. Delete Cgingold 21:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Criticism of the Qur'an. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge any useful content to Criticism of the Qur'an (not sure if there is much), then redirect. Hut 8.5 17:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Note that thing isn't a criticism of the Qur'an, it is an attempt to prove Islam using common criticisms that are already in the Criticism of the Qur'an article. Zazaban 19:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, simply redirect. No deletion is required for that. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 00:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Poor article, possibly anti-muslim, or even just horribly biased.--Lostcause365 00:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete religioncruft. And am I the only one who thought of this when I saw the article title? JuJube 04:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Criticism of the Qur'an. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - nothing to merge Summary of this article: Muslims believe the Qur'an is the word of God; non-Muslims don't; non-Muslims are wrong. Fails WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, WP:NOR, WP:ATT. There is no content worth merging. --Folantin 13:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment My sentiments exactly.

Delete per Folantin. --pIrish 17:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete ditto Folantin. -- Big Brother 1984 20:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
delete Clear unsourced propaganda garbage. It would be far easier to delete than to fix.--Sefringle 23:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per WP:NFT, Misplaced Pages is not for things dreamt up in propaganda class one day. Moreschi 10:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - unencyclopedic and addled quote farm.Proabivouac 04:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - possible offensive, and even the title doesn't make much sense - "Challenge of Qu'ran" - delete asap. Thedreamdied 14:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The result was no consensus for any action. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ciudad Real Torre Solar

Ciudad Real Torre Solar is yet another attempt of promotion of the Solar Tower®. For an extensive discussion of this issue, see Talk:Solar updraft tower as well as Talk:Energy tower (downdraft). There have been numerous attempts to promote this technology on Misplaced Pages pages, apparently trying to influence public opinion to raise money, be it from public or private sources. Looking carefully over the published material one quickly finds out that the energy conversion efficiency of the Solar Tower is far lower than competing solar thermal energy technology, and that the Cost of Energy (cents/kWh) is likely to end up 5x higher than other alternative sources of energy. Now the Ciudad Real Torre Solar is being promoted, an apparent attempt to promote yet another version of the Solar Tower. The only source of information is a blog, AFAIK there are no concrete plans to built one, all there is is a "proposal". So until it is actually built, and in working order this should be considered "promotion", and does not belong in Misplaced Pages JdH 13:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your trying to rein in the wikispammers, but this AfD nomination sounds dangerously like WP:OR to me. Objections to the cost or conversion efficiency have nothing to do with the notability of the tower in question. If the tower has been seriously proposed, and if it has been written about in reliable sources, it deserves an entry. This looks quite real to me; see e.g. and . These sources should probably be added, but I will leave that for someone more fluent. Keep. bikeable (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think keep the entries, but the current ones may need some serious fixup. Just because a topic is considered pseudoscience by some, or because a method of doing something is not the best(most efficient, most profitable) method of doing something, it does not mean it does not belong to wikipedia. On the contrary - the downsides and current consensus/dissent about the topic should be well presented, so that when one will leaves well informed after reading the wikipedia page on this topic, instead of empty handed (empty-brained?). I my personal opinion think the current pages need some serious balancing from the technical and financial difficulties side, in comparison with other technologies - same goes for the solar pond idea - but that does not mean an article has no place in wikipedia. Sometimes a bad article with lots of warnings is better than no article at all, at least for a start. Go back to the very early history on a lot of articles. Many started with 2 sentences, and were considered bad articles, but after about 3 years they often get nominated to front page. Keep. Sillybilly 00:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There is already an article devoted to the technology, see Solar updraft tower. There is no need to expand the present article to describe that technology; that would merely be duplicating what is (or should) be in the other article. The Ciudad Real Torre Solar is about a specific proposal to built on of these in Spain, but is lacking reliable sources to show that it will actually happen. JdH 00:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

