Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 26

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chooserr (talk | contribs) at 01:55, 26 January 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:55, 26 January 2007 by Chooserr (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

< January 25	January 27 >

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 Unplug amplifier and delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The Perfect Mistake

Subject of the article does not meet guidelines for notability of WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 00:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

delete "They are currently the top unsigned band in America," sounds notable, but its not cited, and the only source appears to be the bands myspace site. Agree that it doesn't show notablitly. SGGH 00:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - no record label, no releases, no news articles and satisfies non of the other music notability points - Peripitus (Talk) 00:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Definitely appears to not meet WP:MUSIC. Hello32020 00:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
keep they were on fuse, that's important enough —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickmanning214 (talk • contribs).
Delete clearly fails WP:MUSIC. Gwernol 02:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unless someone can produce a reference to the Fuse show that's not trivial and not self-promotion it's, WP:NFT Savant45 07:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I'm googling, but I'm not finding anything useful in the way of non-trivial references to help this band pass WP:MUSIC. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per FisherQueen. Gan fon 13:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:MUSIC JCO312 17:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per nom as well as some minor NPOV issues and not cited, meets my criteria! Tellyaddict 17:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
They did win the Fuse contest, according to Fuse itself, but I still see only passing mentions of them everywhere else, and that means they're not quite there. Delete with no prejudice to recreation if they do make it. (And A Step In The Right Direction (Album) needs to go, no ifs, ands or buts - EPs by minimally notable bands definitely don't deserve their own pages.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BAND. Only has a myspace link. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 07:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wolfson Public Relations

Subject of article does not meet the guidelines for notability of WP:ORG or WP:CORP. Possibly an advertisement trying to pass as an encyclopedia article Nv8200p talk 00:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As the article currently stands, I'd say Delete, as it reads more like a corporate resume than something encyclopedic. I can be made to change my mind, however, so if somebody can dredge up a few good reliable sources of ], I'd be game for a keep !vote. --Dennisthe2 00:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as spam given the substance + article creator and tagged as such - Peripitus (Talk) 00:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence of notability provided. No sources. No WP:V. --Shirahadasha 02:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete promotional, per WP:CSD G11 Tom Harrison 02:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The result was Merge Cool Hand Luke 21:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Critics and rivals of Bill O'Reilly

Seems like an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm indifferent to Bill O'Reilly but do we need some sort of "rogue's gallery" of people who do not like the guy? Should we have Critics and rivals of Howard Stern? Or how about List of people who don't like buttermilk? Arthur Fonzarelli 00:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

