Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 20

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

The result was delete and redirect to Biology and sexual orientation. - Daniel.Bryant 07:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Choice and sexual orientation

Choice and sexual orientation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There is nothing in this article that is not covered by Biology and sexual orientation and reparative therapy. One might sum it up as "Gays do not have a choice. See Biology and sexual orientation for why. Some people disagree with this." This does not an article make and I think it should be deleted. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete has all the appearance of a POV fork. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a POV fork. Fireplace 17:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not relevant an it does have a little bit of NPOV problems!Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 17:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. POV problems can be corrected, but there is no need to as the article is redundant to Biology and sexual orientation. -- Black Falcon 18:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• By the way, does the APA reference exist anywhere else, for it should be retained and used? -- Black Falcon 18:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, the APA reference and language is found at reparative therapy. Fireplace 18:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. -- Black Falcon 18:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Warhorus 18:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant article and POV. --Nevhood 19:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It would serve better as a sub-section to an article on sexuality. --Ozgod 19:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as POV fork. Perhaps redirect to help prevent recreation. Natalie 20:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Biology and sexual orientation. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Biology and sexual orientation and reparative therapy cover everything that this article tries to. Further, I think reparative therapy and Biology and sexual orientation should stay distinct articles. Cedlaod 22:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete & Redirect per above. -- Pastordavid 19:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. POV pushing and redundant. WMMartin 14:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What is this?? Ramduke — Ramduke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete. forking Usedup 02:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete -- zzuuzz^(talk) 01:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daemonraco

Daemonraco (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No established notability beyond an equally non-notable OSS library Eloquence* 00:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete; shouldn't have an article for the same reason the volunteer MediaWiki developers don't have articles – Qxz 00:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO and probably WP:COI since the authors name is User:Daemonraco.--John Lake 00:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy and delete. User page contains nothing more than a link to this page. --Dennisthe2 00:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't meet requirements under WP:BIO. :^) §†SupaSoldier†§ 00:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable programmer. --Nevhood 01:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Completely fails notability.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2!} 02:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. No sources indicating notability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 05:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete per above. PeaceNT 11:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Totally fails wp:bio. // 3R1C 14:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, by far. Warhorus 15:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no sources to assert his notability, which violates WP:BIO. - Anas ^Talk? 16:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Refs not properly formatted, spelling problems, fails WP:BIO and theres not even a stub template on it, not worth the trouble escpecially when it fails BIO.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 17:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• No claim of notability. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 19:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 07:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drlibs

Drlibs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software package Eloquence* 00:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Delete non notable per nom and unreferenced (the reference points to another article by the same editor thats on AFD).--John Lake 00:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. per Nomination. :^) §†SupaSoldier†§ 00:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination, also tack on WP:COI under teh circumstances. The package doesn't do anything particularly unique, and we're not Freshmeat, either. --Dennisthe2 00:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:COI. --Nevhood 01:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Completely fails notability.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2!} 02:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Reference or delete: if I have insufficient data to assert notability, it is be default non-notable. Alba 16:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable and fails WP:COI. Google search yields only 77 results. - Anas ^Talk? 16:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Its making a joke out of WP:COI and it seems WP:CORP.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 17:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Empty, no claim of notability. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 19:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as no context. Natalie 20:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to List of recurring characters from The Simpsons. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:21Z

[edit] Martha Quimby

Martha Quimby (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy. My own inclination would be to PROD this, but as the speedy is contested I think we can safely assume that the PROD would be too, so here we are. The original tagger expressed the following rationale: "unsourced Simpsons cruft. Minor character (at best) who has only made a few appearances." Mackensen (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per the nomination, and sterilize - dear God, that's hard to read. --Dennisthe2 00:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced non notable minor character and the writing style is hard to decypher.--John Lake 00:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I'm not much of a fan of The Simpsons, but all of the other "Minor" characters have articles. Seeing as this is an encyclopedia, I believe the more encyclopedic content the better. :^) §†SupaSoldier†§ 00:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, there are tougher standards for characters having pages (usually, to qualify for a page, a character must have been central to at least 2 episodes or appeared in hundreds of episodes), so not a lot of minor characters have pages. Not even Bumblebee Man has a page! -- Scorpion 16:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Bumblebee Man doesn't have a page?! ¡Ay, caramba! Dugwiki 20:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The article is unsourced and it is hard to determine notability. I am an avid Simpsons fan myself, but I barely remember who she is! --Nevhood 00:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Most "minor characters" in The Simpsons have memorable and notable gags. Other than not being able to make up her mind whether she's a parody of Jackie O or not, Mrs. Quimby has none. JuJube 00:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• If the standard for deleting characters is whether they have recurring gags, you'd better nominate this one next. Otto4711 03:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I almost want to take you up on that. ^_^ JuJube 04:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or merge into List of recurring characters from The Simpsons. Natalie 01:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Rewrite then Merge Clearly suitable for the List of recurring characters from The Simpsons, but needs a little work. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to List of recurring characters from The Simpsons. I rewrote it into something that I think resembles English. Otto4711 01:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to aforementioned article.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2!} 02:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Scorpion 02:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Otto4711. Seems worthy of inclusion in that article. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or delete, nn character Ulysses Zagreb 09:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Rewrite then Merge with Joe Quimby --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 10:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to List of recurring characters from The Simpsons. I'm not much of a Simpsons watcher, but if fans are saying (Nevhood above) they barely remember her, then she's not a recurring character, is she? So I'm leaning more towards Delete. Icemuon 11:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm a fan and I remember her. She's appeared, off the top of my head, in the episode with the burlesque house and the episode with the Red Hat ladies (with Lily Tomlin as guest voice) "I haven't heard of it" is not a valid deletion criterion. Otto4711 13:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• 'Merge and cleanup per Otto. // 3R1C 14:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and cleanup; to Joe Quimby or List of recurring characters from The Simpsons, maintainer's choice. Alba 16:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Really not important except for establishing the fact that the mayor is married. Never really had any significant role in the show. At all. I'm not even sure her first name is "Martha" either. No need to merge, all the info is in the Mayor's article. Just axe it. --UsaSatsui 16:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and cleanup per Otto4711. Gran2 16:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Although The Simpsons is great this is Not notable.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 17:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Otto4711. -- Black Falcon 18:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Joe Quimby. Also, I would make a note of her on List of recurring characters from The Simpsons linking to the newly merged spot on Quimby's page. Seems sensible to me. Warhorus 18:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Joe Quimby, per many above, as this information does not deserve its own article, but should be retained somewhere. Create link from the appropriate character list(s) to the section in the Joe Quimby article. -- saberwyn 22:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect either to Joe Quimby, or the List of recurring characters from The Simpsons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gimlei (talk • contribs) 00:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
• Merge and redirectd to Joe Quimby. There really is not much information on this page, not enough even to add to the recurring characters list. However, if more information on her is found, she appears more often in the show, a name for her can be agreed on, and she gets a picture (if possible), then she would deserve to be on the list of recurring characters page. Rhino131 23:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or Redirect to either list of reacurring characters or Joe Quimby. It fits to be included in both articles. 11kowrom 13:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 07:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shaun E. Seifer