These articles talk only about a proposal, AFAIK there is no evidence that funding has been secured, and that actual progress towards its construction is being made. In view of the track record of EnviroMission about proposed Solar Towers that have never been built I don't believe this one either until I actual see it. JdH 16:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Non-existent and non-notable, as evidenced by the lack of any independent coverage from reliable sources. Valrith 20:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete purely on the grounds that it has not yet been built. It almost certainly will be N if they ever do build it. A great many projects get approved that never get actually built. Not just theirs'. DGG 00:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This stub appears to have been created as part of a commendable project to create articles from all the entries in a website (cited in the external links section) listing the tallest buildings, both proposed and actual. The proposal appears to be encyclopedic to me... People are likely to come here looking for it, even (perhaps especially) if it goes the way of Solar Tower Buronga. We have articles on many proposals that are unlikely to ever be built, see Category:proposed engine designs. Andrewa 02:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is a valid reason for having a separate entry: Misplaced Pages is not a directory; people can always turn to Google or other search engines if they want to find something on the internet. JdH 15:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As pointed out above, being pseudoscience (or considered as such) is not a reason to delete - it can be nonsense, as long as it's notable nonsense. However, I don't believe non-English language news stories make something notable, and that's the closest it's got to sources. Even if they were English I'd be inclined to suspect that the writers were simply repeating something they heard from a company representative. (That's based on a Google translation - it's hard to tell from a machine translation, but it didn't look like more than regurgitation of company claims). It probably deserves to be deleted, but moderation is good, and a more moderate approach is to Keep and merge with Solar updraft tower. --Chriswaterguy talk 14:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I accept Merge and redirect with Solar updraft tower JdH 15:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

- Comment: I don't think we need Babel Fish to tell us what Parece de ciencia ficción means...! No change of vote. Andrewa 03:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  - We don't? I do! I speak no Spanish. --Chriswaterguy talk 15:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Nor do I. But say ciencia ficción with a put-on Spanish accent (pretend the single "c" is an "s" and the double "c" is an "x") and ask another English speaker what you've said and I think it will come close... (;-> Andrewa 02:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The Spanish-language sources non-trivially cover the subject, establishing the notability of the subject. I am shocked by the claim that "non-English language news stories" cannot make something notable! Are news reports written by Spaniards or Latin Americans somehow inferior to reports written by Anglophones? I realise this racist/nationalist sentiment is not what Chriswaterguy intended, but there's really no reason why a source in one language is inherently inferior to a source in another. Merging the limited content of this article into solar updraft tower may be justified, but is an editorial matter for the talk page. -- Black Falcon 04:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Pray tell me: If this Spanish language news story were all that notable then why did not a single English language news source bother to report it? I also checked Dutch, German, and French language news sources, and they didn't report it either.
For the record: Chriswaterguy said the following: "... it didn't look like more than regurgitation of company claims" JdH 06:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't news sources in other languages report it? I don't know but that question is irrelevant. I'm sure news sources in Kinyarwanda or Wolof also didn't report the story ... A language is a language. What is relevant is that at least two independent sources have non-trivially reported on the subject (and "looking like" a "regurgitation of company claims"--a disputable claim--is not the same as being a press release). -- Black Falcon 16:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, or merge/redirect to Solar updraft tower if better sources can be found. --DeLarge 10:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. No reason has been presented to suspect that these sources are not reliable (they are as far as I can tell) except that they are in Spanish. In any case, I have formatted them as references and incorporated them into the article (slightly expanded). -- Black Falcon 17:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge. There is a section in Solar updraft tower on a proposed tower in Australia. This article should be merged into that section as another example of a proposed tower. SkipSmith 18:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It is unlikely the Solar Tower Buronga will ever be built, since EnviroMission did not get the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund (LETDF) grant from the Australian government. Perhaps we should change the header of that section to "Proposed but never realized Solar Towers". JdH 18:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Titoxd 08:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Gears of War Multiplayer