comment Certainly is 'an indiscriminate collection of information', has alot of refs but thats just because its info from a lot of critics newspaper articles and such. There are calls for articles on "criticism of..." but they are needed when the parent article is VERY significan, like the Bush presidency or something. Then again, it's valid, referenced info, but it needs to be moved/merged/cleaned up or something if its going to stand on its feet.... argh, I'm torn. SGGH 00:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep but rename to more common Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (e.g. Criticism of George W. Bush, Criticism of Misplaced Pages). --Dhartung | Talk 00:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion why not cut out all the waffle and merge into Bill O'Reilly (commentator)? --Nick Dowling 00:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Rename per Dhartung. Soltak | Talk 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rename per Dhartung. The information here is well-written, well-sourced, and would be far too unwieldy to incorporate into the main article. Seventypercent 00:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Bill O'Reilly. This article and Bill O'Reilly controversies should not be forked from the main article. Encyclopedia articles are meant to summarize and help the reader get a basic idea of the subject to facilitate further research, not present every quote and every bit of information. Here's a choice quote: While not a fierce or long-standing critic, conservative pundit Tucker Carlson has occasionally criticized O'Reilly's statements as being "over the top". Who cares? Take this crap to POVWarriorPedia. --- RockMFR 01:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Bill O'Reilly controversies and Rename the merged article to Criticisms of Bill O'Reilly. There seems to be some duplication between the two articles, but each contains some unique information. However, once merged, the article would need heavy pruning and rewriting to be encyclopedic. Unfortunately, the main Bill O'Reilly article is already large enough to spawn several sub-articles, so I don't think merging there would be much of a solution. There's already precident for criticism forks per Criticism of Mormonism, among others. -- Kesh 01:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Rename per Dhartung. FireSpike 01:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Bill O'Reilly. Criticism of controversial figures is a legitimate subject, but a controversy has to be particularly significant for a criticism article to be spun off. If separate criticism is kept, Rename to Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (standard label). In either case rewrite to summarize and focus on key criticisms rather than listing key critics. Shorten. --Shirahadasha 02:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge cause I'm a lemming. (And they make good points.) Kyaa the Catlord 02:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Combine with Bill O'Reilly controversies and make it Criticism of Bill O'Reilly per above statements. I proposed this sort of thing on the article's talk page but there was no response. Anyway, this was split from the controversies article because of how large it became. I think the two articles can be truncated to form a more solid article. MrMurph101 03:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Rename per Dhartung. --Pixelface 03:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge and rename with Bill O'Reilly controversies to Criticisms of Bill O'Reilly as described by Kesh, to keep the main Bill O'Reilly from becoming overlong with controversies but to keep the important and well-referenced information in these articles on Wiki. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge and Rename per Kesh. JCO312 17:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Misplaced Pages is not a place for lists of rivals made by people. Not really very notable, I think should go. Tellyaddict 17:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Seems to fall into WP:NOT#DIR. Of course an outspoken national political talk show host (could one be a national political talk show host without being outspoken?) has his critics. Does there need to be more than a paragraph or 2 of the SIGNIFICANT criticisms? "O'Reilly has been criticized for his view of X by Mr.Y and Ms. Z". Maybe it should be renamed to "What others think of Bill O'Reilly" so that advocates and proponents can have their say without adding another separate article. Kill it. --JJLatWiki 17:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete or merge. Doesn't seem notable enough to merit its own entry.Caliwiki123 19:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rename per Dhartung. Edison 19:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Bill O'Reilly. The article doesn't need to be forked. 72.150.232.144 21:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Bill O'Reilly. If the section gets big enough, you can fork it then. Just H 03:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge and Rename per Kesh. Netuser500 00:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom reasons. Cricket02 04:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge and Rename per Kesh (i.e. with "controversies"). Marm 09:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Rename per Dhartung. NTXweather 04:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The result was Take away the finger paints. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Vlada Frey