Shaun E. Seifer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notabel (I only got 22 ghits using the name). This seems to be WP:OR adn WP:COI - dare I say vanity page. Peter Rehse 00:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non notable per Peter Rehse.--John Lake 00:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not bad as an accomplishment, but very COI and...well, is he notable? --Dennisthe2 00:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Completely fails notability.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2!} 02:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:BIO Djma12 02:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notable, fails WP:BIO. PeaceNT 11:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also willing to bet it's a vanity page. // 3R1C 14:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO, seems like a vanity page, no sources that attest his notability. - Anas ^Talk? 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:BIO comes to mind on this article.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 17:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; if one creates a style of a martial art, one should probably have more coverage than has been turned up here. Fails WP:BIO. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so how would one make this "wiki material"? It is not a vanity page, as I am the author, and most certainly not Shihan Seifer. Do I link to articles for the International Sport Karate Association he has written? (http://www.iska.com/kickboxing/product_reviews.htm)and edited (http://www.iska.com/2001results.htm)? How about his work with people and arts that are already on Wiki? I just want him to get the recgnition he deserves.

Wikipedia isn't the venue for that. Wikipedia records notable persons, places, things and ideas that have been recognized elsewhere by reliable third party sources. Unfortunately, Mr Seifer does not have the reliable sources needed to meet the Wikipedia standards for verifiability and notability - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I couldn't find any non-trivial reliable sources - without them, WP:BIO isn't met. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is heading for a delete even without my vote, but Tenchi Bujutsu scores only 50 unique Ghits, all of which are an assortment of forum chats, directory listings, miserably failing WP:V and WP:RS. Although claimed not to be vanity, it probably fails WP:NPOV: phrases such as "prefers to simply be known as Sensei Shaun Seifer" make me cringe. Ohconfucius 01:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was userfy. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 06:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Joseph Deamond

Alexander Joseph Deamond (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Self-promotion. Delete. Georgia guy 00:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Per Nomination...And it doesn't meet WP:BIO at all! :^) §†SupaSoldier†§ 00:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. It is a vanity article (against WP:Not and WP:NOTE) - it should have been speedily deleted! --Nevhood 00:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I would have userfied this article rather than nominating it for AfD. See {{userfy}}. And I would have left a {{userfied}} message on the author's talk page. --Eastmain 00:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:NOT, WP:NOTE, and WP:SPEEDY.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2!} 02:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy and delete per Eastmain (above). --Dennisthe2 03:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per A7. No assertion of notability. Being an "amzing person" or a "pirate ninja" is not such a claim (amazing might be, but that is not the case here).  :P -- Black Falcon 05:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ebony Anpu

Ebony Anpu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The initial AfD with the original nominator's comments concerning veracity of the sources and notability may be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Anpu, first try.

Okay folks, revisiting this AfD I have decided to reset it. Bare with me here. There were procedural concerns with the initial drafting of this AfD, namely that an Anon initiated it. However, the anon and or anons that started it have valid points, but such points have been lost by the fact that there has been use of proxies, and actual discussion about the merits of the article has been lost amongst folks disagreeing with the legitimacy of the AfD. So I am restarting the AfD, period. I have no opinion on the article, but here are the issues addressed by the anons, and I feel that they are valid reasons to initiate an AfD...

• The individual is non-notable. See this Google Search, for instance.
• There are serious concerns with the veracity of the references used in the article.

With that out of the way, the discussion in this AfD will remain limited to the whether or not the article's claims meet our standards set up for proper references, and whether or not the subject of the article meets our criteria for inclusion. Procedural brouhaha shall remain on the talk page of the AfD only. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• No Vote For the record. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep See (Old AfD). [Discussion about procedure moved to this AfD's talk page.] [Personal attacks removed] Captain Barrett 16:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC) [More personal attacks removed]
• No vote from me either for right now, but I think Jeffrey did the right thing by refreshing this discussion. (jarbarf) 17:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC) [Discussion about procedure moved to this AfD's talk page.]