WP:NOT - WP is not a game guide The content is strictly stuff one would find in a GameFAQ or similar manual, regardless of the quality of writing. The technical information about Gears of War multiplayer is already covered in the main article Gears of War Masem 13:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Gears of War, but no info needs to be merged. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Transwiki somewhere. This is good info, useful, pretty well-written, and should be preserved somewhere. WP isn't the place for gameplay guides though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge what is worth keeping. Most of this is gameguide material though, so that should be Deleted.DreamingLady 18:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge encyclopedic content, then transwiki. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I disagree that this is well written (at least for any kind of encyclopedia); the lead is very POV, there are parts written in the first person (!), and it is obviously a how-to. I think it can be redirected to Gears of War without any merging. — brighterorange (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, I don't really see any encyclopedic info here that won't already be in the main article. I've kept a copy at StrategyWiki:Gears of War/Multiplayer. Garrett 03:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - No encyclopedic information in this one. Straight-out game guide. --Scottie_theNerd 02:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - There might be a need for a separate article on multiplayer modes in some video games, but there is nothing salvageable here. Wickethewok 14:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete WP:NOT a game guide. Cynical 22:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was speedy deleted (A7) by ChrisGriswold. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Card (Businessman)

This article meets no notability criteria and cites no sources HokieRNB 13:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete WP:BIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable businessman. Serving on the board of non-notable professional organizations doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Caknuck 23:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Article doesn't even make any claims of notability. Mwelch 23:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Caknuck. Maxamegalon2000 05:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was Delete as a non-notable hoax. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hurley-Pugh

Apparent hoax Eddie.willers 21:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment, not a hoax see http://www.hurley-pugh.co.uk here Alf 22:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment in response. Excuse me, the website is a hoax. Also, see the text at the bottom of the source code for the article: hoax|reason=Anything concerning the Hurley Pugh is entirely fictional. The purpose of any related documentation and anecdotes concerning the Hurley Pugh is intended to satirise the British motorcycle manufacturing industry. The marque was invented for the purposes of entertainment only. The article does appear to be suitable for Misplaced Pages, but more sources are needed to determine that it is a fictional bike
  - Further Comments This is a very clever hoax that seems to have fooled a lot of people. Let's look at some additional 'evidence' from the quoted website and Fisk a few comments...
The site claims that the factory archives were discovered in the "Linenhall Thinking Orangemen's Library" in Belfast. There is no such place but this is clearly a reference to the real Linen Hall Library in that same town.
The site claims that a military version of one machine, the HP90AM 1600, had a mounting for a Bren Gun. The Bren gun did not enter service until 1938, was a two-man weapon, and only ever vehicle mounted on to conventional four-wheel armoured troop carriers.
The site claims to have recordings from the works canteen - assuming that the 'company' ceased trading in 1943 then how were these recordings made in the days before magnetic tape, and the common use of the wire recorder?
The rider Sidney "Forelock" Tuggings has a short biography in which it is claimed he served in the Royal Engineers and attained the rank of Acting Lance-Sapper - there is not,and never was, any such rank.
- - - Ohhh, god...need I go on? The will to live is slipping awaaaaay.....Eddie.willers 01:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      - BUT WAIT, there's more! The Hurley-Pugh website is registered to a Mr Ivor Benjamin of London, E8. Its registration date coincides with the demise of the magazine 'Motorcycle International' - who carried spoof articles under the name 'Fettler'. Ivor Benjamin is also involved in other spoof projects such as this spoof Christmas letter (that namechecks Hurley-Pugh) at http://www.gland.freeserve.co.uk/gfxmas99.html
Keep, but the article should be clear that it is a hoax, albeit a very clever and detailed one. HokieRNB 02:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep but rename Hurley-Pugh Hoax. Instead of superficially checking the internet I should have checked my brand catalog, sorry. It is interesting just to show how far a hoax can go over the internet. Then again I should have seen that it is a hoax by just reading the page until the 10 cylinder bike. As far as I know the most cylinders ever on a motorcycle were seven (star engine in the front wheel) around 1890 Alf 13:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Do we have sufficient third-party coverage of this hoax to keep the article? This does not seem so clear to me. But in any case, the article in its current form is entirely unacceptable as it is participating in the hoax rather than uncovering and detailing it as it should. I suggest that if this is kept, the article be indeed moved to Hurley-Pugh Hoax and edited accordingly. Pascal.Tesson 20:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 07:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless it can be established that this is a "notable" hoax. If kept, I agree with Alf Photoman that the article should identify it as a hoax. OhNoitsJamie 03:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
'Weak Keep and Rename per Alf_photoman to Hurley-Pugh hoax. —SaxTeacher (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
delete - It's been a week and nobody has established that it is a notable hoax; and even if it was, it would still fall to someone to re-write the article to make its hoaxiness clear. Nobody is volunteering, so let's get rid of it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The result was Speedy redirect to Meta noise. The article was obviously intended to be a duplicate but should be a redirection. - Richard Cavell 23:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Meta noise (Metadata recording)