This article makes no claim for no notability. A google search returns three sites: one Italian site that seems to be soccer-related, another Serbian, the third could be Croatian. Anyway, definately not enough to establish notability, unless those Serbian and Croatian(?) sites are somehow really important. Carabinieri 00:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - unless notability established/references are provided. Just FYI, there is a very notable Vladimir Stojković, but he is a football goalkeeper and most certainly not this guy :) // Laughing Man 01:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete for lack of evidence of notability unless sources provided per WP:BIO. --Shirahadasha 02:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep - This man deserve to have page on wikipedia, he may be the leader of the new artistic wave, obscure, yes, some times even scary, but free and passionate, strong and fresh, and what's most important - different! In this sea of mediocre, this guy is bringing something new. Currently he is only popular in the underground circles, as the article states, but wee can only hope that it will emerge and open eyes for many so called artists, and bring something new to this commercialized and conservative culture. There are so many things in the thrash-art that tell us of ourselves and our lives, it is sad that people failed to see it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steff infidel (talk • contribs) 03:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC).— Steff infidel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note Steff infidel is the creator of this article. SkierRMH 21:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - If he's only popular underground, he does not satisfy WP:N or WP:BAND. We can't have articles on people who might be famous one day; Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. Given that, I'd say this one can be speedied per WP:SNOW. -- Kesh 04:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep I must disagree with you people. Vlada Frey is very popular in the alternative art scene in Serbia. The reason he is not listed on many web pages is because Vlada is quite repulsive towards Serbia's modern art and culture overall, thus being in disagreement with many of Serbian artists and art galleries. But that does not mean he is not popular. Many alternative and abstract artists consider him a genius. When one of the users mentioned Frey as "underground" artist, he clearly meant different, a little bit anarchistic and anti-commercial. Just like punk and metal music. And I see these two music genre's, even though, considered "underground", have large articles on wikipedia, as well as many of the bands playing this music. Vladimir Stojkovic Frey is playing a huge part in Serbian performance art of today, and he deserves place on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vuk Filipovic (talk • contribs) 04:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC). — Vuk Filipovic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment - Unless you can cite reliable sources to claim he is well known, he does not satisfy WP:N or WP:BAND. Also, no one deserves a place on Misplaced Pages. There are strict policies about adding articles for living persons, and Vlada Frey does not appear to satisfy those policies. -- Kesh 04:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Okay, I'm feeling very negative emotions, and anger coming from the user called "Kesh". Listen dude, I don't know if you have anything against Serbian art, culture or people overall, but if you do, I think you should keep it to yourself. Just because you haven't heard of someone, and I presume you haven't got all the knowledge of the world, that does not mean that person doesn't exist. With comments like that you are disrespecting Vlada's art and everything he is fighting. When I sad that Frey deserves a place in wikipedia, I just wanted to make regard, that if whole "underground" punk and gothic scene can find it's place here, one talented performance artist surely can. All I have for "evidence" is complete Vlada's discography. If that will make you feel any more convinced, I will upload it.
  - Calm down. He's just stating policy. I'm sure Vlada is a great guy, and I'm sure he exists. I'm also sure Kesh just loves Serbian culture and has an entire collection of Serbian folk records. We're not doubting he exists, but the article needs to assert notability, and it doesn't. What you need to do, to try and keep this article, is find an independent source to back up the claims. Go to WP:BAND, find the criteria he meets it under, and give us a source. Even if he's entirely underground, if he's leading a new artistic movement, somebody has to have written an article on him. (And sign your posts, please)--UsaSatsui 14:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Well, I have no negative emotions about either Vlada Frey or the Serbian people in general. I'm just pointing out that this particular musician does not fit Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion in an article. I've known underground bands that I loved, but they're not notable enough to put on Misplaced Pages either. No disrespect is intended, but I have to be blunt: he does not satisfy the requirements for having an article here. Yet. Maybe one day, he will. As for your evidence, a discography doesn't help satisfy WP:BAND. We need articles published in reliable sources about the artist and/or his work. -- Kesh 22:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Absolutely no references, let alone citations. Nothing written in the article indicates any real notability and the article reads as if it was written by a close friend of his. He may eventually become notable, but isn't as of now. --The Way 06:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. Zero references, no assertion of notability. Reading the article, this person appears to be a college student who has made a handful of self-produced albums, which does not satisfy WP:MUSIC. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. --UsaSatsui 14:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per FisherQueen's reasoning. JCO312 17:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Definitely Delete The article does seriously lack notability and is generally not really relevant to Misplaced Pages. Tellyaddict 17:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per FisherQueen. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - clearly fails WP:BAND for now. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 07:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What is with you people?So many people are fans of Vladas art,and what is wrong with wanting for whole world to know him.He is a fine young man,passionate and wise.We know of him in Australia too.He has this original vission of future and you will regret that you dont understand him now.Look at the Van Gogh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delirium S (talk • contribs) 12:05, January 28, 2007

Van Gogh is notable because many others have independently recognized his work. That is not the case with Frey (yet).--UsaSatsui 21:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Punkmorten 19:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Combat Submission Wrestling

deleteThe founder of the system was recently deleted for being non-notable. Stands to reason what he founded would be the same. Peter Rehse 07:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

delete It appears that Paulson started a wrestling dojo and decided to market it as 'his unique blend of traditions from around the world'. People do this all the time. I found a couple of training/fitness DVDs, and minor references under ADCC (which appears to be the Olympics of submission wrestling), but nothing that would really cinche it as encyclopedic. If the style catches on I would say that it might become notable, but as it stands I vote not. Eldereft 01:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Appears totally non-notable, verging on self-promotion. --Haemo 02:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence of notability. No sources. --Shirahadasha 02:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No assertion of notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete no assertion of notability. JCO312 17:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not much relevant info so it lacks a lot of notability. Tellyaddict 17:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Lacking sources which with this sort of article is quite essential, so hence any sort of possible notability can't be verified. Bungle44 17:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Punkmorten 19:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