• Notablility: 'Notable here means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. Notability is generally permanent.'-Wikipedia. Already Ebony has attracted a lot of Notice in the week he has been on Wiki. Everything against him has been character assasination with no validity. The proof of his notability is found in all AfD records. I mean, seriously, how could someone who is _not notable_ cause so much interest and concern in the first week? Captain Barrett 17:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment [1] and similar can't have done any harm... Dave 19:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Heh, good point. I was trying to get more sources, but I ended up getting vandals. Captain Barrett 23:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I have no idea what the article is talking about, and therefore it cannot reasonably be said to be asserting notabliity. Happy to change if article improves. Dave 18:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

To explain myself further: It is impossible for me, with no knowledge of thelma etc, to judge the subject notable as the article currently stands. If the article was modified so that notability was clearly asserted, then I would be happy to change my vote. Dave 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Dave. I've read the article twice and I haven't got a clue what it's about, but it doesn't seem to be about Mr Anpu for the most part. At present, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney 18:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless independently sourced. I have no problems finding independent (= mainstream, scholarly, literary) sources on Aleister Crowley. This person otoh only seemed to exist within the confines of O.T.O., so unless independent sources are found a neutral biography can't be written. I checked Newsbank and the local rags here, (eastbayexpress.com, sfbg.com, sfgate.com) for appearances but no luck. ~ trialsanderrors 20:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I believe that a good article might be written on this topic, but the current one is hopeless. There seem to be no reliable sources. As someone else wrote, 'No reliable sources => no article'. If someone sincerely wants to do research on this, they might be able to rescue it. Mentions of this person in the press would certainly be useful. EdJohnston 20:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete unless sourced but that means two separate things: (I expand on my comment in the earlier AfD:

the first is whether there is any reliable evidence that the person existed. We usually do have data that supports the bare existence so it rarely enters into the discussions here--the private imaginary worlds and non-existent musicians almost always get filtered out quickly in speedy or Prod. When a hoax gets discussed, it can usually be eliminated on the grounds of contradictions, as well as sources. (There may still be some more clever flights of the imagination in WP undetected) But in this case there is zero out-of-cult documentation that there ever was such a person. Given the general nature of AC's writings, I think we are justified in asking for at least one source from someone not involved with the groups who has actually seen the person.

I have examined all the external links. The page at http://www.93current.de/groups.shtml lists 33 related groups, with varing amounts of documentation, and uses language implying hat the compiler has some doubts about some of them. Our guy is "no.27 Hawk & Jackal the sun and the moon conjoined: Thelemic Witchcraft. Founded by Charles Reese a.k.a. Ebony Anpu, who died far to soon, so you can't contact them anymore. Check out his work." (with a link to http://home.earthlink.net/~charlesreese/HawkJackal.html, which gives a "page not found" error. ) The oregon site is "cannot find server," The Arkansas one does have a real page, but "2/10/2007 Hotmail/MSN NOTE: Hotmail/msn are NOT accepting email from the Witchvox server at this time - we are working with them on this issue." The site on geocities lists some SF address he is said to have inhabited, and has a photograph. But a testimonial there reports "At the age of 18, Ebony was forced to leave Texas due to legal difficulties. At this point one begins to run into the problem which faces any attempt at biography of Ebony Anpu: his extreme penchant for tall tales concerning his own life." http://www.leapinglaughter.org/archive/charlesreese/ebonylog.htm has a saved chat session. So we have that and the photographs and the memoirs.

the other part of sourced is sourcing the information given in the article. For documentation of what he thought and wrote, in-universe sources are i think acceptable, since they seem to consistently identify the body of materials. The article (wisely) avoids any biographical discussion, and considers him only as a teacher and writer. If I understand correctly from a very brief reading, this religious movement does not believe in reincarnation. Pity, for that might have been some better evidence than now available.

I will support the article if there are two truly RS mainstream sources to base it on--not about the religion, for that is well-documented. About the man, which is the subject of this article. I write this hoping that someone will find something, not hoping they will not. DGG 20:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• I respect your commitment to NPOV, DGG. Thank you. I would point out that the use of the term "cult" in reference to the OTO is not acurate, and possibly libelous. They are a recognized non-profit religious corporation. If you discount data from all religious organizations Wiki would be very scant indeed. Think about it. Captain Barrett 23:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ebony has at least three living relatives: His daughter :Chandra Reese-Fries, his Mother, and his ex-wife Leisle. I am currently working on contacting them for more info. Captain Barrett 23:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid original research. --Bejnar 08:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• comment "Cult " is a neutral term to me, meaning a relatively small religious group. It also has the meaning of a pattern of worship: Catholics refer to the cult of the Virgin Mary. I apologize if others understood it differently.

I note that a resource mentioned in another discussion, http://www.egnu.org/thelema/ , does not mention him. It would take considerable OR to decide if this is because of relative unimportance , or religious differences. I have mentioned in that other discussion (Sam Webster) that ministers of conventional religions have well known and stable structures and offices and distinctions, which can be used for assessing N. They also acquire their knowledge through established divinity schools of some sort, and they sometimes publish in peer-reviewed journals. This makes establishing N much easier and much more objective.