Duplicate of Meta noise greenrd 14:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete as duplicate article. FiggyBee 19:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was keep. WjBscribe 22:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

TMB Optical

I don't think either this article or the cited sources sufficiently establish this company's notability. NawlinWiki 14:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete As with the speedy, i agree. However, since the author may still be able to gather more references, i added {{importance}}.
Keep. I am the original author of that stub. (Note: I do not understand why the article's talk page was deleted where I explained the inappropriateness of speedy deletion.) As for the content question, TMB is among the top five or so manufacturers in the high end segment of the amateur astronomy market and is a household name among amateur astronomers like Apple is to Computer users. Give me another day to find sources that demonstrate this, then kindly reconsider your nomination. Kosebamse 17:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Addendum It has been surprisingly hard to find referenceable information, so I'll keep the stub as it is for now. I still don't think it's insufficient but that's not for me to decide. Kosebamse 12:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep. The article is a stub, and should be kept if references can be found and added. However, notability must be asserted. --soum (0_o) 10:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep, Google appears to back up Kosebamse re notability as their products are near the top of every astronomical equipment catalogue I've looked at. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Artaxiad 21:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Carmen Hayes

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 14:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. Dekkappai 19:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Nearly 100 films, three independent, reliable sources. This is an article on a celebrity, not a vanity page. Clearly passes WP:BIO. Dekkappai 21:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Meets WP:PORNBIO Q2 (more than 75 films) as well as VC4 (prolific in a specific subgenre - in this case, Ebony, based upon her filmography) LaMenta3 02:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per everyone else. Acalamari 22:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep meets pornbio standards. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per all of the above, meets both WP:BIO and porn bio guidelines. RFerreira 03:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was super speedy snowball barbecue keep. Picaroon 20:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Keeley Hazell

Delete This article does not meet the standards of an encyclopedia. In addition, the link to the Keeley Hazell unofficial website may be used to solicite visits or income from users of the Misplaced Pages. Remember, the idea of the AfD process is to build consensus. So, support this deletion nomination, or vote to overturn, but do so with style and grace. Bluestripe 14:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep - I removed the prod tag that the nominator put on the page. She is known not only in the UK but also the U.S. for her modelling. Not only has she appeared in The Sun in the UK but also in the U.S. edition of Playboy. Granted, it was only one photo and a small bit of text but it demonstrates that she is internationally known. The modelling section of the article shows why she is notable. The polls and honours section just nails the lid on the case. Dismas| 14:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Clearly notable. Not a very good article, but that's not grounds for deletion. --Dweller 15:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep per Dweller and Dismas. Pablothegreat85 16:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. Very notable. Lack of content can be rectified by someone writing new material. 23skidoo 20:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep Keeley Hazell is very notable. Acalamari 20:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Lithician Empire

There are no Google hits for the subject of the article or for any of the people named in it. The article is incoherent - e.g. the last section has warriors marching into Gaul (France) in order to attack Carthage (Africa). There are no references. andy 14:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete Patent nonsense. This is just a hoax. --Folantin 14:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. Hut 8.5 17:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a hoax. --Haemo 23:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Obvious hoax. Hawkestone 00:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as patent nonsense sounds about right to me. RFerreira 03:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually I was going to mark it as nonsense originally but then I read the policy on hoaxing and got nervous. Maybe France really is part of Africa... andy 07:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Pavel Vozenilek 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I've now tagged it as {{db-nonsense}}. andy 17:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

AaNet

Article has no independent source and fails to source its statements. and per Jimbo no text is better than having unsourced Betacommand 15:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment it seems a little WP:POINT to put an article up for deletion solely because it doesn't have any independent references, especially when the article contains no bold or controversial claims (even a little detective work will confirm that aaNet at least exists). FiggyBee 18:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. PCock 11:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per CSD:A7. "An internet provider in Queensland" is not an assertion of notability. Αργυριου (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)