WikyBlog

Does not appear to meet WP:SOFTWARE. Previously prodded - tag removed by article creator. Policy explained on article talk page, but no references forthcoming. I am unable to find anything that suggests notability myself. CiaranG 20:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Given that no other guests have come to the party, including the author/de-prodder, I whole-heartedly support my own nomination. CiaranG 23:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 07:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a fairly innovative use of Mediawiki, but non-notable and does not satisfy WP:WEB. Delete. -- Kesh 01:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. --- RockMFR 01:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per RockMFR. --Dhartung | Talk 01:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No sources provided. No assertion or evidence of notability. No attempt to meet WP:SOFT. --Shirahadasha 02:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I doubt it exsists, from the evidence of 'Wiki' blog. No sources and fails to meet the policies. Retiono Virginian 17:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The result was keep due to improvements. Also, the book about Nelson, and the two interviews linked at the end of the article are enough to satisfy WP:V. ···日本穣 03:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Chris Nelson (photographer)

This was spun off, apparently, from content in Bear community or something like that, but I'm not sure it merits its own page. I tagged it for speedy, but it was contested... I brought up the following concerns on the talk page:

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person- sources? A google search only turned up the politician.
In addition, for authors, which you've added: Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. - can you direct me to independent reviews? And Amazon.com-esque and user-submitted ones don't count. He has not so far responded to these concerns. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 16:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Big top 02:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Lack of proper sources and highly questionable notability. Furthermore, the article is written as if it was lifted straight from promotional materials and may possibly also have copywrite problems. --The Way 06:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless properly referenced and sourced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete poorly referenced and lacking assertion of importanceDogJesterExtra 18:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Do Not Delete major edit to Wikify Newstruck 19:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The article has been improved since it was nominated for deletion. --Eastmain 22:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It still suffers from a total lack of proper sources so it still needs to be deleted. --The Way 02:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Lack of sources is not a valid reason to delete an entire article. The fact that this man's work has had a book written about it seems to me to make him notable. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Lack of sources is absolutely a valid reason to delete an article. Read the policies -- if it's not WP:Verifiable with reliable sources, then it's not appropriate. /Blaxthos

No, an article must be verifiable not verified. If an article is notable, than it should be kept, and any non-sourced information removed. Read the policy before claiming you know what's in them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete, nonnotable as above, fails WP:RS Cricket02 05:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Cool Hand Luke 22:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The result was Relisting in individual AFDs. —— Eagle101 03:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

- Please note this will take me a few moments. —— Eagle101 03:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The End.

Non notable song. Not released as a single.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

FLW and WTTBP are both singles, so I crossed them out. icelandic hur ric ane #12 _(talk) 01:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Richmeister_talk 01:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

keep they were realesed on CD's...good enough for me Nickmanning214 01:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not crazy about this nomination. That's a lot rolled up into one, and it's not like songs are a straightforward issue. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep and close. Too many songs for one AFD. These should be relisted individually. --Dennisthe2 02:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Unless we want to eliminate most individual song articles, or which there are many... IronDuke 03:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment I do doubt that every song on The Black Parade requires an article, especially the b-sides. Though there does appear to be original research in the form of lyrical interpretation and speculative trivia, you should have done some more research yourself (not nominating the prominent singles). Pomte 03:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

My bad. Forgot to remove them from the list. --Richmeister_talk 04:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Relist individually before we move on per Dennisthe2 - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 06:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete While I'm not completely opposed to relisting, I am really skeptical that any of these would survive individual AfD's. Not many individual songs are notable enough to have their own articles; the album they appear on should be sufficient. Granted, there are certainly notable enough songs (Stairway to Heaven, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Wish You Were Here, for example, but I doubt any song by My Chemical Romance is. However, if any of these songs are particularly noteworthy (have they garned special attention by the media? have they been made into a single?) then someone should point it out. --The Way 06:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep to relist, several of these items should be merged instead. hateless 06:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Relist if you must. "Not released as a single" is not good enough, per The Way, although yes, I would be surprised if any of these turn out to be notable. However, for any that aren't Keeps, Merge/Redirect would probably be the better option anyway, which doesn't require an AfD. CiaranG 08:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Further comment - there is of course an undeniably notable song called The End, also not a single. CiaranG 08:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget

Relist individually. What's really needed is some kind of consensus on notability of songs at WP:MUSIC- I've been puzzled about what to do with articles like these before. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is the 'inactive' Misplaced Pages:Notability (songs) which perhaps ought not to be inactive, though I don't know the history. Interestingly, if you browse the talk page there, you will find a discussion about My Chemical Romance song AfDs, and links to previous AfD debates. CiaranG 12:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Relist. It's impossible to handle a list like this. I see a couple of nominations have been withdrawn as well, casting any potential delete votes (not that there are many yet) in doubt. Let's try this again. 23skidoo 17:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. We have lots of individual song pages. Also, see WP:NOT#PAPER. Mcr616 20:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Relist too much to deal with in one nomination. seems like fancruft to me. I would say delete most. simply because the band is notable, it does not mean that all of the songs on an album necessairly are. keep the singles. kill the rest.--Tainter 20:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'd also like to add that a lot of it seems like original research, which is grounds for deletion unless sources are cited. and also simply because other bands have non-single songs with articles doesn't mean that this one or everyone should--Tainter 04:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep: I could possibly see the B-Sides being deleted however the main songs in the album were released on the album itself and there are also many other bands with all if not most songs in a article. But if the B-sides need to be deleted then they should but the main songs are from a notable album that was released.
Keep. There is plenty of relevant information about the songs themselves and the stories behind them, and if that can be provided, then, no matter how insignificant the articles seem to you, then they have a right to be posted. Also, though it is a b-side, there was a lot of speculation, argument, and confusion over Kill All Your Friends because it was mentioned in passing in the album's limited edition, but no one verified when it was coming out or what it sounded like, so several people thought it might be Track 14. Thus, this article, if not the others, should be kept, as there is still some confusion about it.American_kohaku

Orfen | _Contribs 22:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep: There are many non-single song pages by bands less notable. Logically, these deserve to stay. Godlord2 03:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep: While some could argue the point that keeping the songs is pointless, some songs such as Dead! have gained some attention. For example, "Dead!" is scheduled for release on Guitar Hero II as a bonus track and I Don't Love You has received a critic review even though it has not been released as a single. And as American_kohaku pointed out, the confusion of Kill All Your Friends and Blood is addressed by the pages. 70.160.181.113 00:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge inot album articles. --thedemonhog 00:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep: all the songs pages are useful. they help you to undestand what the band wanna say, specially for people who doesn't speak a good english, like me.--Moraleh 04:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete pretentious to think a single MCR song is notable. Rehevkor 10:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Relist individually per 23skidoo. Lovelac 7 10:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Relist per above comments. -DMurphy 11:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The result was Delete and redirect. —— Eagle101 04:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ramone and Frunkis

Existence of the show this page is about is disputed. No citations at all on the page. Seems odd that no citations can be found for a radio show which featured someone dying on air. One editor reinstated text on the basis that "no evidence could be found for non-existence"?? If this show is merely a joke mentioned once on another radio show, is that notable? Bad for Misplaced Pages's reputation to have reference to a joke as if it was real. The onus is on editors to find some sort of evidence of the show's existence - if anyone does then of course delete request should be withdrawn Hobson 01:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As I was writing the above, an editor re-wrote the page - now saying the show did not exist - with citations. I don't believe the show is notable if it was a one-off joke, but the current version (as I write this - it seems to get reverted a lot) is not as bad as the one ten minutes ago. Hobson 01:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

here's further proof that it's not true. please note that some of the posters are going along with the bit. -anonymous