I consider all religions to be notable provided there is some V way of finding out about them--I think this is the only possible standard, as WP is not a judge of theological truth. Individuals are another matter--any group with more than one religious leader has some who are more notable than others in that group. It's that which can be judged objectively if there are objectively visible criteria. If not, they can still be established as N through 3rd party mention. If this fails as well, it is beyond human ability to judge. DGG 00:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate: Ebony had an "Official" Office, as published by the OTO. Here is the problem, as DGG pointed out on Sam Webster, with individual-oriented religions. They are prone to massive ego-battles and no standard set of rules. You cannot fault the religion for not imposing more strict rules, but if you are an honest researcher you need to take into consideration personal infighting. Any researcher of Thelema can tell you that everyone disagree's with everyone else. The point here is Notability, not popularity. Sam Webster is popular. Ebony is Notorious. So notorious that we are inlvolved in this here word-sling. Although Ebony is not listed on Sam's page (as sam is not listed on any of Ebony's), the same editors who edited sams page also edited Ebony's (see history). From that is it _obvious_ that Ebony is known buy the same people who knew Sam. This is an issue that will not go away. If you truly wish to have a comprehensive encyclopedia of Reality, rather than bias, you will need to find some way to deal with individuals who are very notable, but otherwise do not conform to your standards of "religion", or who have enemies who wish to not see them on wikipedia for personal reasons. Captain Barrett 01:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. There are many interesting things about Ebony not yet verified, I will not mention them here because I do not have the proof (that you need), yet. These things made him avoid publicity and especially the Law, for many years. I have given many verifiable sources for him. Notability is not only about "your name in a paper" - that would be stupid. What if the unibomber had never been linked to a real person? Would the Unibomber be not notable because there are no articles with his name in it? Yet he is well known. Think people. Captain Barrett 01:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, does not appear to meet BIO or verifiability requirements.--Peta 02:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• No Vote pending deletion review & RfC for out-of-process WP:AFD. —Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-14 04:19Z

  Please don't wait - if this is brought to deletion review while this discussion is live, the deletion review will be closed. Deletion review is for 1) already deleted material or 2) already closed discussions. GRBerry 20:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - not enough reliable 3rd party sources to verify or establish notability. If this is really an out of order AFD, then an admin will overturn it. However, we shouldn't just slavishly follow process and forget that encyclopedic content is the goal. --Jackhorkheimer 05:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

comment In the context of this discussion, i interpret 3rd party to mean sources outside of Thelma. As Captain Barrett pointed out, it is very obvious that the different groups don't acknowledge each others existence, but--as he also said--this has no bearing on this AfD. However, I find it incredible that none of the Bay Area papers ever mentioned him--he is just the sort of person they would have talked about. We are asked to consider Reality, but the standards of evidence presented are those of in-universe role-playing games. I would not be adverse to reconsidering if they find real sources. DGG 03:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Not even close. Not enough reliable 3rd party sources to verify existence, let alone establish notability. And as a former consumer of Bay Area alternative media, I echo DGG's comment about the lack of coverage. --Calton | Talk 01:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Sources are largely self-referential - notaility claim looks like an attempt at halo effect from things whose notability is open to question. No evidence that this individual is independently notable. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted. Again. Per DRV, the previous closure was premature, so, give it FIVE DAYS from THIS DATE STAMP.
 With all previous discussion still valid, please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Needs Sourcing! :^) §†SupaSoldier†§ 00:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Unless the authors of this article can obtain more third-party sources, rather than sources from the individual himself, then the article violates WP:COI and the individuality section of WP:NOTE. --Nevhood 01:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment How can this AfD get sources, in order to fairly let it run its course, as long as it is protected? Do I need to get an Admin on my side to post them for me? Captain Barrett 01:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have unprotected it. But if you try to ad even a single image that has been repeatedly deleted, you will be blocked. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey is reffering to [Charles Reese's Picture which he does not want me to post. It is currently up for DRV. Captain Barrett 01:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to think it is all me, but if you look at the DRV, I did not delete the image originally, four admins agree with the deletion, and it has been deleted on Commons. It is in your best interest to drop the image issue for now and pay attention to the focus of people's arguments here: the references. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTE and WP:CITE  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2!} 02:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it fails WP:BIO and needs third party non trivial references WP:CITE.--Dakota 03:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - needs further sourcing and cleanup, but I think it barely meets the bar for notability. - WeniWidiWiki 05:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Taking part in this so I can't mess up again by closing it early. Does not meet WP:BIO, and has problems with conflict of interest with the use of primary sources, which aren't reliable. --Coredesat 08:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Guy et al. Fails WP:BIO and has significant sourcing problems. JDoorjam JDiscourse 16:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• No vote. I do not feel qualified to vote on this one, one way or the other. However I do want to interject from reading the discussion above. It seems like people are having a very hard time attempting to find hard fact on this person and I even saw some mention of contacting people for facts. I would take a moment to say to anyone interested in keeping this article to avoid OR in your attempts to bring the article up to snuff. If you simply cannot find admissible sources, then you will have to wait and attempt to recreate this page in a more thorough form somewhere down the line. If Ebony Anpu is truly N then as time goes on, sources should become more readily available. If time goes on and less and less information become available, then I hate to say it, in the long run he wasn't really that N and he didn't deserve a page on Wikipedia. Either way, here's hoping this all get straightened out, because this seems like a sticky one. Warhorus 18:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per Guy, Calton and such. BIO, self reference, and lack of clarity what the notability factor is... mceder (u t c) 19:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The closest things to reliable sources here seem to be the Hawk and Jackal links, but he started that order so they can't be reliable sources about him. There's no third-party notability. — coelacan talk — 21:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. And by the way, the correct spellings are "magic" not "magick" and "magical" not "magickal." Wave the magic wand and make this article disappear. Edison 05:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete per all aboveOo7565 05:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not the subject of multiple, independent reliable sources, so notability is not established. The sources cited in the article appear to be either articles that are written by him or otherwise do not have him as their subject. ObiterDicta 03:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  Note Please check the References. Behutet Magazine is an Independent Magazine Issue #12 and #13 lists "Ebony Anpu's Hawk and Jackal system". Thanks.Captain Barrett 05:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  So should the article be on the Hawk and Jackal system (if the system rather than the person is the subject of the articles)? Frankly, though, two articles in the same publication is a weak assertion of notability. A better one would be articles in separate magazines. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete He is not notable - period. --Bejnar 08:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tarendra Lakhankar

Tarendra Lakhankar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). — ERcheck (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. NN per nom --froth^T 00:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Nomination and it doesn't meet requirements under Wikipedia:Notability (academics). :^) §†SupaSoldier†§ 00:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. NN and COI - main author is Lakhankar himself. --Nevhood 01:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet the guidelines of WP:BIO or WP:PROF, and it's a conflict of interest. Leebo⁸⁶ 16:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:COI and WP:NN, fails them both!Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 17:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2!} 23:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 05:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. John Vandenberg 12:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Some of the above -cited guidelines are pretty uncertain, but under the general criteria he NN. Few if any postdocs are N because of their scientific work at that point in their career.DGG 00:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• DeleteRamduke — Ramduke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete If a degree made you notable, we'd run out of server space. Mocko13 16:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

•  :-) my head hurts just thinking about trying to define notability based on degree. John Vandenberg 22:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:22Z

[edit] Know More Media, Inc.

Know More Media, Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nominated for speedy deletion as blatant advertising, but I am going to give this the benefit of the doubt. Some references have been added that need some further review, so I'm bringing this to AfD. (consider me a neutral at this point, but AfD isn't a vote of course...) --W.marsh 00:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Seems somewhat notable, has sources... --Nevhood 01:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete Has two references from reliable sources, but pretty minor; very borderline. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Rewrite, otherwise weak delete: While the subject is demonstrated to be notable and verifiable by the multiple references given, the Wikipedia content fails to describe said notability. I *think* it's notable for the business model of paying bloggers for quality content, but someone more expert than I should do the editing. A bit of NPOV work is needed. Finally, should the title include "Inc."? Alba 05:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete The references given are definitely ... gray. The Orange County Register article is certainly legitimate, but the other two are niche reporting services. // 3R1C 14:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if this business is notable, the prose is strongly promotional in tone in a way that suggests conflict of interest. If an article is made about this business, it will essentially have to be started from scratch. Not sure that this meets WP:WEB either, which ought to be relevant in that it is about a collection of blogs. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This smacks of advertising to me, and it doesn't seem particularly notable. fraggle 16:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Notability comes to mind and the articles not wikfied, references all over the place and fails WP:WEB.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 17:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I hunted around, and found little in the way of reliable sources outside of the business blogosphere, and even there I couldn't find much that looked notable enough to pass the required guidelines. Plus, it's definitely written in a marketing style. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CITE  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2!} 23:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus, page kept for now. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 10:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baron & Budd Script Memo controversy

Strong Keep. I don't think the page (which I just created) should be deleted, but, because the topic is controversial, to show good faith and avoid COI, I wanted to be the first to raise the issue. The topic is notable, has been discussed in law review articles, in newspaper and magazine articles, in litigation, in books, and in a Senate report, and may arise in the 2008 presidential election because of the ties of one of the parties to the John Edwards campaign. Google: 821 results. TedFrank 00:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Veesicle, how can you say 'delete per nom' when the nom was for strong keep? THE KING 04:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a branch of another article, on a lawyer, which the nom editor wrote to do an end run around the complaint that the criticism of a lawyer was overweighted. He also said that the AtLA was a "pack of lies". I understand he does not like lawyers, and is evidently willing to destroy anyone who disagrees with him (see my AN/I), but Wikipedia does not seem like an appropriate vehicle for furthering his political agenda.Jance 06:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. We have a notable and complex event with a lot of different things happening; if I include a full recounting in the main article, I'm accused of undue weight, and my edit is deleted; if I instead create an NPOV article that tells both sides of the story, I'm accused of "furthering my political agenda." But the standard for Wikipedia is notability and verifiability. I think this article meets both standards. -- TedFrank 06:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Cleanup and merge, Clean the article up, wikify it, and insert it into the main article, assuming that article is kept. // 3R1C 14:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Article fails WP:NN and it just like a collection of information put anywhere and not sorted properly.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 17:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Although is WP:CITE compliant, it is not notable. Optionally merge.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2!} 23:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Two people have flatly stated that the topic is not notable. But when I look at the WP:NN guidelines, they say A topic is notable if it has been the subject of reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. By that definition, this topic is notable; it also meets each of the five subparts of the definition of notability. Notability is not subjective. Can someone who is arguing that it is not notable provide an objective argument for the claim of non-notability? -- TedFrank 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Plenty of reputable sourced citations, article will most certainly be expanded upon and quality improved in the future... Smee 23:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Strong Keep This event meets a number of inclusion criteria into Wikipedia. It is frequently referenced in the main stream media when tort reform or asbestos litigation are discussed and the events themselves have been featured in more then a handful of widely read journals & periodicalsDroliver 02:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Family Reunion (Cory in the House episode)

The Family Reunion (Cory in the House episode) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There is no verifiable source that lists this episode, or any episode similar to it, airing for Cory in the House. Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 01:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice for rampant crystal-ballism. Alba 05:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. YechielMan 05:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Super Mega Supreme Ultra Delete per Alba :P // 3R1C 15:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL --Nevhood 22:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Arguments regarding notability according to WP:PROF based on publications proved persuasive. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hiram Caton

Hiram Caton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:PROF. Lack of independent, reliable, non-trivial sources establishing notability. A minor figure even within the fringe community of AIDS dissidents. MastCell 01:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No refs and too little info and actual relevance to make it notable.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 17:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 00:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment "Hiram Caton" gets 901 Google hits. With such a distinctive name, the vast bulk of these must be relevant to this particular person. The first few pages of hits certainly are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.172.124 (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

• Comment: Yes, but Google hits are not a criterion per WP:PROF. Without widespread recognition from independent academic sources in one's own field, which I've been unable to find, the notability criteria are not met. Also, as Hiram Caton apparently resides near Brisbane, and your IP maps to Brisbane, and your edits have been somewhat Hiram-Caton-related, please be sure you're not violating Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. MastCell 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I note that you're a physician, and since Caton's work (especially, though not exclusively, his AIDS-related work) frequently attacks the medical establishment, please be sure you're not violating Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.172.124 (talk • contribs).