Delete and redirect. A one-time joke with no evidence that it got much nontrivial attention... Redirect and add to The Opie and Anthony Show. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The page has been poorly put together and is only one sentence long. Google hits: 10. (I do commend the effort of the editor in trying to source it, but the source if YouTube, which really isn't too reliable, save for a video.) → JARED 20:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- However it should be noted that Ramone and Frunkis is and has been mentioned numerous times and while you may not google search the show and find other references, it should be noted that Misplaced Pages puts the issue to the forefront regarding its existence or non existence and its mention on CNBC which is not disputed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.76.248.186 (talk • contribs) 19:41, January 28, 2007 (UTC)

The result was keep. DS 18:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Death erection

Link is not respectful nor tasteful. There must be some other pictures/illustrations that can help people visualize the death erection "phenomenon", which is actually a natural event given under certain circumstances.Frikg 19:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)frikg Frikg 19:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)frikg

Keep the nomination is inappropriate as it does not make an argument for deleting the article, in fact you make the point that the subject is a real event. If you object to the link there are better ways to handle the situation rather than deleting the entire article. More to the point, Misplaced Pages is not censored: we don't delete articles because you find them distasteful. Gwernol 01:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Interesting, referenced, notable physiological phenomenon. I don't like it is not a good reason to delete an article. Dar-Ape 01:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep best article ever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickmanning214 (talk • contribs).
Delete Article is tasteless, very poorly sourced (one picture doesn't make something encyclopedic) and non-notable. --TommyOliver 02:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep, see no reason to remove it. Diabolical 02:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Neutral - On the one hand, the article is horribly sourced and as-is doesn't meet WP:V. On the other hand, Misplaced Pages is not censored, and the nominator's entire argument boils down to "this is offensive." -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 02:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Kinda gross, but we aren't censored. Speedy Keep. --Dennisthe2 02:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete it. We ain't censored, but I see nothing verifiable here from reliable sources. With a mere 528 ghits ,I see no evidence it can or will be improved. Source it from a medical textbook if necessary, but it's got to be something more than a blog. - Aagtbdfoua 03:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep somewhat seems like a "Idon'tlikeit" nom. Anyway, wikipedia is not censored, the article initself just needs some work...which shouldn't be to hard. ~ Arjun 03:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep. While the nomination was for the wrong reason, the article does need improvement. The condition could very well be documented by reliable sources. Pomte 03:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but rename to something more appropriate. It's a valid article, but it should be named something more mature than "Death erection". RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 03:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with keep and rename. How about "post-mortem erection"? Means the same thing but is more scientific. "death erection" could be a redirect.Plymouths

Keep. Nom has no valid deletion criteria, and I just added a link to a scientist mentioning that the phenomenon is real. DMacks 06:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, I've added a couple of better references, but the article seems to be using a wholly WP:OR explanation (blood engorgement via gravity) which is not supported by what I can find. Needs more rewriting to sources. The name isn't really used in literature, but there isn't a specific name for it that I can find other than "postmortem priapism". --Dhartung | Talk 08:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep but rename. It's referenced and noteworthy. I like "Postmortem priapism" with redirects from "postmortem erection" and "death erection," personally, but am open to better ideas. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete The references do not support the article. See review of references Talk:Death_erection#References. Jeepday 14:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Jeepday. The "references" do not actually support this article at all. The first is sheer speculation. The following two have nothing to do with the phenomenon described. And the last is a forum post, which is not an reliable source. That leaves us with an unsourced, unverifiable article full of original research. -- Kesh 15:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The last is a message from a scientist speaking near his area of expertise. The forum is at least sanity-checked and the contributors verified by other experts. Not quite referreed academic journal, but not some anon poster on blogspot. See "Non-scholarly sources" in WP:RS. DMacks 16:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete The sources that would open do not appear to be reliable ones. The book of wierd medical anomalies is from the 1890's and cites things anecdotally going back to the 1700's. It is not at all a trustworthy source for medical information today. There is a photograph which could be a hoax. There is a comment from a blog, and there is a cite to a WebMD site which I could not get to open, but even if it did, one possible citation is not "multiple." Edison 16:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. No arguments presented for deletion. WilyD 18:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Though the reason given in the nomination is invalid grounds for deletion, this article has no reliable sources documenting notability and authenticity. The first and fourth are unreliable and unusable sources by Misplaced Pages standards, the second source does not mention death erection, and the third concerns neck trauma, which is totally unrelated. Nick Graves 18:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The neck-trauma article contains a list entitled "Signs of spinal cord or brachial plexus injury", which states "Priapism and loss of the bulbocavernous reflex may occur". That supports the claim that erections can result from neck trauma, which is certainly what hanging creates, so that's an apparently reliable source confirming the effect in some situations (though not for the reasons or situations described earlier in the wiki page). DMacks 19:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The second source, which you say "does not mention death erection", contains the sentence, "Death by hanging is often accompanied by partial erection." It is a medical text published in 1900. Since there are medical sources documenting that cerebellar or spinal injury is the cause of priapism in dead people, I don't know why pointing out that it also causes priapism in people who survive their injury is a real problem. --Dhartung | Talk 22:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Conditional Weak Keep condition on renaming and better sourcing, although this condition exists, better sources are needed then photos and a 110 year old book of medical anomalies.-- danntm _C 19:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep The tastefulness of an article is not criteria for deletion. .V. -- (_Email) 06:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The result was Speedy deleted by Pilotguy per WP:CSD#A7. BryanG 05:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