• Comment: Thanks - I took another look at WP:COI#What is a conflict of interest?, and it looks like I'm OK. The idea that anyone who works in medicine cannot edit any articles critical of the "medical establishment" is an overread of WP:COI. WP:NPOV exists just for such cases. MastCell 18:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Now, wherever did I say that "[no-one] who works in medicine cannot edit any articles critical of the 'medical establishment'"? I'm merely asking you whether you're capable of removing yourself sufficiently from your profession to maintain objectivity, as I'm sure that others no doubt can. Please have the courtesy not to put words into my mouth.

Perhaps you didn't look quite closely enough at WP:COI, which states that "there is no list of criteria to help editors determine what counts as a conflict of interest." Just because you didn't find a box to tick doesn't exonerate you. I find it very curious that when attempting to defend yourself, you take this very literalist approach, yet when presented with the solid proof that Caton's The Politics of Progress has been "the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources", and that in 1982-83 he "received a notable award or honor" (two boxes to tick against WP:PROF) you somehow appeal to a manufactured notion of "independent sources demonstrating notability", when WP:PROF calls for evidence of quite a different kind. Why the double standard? WP:PROF asks to be read literally, WP:COI specifically asks not to be read literally. Simply put, you've got it backwards.

Just as "if you are involved in a court case...you would find it very hard to demonstrate that what you wrote about another party to the case...was entirely objective" (WP:COI), so too some physicians would no doubt find it difficult to demonstrate that their motivation in calling for the deletion of an article about a man who's spent a sizable chunk of his professional career attacking their trade were entirely objective either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.172.124 (talk • contribs).

• Comment: I'm not "defending" myself, I don't have a need to be "exonerated", and I don't feel like engaging in a back-and-forth with you. I've stated my opinion, and the reasoning for it - at this point it's up to the community. MastCell 22:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: It's incredibly disingenous of you to make assertions that there's no evidence for Caton's notability, citing WP:PROF, and then as soon as you're presented with exactly the evidence that you yourself have demanded, (a) you attempt to shift the goalposts of the discussion and (b) you're now going to take home your bat and ball rather than deal with the observation that that's what you've done. You've thrown around insinuations about others' COI based on "evidence" as flimsy as geography, yet cannot stomach the suggestion that you may have COI issues of your own here. Likewise, while at the same time as you're willing to put words into others' mouths, you attempt a lame linguistic slight-of-hand to avoid addressing the accusation of double-standards.

It really doesn't matter whether or not you accept my observation that you are defending youself. What does matter is that you now refuse to admit that once presented with evidence of notability under exactly the guideline you quoted, you instead appeal to some notion of notability of your own devising, not borne out in WP:PROF.

So, to clarify, there are really only two options here. Either you are asserting that The Politics of Progress has not been "the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews...in works meeting our standards for reliable sources" and that a National Humanities Fellowship is not "a notable award or honor" or you must concede that you are actually using some other standard of notability different from, and at odds with WP:PROF.

If it's the former, I'd be truly intrigued to see your reasoning. If it's the latter, as the nominator of this AfD, you really do owe it to the community to spell out what criteria for notability you're using, and why they should be favoured over WP:PROF, especially when you yourself have appealed to that very guideline. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.172.124 (talk • contribs).

Comment: Please be civil. You've said you know Caton and have worked with him to gather material for his article. One of the reasons WP:COI discourages editing on people with whom you have a personal relationship is that it's hard not to take things personally. You're taking this personally. It's not personal. Yes, I think the article should be deleted, and I spelled out my reasoning in the nomination at the top. If the consensus of the community is to keep it, well, at least the article was improved through the process. That's fine with me too. I'm assuming you're new to Wikipedia, so you may wish to review the policy on personal attacks. Specifically, please confine your comments to the issues at hand, and refrain from commenting on the editors involved as much as possible. MastCell 04:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I'm well aware of WP:CIVIL and have studiously avoided making any kind of personal attack on you, as tempting as it's occasionally been. You, on the other hand, apparently have no such compunctions; first insinuating, and now practically alleging a COI. You also seem to believe that no-one could disagree with you so vehemently unless they were "taking this personally". Frankly, I find that position more than a little condescending.

Yes, you spelled out your reasoning at the very top; but that reasoning was based on the article as it originally stood, with - I'll freely admit - no evidence presented that Caton met the WP:PROF guidelines for notability. However, that evidence has been there for a couple of days now, and you have not altered your position. Which, you'll forgive me for saying, does seem to indicate that you've shifted the goalposts from the time you invoked WP:PROF.

Being civil doesn't preclude pointing out inconsistencies in someone else's statements or position. Does it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.172.124 (talk • contribs).

To answer your question, being civil here involves avoiding comments that cause other editors to believe the mastodons have returned. MastCell doesnt need to change his position; he has indicated that he will accept the communities response; unless you have something to add to the evidence for this Afd, please concentrate on editing. John Vandenberg 05:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - references now in place. Notability meets at least criteria 2 (The Politics of Progress) and 6 (National Humanities Fellowship) of WP:PROF. I am not Hiram Caton, although I do know him, and have requested his help in fleshing out the article today.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.172.124 (talk • contribs).

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 05:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep He is a full professor at Griffith, a major university. Full professors at universities are generally N, because they have survived several rounds of faculty peer review,. But it its not a major re3search university we don't necessarily assume they have published much, but in his case he has written several academic books.The book was reviewed in more than 20 professional journals.so even if there were doubt, the books and the reviews would be enough by all possible standards of N. PROF is just a guideline, but he meets it. He is N among other fields than AIDS dissidence, such as Mead/Derrick. ::As the article says, he has written over 175 articles, mostly peer reviewed, and we accept official web sites for that.

All of the above are referenced in the article, sourced much more fully and competently than academic bios usually are. I cannot help wondering if it were not his positions of issues that was affecting the discussion here. Absurd positions do not make an academic less N--it could even be argued that they make him more so. I am not an australian, and I consider his position of AIDS not merely absurd, but dangerous. Doesn't make him less N, and the documentation holds up. Article does need to be trimmed a bit--it should quote his views instead of presenting them.DGG 05:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Strongly disagree that full professors are automatically notable, as does WP:PROF. I still don't see the independent sources demonstrating notability - the sources that have been added haven't been very impressive to me in that regard and have mentioned him fairly briefly - but I've said my 2¢ there already. MastCell 05:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:PROF requires that only one of the 6 criteria for notability be met. As for "independent sources demonstrating notability", you now have no fewer than 9 reviews of The Politics of Progress in peer-reviewed academic journals (you can verify all but one of these in JSTOR, if you care to). So, how does this still fail to meet WP:PROF 3.1 "The work must be the subject[1] of multiple, independent, non-trivial[2] reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources. "? Secondly, you now have independent verification (from the NHC itself) that Caton was indeed the receipient of a Fellowship there. WP:PROF 6 states "The person has received a notable award or honor". If you're not familiar with these fellowships, read our own article on the National Humanities Center to realise that the award of one is a Big Deal in humanities scholarship... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.172.124 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 24 February 2007.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree that being a full Professor does not in general make you notable. However I think being a full Professor in Australia or UK does as it is a more restricted position than in the US and is more like the named or distinguished Professor in the US. Being a foundation Professor in a new university in Australia adds more to notability. BTW, Griffith University has a strong research focus although perhaps less so than the larger and older University of Queensland in Queensland. An earned D Litt requires extensive publications. It is awarded entirely on the basis of publications. He is quite clearly a notable professor. Let me add that I do not agree with him on AIDS and do not know him, but I do know the Australian academic system. --Bduke 23:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the article needs work but he appears notable in terms of publications as a start. Some of the sources are not strong though. Paul foord 03:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Bduke. John Vandenberg 05:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Per Bduke, clearly passes wp:prof, internationally recognized. --Buridan 15:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, revised article shows notibility, and has verifiable data from reliable sources. --Bejnar 22:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete A7. - Daniel.Bryant 10:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freetar

Freetar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article does not meet with the requirements of notability. If you can fix this article please do so as written it does not belong on Wikipedia. Phatom87 01:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• They can't be terribly popular if nobody's heard of them. Delete. Alba 05:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A1 or A7. Phatom87 previously tagged this as speedy A7, and his judgment was correct. YechielMan 05:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy -Drdisque 05:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to Jacki-O. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:24Z

[edit] Jack The Ripper (album)

Jack The Ripper (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There is no information in this article that is not in Jacki-O. Other than one song, there isn't a tracklisting, the release date is unknown. Seems a bit premature for an article of it's own as it's only restating facts that are elsewhere. It's somewhere between WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N Mallanox 01:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge Artist's article is small enough to easily fit discography info. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Jamie. // 3R1C 15:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to Holism. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:25Z

[edit] Holistic_living

Holistic_living (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN cruft, contains no actual information. 2 of 3 references go to the same NN web source.

Delete Per nomGideonF 01:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete dicdef and neoligism and no assertion that the term is notable.-Markeer 01:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nothing for me to add. YechielMan 05:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with holism. ConDem^Talk 05:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per ConDem. - WeniWidiWiki 06:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• I'll be so bold as to say Transwiki to Wikt else Merge per above. // 3R1C 15:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Holistic living! It's just so. . . oh, wow, man, have you ever looked at your hand? I mean, really looked? (Redirect to holism, not sure there's much to merge here.) - Smerdis of Tlön 15:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mucoid plaque (second nomination)