BasketsFX

This does not seem to be a notable website, very few Google hits. Dar-Ape 01:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Additional note: was prodded, but prod removed. Dar-Ape 02:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - has no references, and does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Almost certainly self-promotion, per the POV material. --02:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haemo (talk • contribs).
Delete. No sources or evidence of notability per WP:WEB. Googling didn't turn up ay evidence of notability when I tried it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No sources at all. Notability. Hoax. Retiono Virginian 21:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per {{db-web}}. Marked as such. --Wafulz 21:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per {{db-web}} and per nom. Big top 00:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Mind Games, Part Two

Delete as nom. Non-notable, poorly written episode article. I suspect the author was originally 190.57.108.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), an IP vandal who contributed poorly written (and often unverifiable, factually inaccurate) information throughout this encyclopedia. It should also be noted that the user appeared to abandon this article infavor of Mind Games (Spider-man), which has also been submitted. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Episode descriptions, cast and trivia are already at Spider-Man: The New Animated Series. Pomte 03:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Wryspy 19:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The result was DELETE. -Doc 00:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Mind Games (Spider-man)

Delete as nom. Only a little bit better than its fellow submitted article, this is a non-notable episode of a cancelled TV series. Due the user apparently being more familiar with Spanish than english, the article looks like nonsense. Further, it offers little to no actual information, just "coming soon" messages. Misplaced Pages is not a TV.com or IMDb, though I doubt this contribution would be fit for even those sites. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Episode descriptions, cast and trivia are already at Spider-Man: The New Animated Series. Pomte 03:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Wryspy 19:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep' - per consensus episode articles are encyclopaedic, notable television series, and remember Misplaced Pages is not paper. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - There is a consensus that episode pages should be worked on, not deleted. - Peregrine Fisher 22:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I cannot imagine this would or should apply to any and all episode articles. Furthermore, this the only episode article related this cancelled series, and was made by a well...known vandal. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Get out of the old state of mind, people. These articles suck ass, no one will ever fix them, and they only encourage people to use Misplaced Pages as their "OMG" fansite of useless trivia. There never was a consensus to make articles for every episode because a minority can so easily make episode articles. Then people come on to Misplaced Pages, see that, and assume it was a thought out decision. It's not, it's just a big mess of "OMG, others have episode articles, we should have episode articles" misconception. Why can't we end this insanity? This episode is not notable on it's own, and does not need a dedicated article. -- Ned Scott 03:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete there is no concensus to create articles for every little episode ever created. Works perfectly fine in the list of. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 03:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No proof of notability (Tv.com and IMDB list pretty much anything), no content, and fails wikifying in so many ways. Tiakalla 05:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: This page was nominated for deletion less than one hour after it was created. That's not enough time before deleting.- Peregrine Fisher 08:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Most like vandalism, bad articles should not be allowed to exist indefinitely. While I didn't feel this was a candidate for the speedy process, it was surely worth an AFD submission. Furthermore, as one user once told me, AFD brings problems to our attention, and rarely makes mistakes. If enzyme inhibitors had been submitted within the same timeframe, I'm sure it would not be deleted. This article, however, does not have same potential, nor the notability or interested editors. The author has abandoned it, and the only edit since—not counting mine—was yours. One edit, which has clearly done little to change the emerging consensus. I'm sorry, but you and Matthew are fighting the wrong battle. If a fictional character article like...Stiffler's mom is made and deleted/merged, articles like Batman and Supes still have nothing to fear. The deletion of inherently bad episode articles will not hurt or endanger good ones. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  - It doesn't matter if the creator hasn't edited it since, or how many edits it's had. If it can be improved, and it can, then it should stay and be improved. It takes a while to create a comprehensive television encyclopedia; deleting this page just makes more work for when it's recreated. - Peregrine Fisher 19:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Agreed, but every single article theoretically can be improved to be something in the possible future. And although we are not on a timetable, there is no reason we should cripple wikipedia with these kinds of articles for current readability either in my eyes. There is a perfectly well working and well agreed upon method of avoiding this, which is to create "List of .. episodes" articles and expand from that if something proofs notable enough. It's an encyclopedia, not a factbook, nor a directory, nor a mirror of the web etc. etc. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Johann Tetzel

The result was Keep. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Johann Tetzel

This article seems to be generating little interest, lacks sources, and seems to have been edited mainly by anonymous users. Also it has a rhyme on it that seems to translate too perfectly in the English, however, I'm not the best translator so can't comment on that. Chooserr 01:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep, obviously this character is notable, he has a Catholic Encyclopedia entry . Misplaced Pages is supposed to be editable by anyone, no need to discriminate against anons. It should be sourced better and cleaned up, but I see no reason to delete.-Andrew c 02:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I'd call being the inspiration of the 95 Theses sufficient notability. As for the rhyme, the Catholic Encyclopedia entry cited in the article has essentially the same rhyme with slightly different wording. BryanG 02:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Note - when I first nominated it for deletion I didn't know about the interwiki links, so it probably should be kept, but I still think it needs a desperate rewrite. And While I haven't checked New Advent, I browsed the German version and didn't find the rhyme. Maybe I missed it, but I don't think so. Chooserr 03:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the German wiki article. de:Johann_Tetzel#Der_Ablassbrief. It says "Sobald das Geld im Kasten klingt, die Seele (aus dem Fegefeuer) in den Himmel springt!" or "as soon as the money in the box clings, the soul (from purgatory) into the sky springs!"-Andrew c 03:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This was noticed on Talk:The 95 Theses, as it appears Tetzel was one of the individuals targeted by Martin Luther when the theses were publicized. From a quick glance around Google, there seems to be sources for this, but the article currently lacks much citation at all. I think this can be made into a valid article, but it needs work. -- Kesh 04:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, one of the causes of the early Protestant movement, I can't see why he got here to start with. Article needs work though and many more references Alf photoman 14:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - clearly notable, even if the New Catholic Encyclopedia calls the jingle 'spurious'. -- Bpmullins | Talk 15:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Sparking the Protestant Reformation is a pretty notable achievement, however unintended. Numerous sources cite Tetzel as a major factor leading Luther to write the 95 Theses, and support the truth of Tetzel's marketing jingle. Why is a rhyme unlikely? Remember the OJ murder trial and the repetition of "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!" Added an easily found ref to the 1911 Britannica, but literally dozens or even hundreds of print references exist going back several hundred years, and he is prominent in any good history of the Reformation. So he is a notable subject, and the article can always be edited and improved to show both the Catholic and Protestant perspectives. Edison 17:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This sourced article is about a historical person who appears in multiple standard reference works. FWIW, the rhyme moves easily from German to English because the underlying root words are cognate. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. Historical figure, sourced article. Edison pretty much sums it up. -- Docether 18:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. A necessary article on a notable person. A trip to the library's worth of books will beef up this article, and looking at the German equivalent couldn't hurt. Evan 21:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. i found the article informative and useful. Amirman 06:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)