Mucoid plaque (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:FRINGE. This condition has never been described in any medical journal or textbook and is unrecognized by the medical community. It is a neologism invented by a person who happens to sell products to "cleanse" the "mucoid plaque". Google returns only promotional websites selling "plaque cleansing" products. Per WP:FRINGE, there are no independent sources establishing notability of this fringe topic. In the prior AfD, the article was kept to serve as an example of a "health fraud", but has turned into a vehicle for POV pushing which has led to a block for disruption. But the bottom line is that it fails notability guidelines. MastCell 01:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: since I nominated this advertisement the first time it has turned into a soapbox for a scam posing as medical therapy. Just to be sure violates WP:SPAM, WP:NOR, WP:RS, need I continue? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 01:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Strikes me as a useful source of objective information for those poor gullible individuals who might be taken by scamsters. On the other hand I can see where the article might be hijacked by those same scamsters. So put me down as firmly undecided. Raymond Arritt 02:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Changed to Keep in light of later discussion. It's on my watchlist. Raymond Arritt 22:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Not worthy of being noted. --Parker007 02:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I agree that the article in its original form violated both WP:SOAP, WP:FRINGE, and WP:SPAM. The article in its current form, however, is well sourced and informative in the line of Advance fee fraud. Rather than deletion, I think this page simply requires either protection or constant survellience to stay in line with WP:V and WP:NPOV. Djma12 02:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this sounds good in theory and was the basis for the Keep decision in the prior AfD. But in practice, defending the article against single-purpose accounts dedicated to promoting such a scam is a major time and effort sinkhole. If it falls off the radar, the article will turn into a misleading promotion that will be scraped onto answers.com etc. and propagated. MastCell 04:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete regrettably. Ideally I think it should stay as a source of information on a scam, as Raymond Arritt and Djma12 say. But it has fallen into a Wikipedia loophole: notable through advertising publicity, but with little specific published refutal. It's demonstrably false through simple biology - yet, as its promoter here well knows, with few published criticisms WP:NOR and WP:SYNT stop anyone properly explaining that biology. So, unless anyone can show a way around this, delete. Tearlach 03:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Changed vote to Keep in light of discussion. Tearlach 22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Well said. MastCell 04:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep an monitor per Djma12. Reasonably well-sourced; a good place for someone doing a web search on the topic to discover for themselves that it's pseudoscience. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, and I too am going on WP:FRINGE here, if only for lack of good references. --Dennisthe2 03:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The arguments as later make good points. Keep, with a stipulation that it be protected in the event of continued means of spamming. --Dennisthe2 03:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and monitor per Djma12 and Ohnoitsjamie. Being a frequent target for vandalism is never a reason for deletion. Otherwise, we'd have no articles on any topic relating to the Iraq War or Israel-Palestine. The article is about a scam, but the scam itself is notable given the multiple references. -- Black Falcon 05:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Looks to be notable psuedo-science. Problem editors should get a page block and the article left under semi-protection for a bit. - WeniWidiWiki 06:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Tearlach and it's already mirrored on Answers.com [2].--Dakota 09:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Weni and Falcon... But it needs significant cleanup and maybe a little bit more obvious of a caveat that it's pseudo-science/scam. // 3R1C 15:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Djma12, Raymond Arritt, Ohnoitsjamie and others. Close monitor and warnings to user per 3R1C's vote. D Mac Con Uladh 15:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable fraud per everyone above, and figure out some way of refuting the claims using published sources. There's got to be something reliable out there which talks about how silly of an idea this is. If all else fails, WP:IAR and do what you can. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep there appear to be reliable sources for this being a fraud, and the fraud is undoubtedly widespread. Past vandalism is not a reason for deletion, tiresome though it is. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The problem with this kind of article is there is no reliable source refuting it. There are only reliable sources not naming it, which is not the same! Stating the concept is not accepted within the medical community is correct, but proving it by showing it is not mentioned in medical literature borders on OR. Believe you me I have looked but can't find an article or medical organisation speaking out against this and calling it a fraud. Seems like a major problem. Second, the last AfD had editors promising to keep an eye on this article. Nevertheless they are not around. Our little friend promoting this stuff is, which is evidenced by the fact that I had a recent encounter with him resulting in his block. Not sure what will happen 4 months from now when everybody has forgotten this and Mr PR steps in to remove the caveats from the page. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Agreed - it's like writing an article about how lemon juice is the cause of cancer. There are no reliable sources refuting such a claim, because it's just not notable enough. I think this fits in the same non-notable category. But obviously, others disagree. MastCell 03:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. All contributors please keep in mind that the point of this AFD discussion is not whether or not mucoid plaque is a scam or pseudoscience, but rather whether or not it is a notable and verifiable scam. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on scams and pseudoscience. All we have to determine is if the subject is verifiable via reliable sources and is reasonably well-known. ●DanMS • Talk 02:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Agreed. Obviously, I think it fails notability per WP:FRINGE, but sounds like many others disagree. MastCell 03:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, as an article describing it as an urban myth. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. But also; I don't see revealing fraud and describing urban myths as natural functions of an encyclopedia. I think more suitable in glossy magazines. Amarone 23:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. If kept, is protection and/or surveillance realistic, or will the article again be edited? I don't trust this option. As MastCell wrote 20 February 2007, it sounds good in theory, but difficult in practice; "If it falls off the radar, the article will turn into a misleading promotion that will be scraped onto answers.com etc. and propagated." Amarone 23:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Since it looks at least somewhat likely the article will be kept, I've gone through and edited it pretty comprehensively, along the lines discussed here. It's on my watchlist. But I'm only human and not on Wikipedia all the time - so if you feel the article should be kept and watched closely to prevent it from becoming an advertising vehicle, then could I ask that you-all add the article to your watchlist as well? It doesn't get edited very often, and it would be worth having a few sets of eyes on it, since it slipped under the radar this past time. Thanks. MastCell 18:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Raymond Arritt 18:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• It's on my watchlist now too. Djma12 19:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michelle Kim

Michelle Kim (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable actress. IMDb lists four appearences on one television show and no other credits [3]. IrishGuy ^talk 01:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am nominating (unorthodoxly) the following related pages with the same motivations] Cate | _Talk 10:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC):

Stephen Markarian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Jennifer Hyatt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Jherimi Carter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Cathy Immordino (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The following arguments were added before the addition of the four other articles.

• Delete, can find nothing that would establish any notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Completely fails notability.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2!} 02:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:BIO. Djma12 02:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Artaxiad 02:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable. So non-notable, in fact, that the article even gets the sex wrong. ConDem^Talk 05:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The following arguments were made after the addition of the four other articles.

• Delete all - non notable. I added the other article, to speedy up the process, and I think there will be no objection (on deletion and on addition of other articles). Cate | _Talk 10:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Generally, you should not add new articles to an AfD after discussion has already begun. I personally agree that the four other articles should also be deleted, however, you'd be much better off to reverse the addition and start a separate AfD for the four others. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 10:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply. I know, but personally I had done a speedy deletion. Cconsidering your comment, the next time I will follow better the rules and not assume to much ;-) . Anyway to simplify the admins work: the articles are short and very similar (but the names, sex and imdb link). The imdb pages are similar. A small note: Robert Lipsett links to Michelle Kim, but it was an other person: Assistant Concertmaster of the New York Philharmonic Cate | _Talk 11:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Delete. I put some forward for speedy deletion, they should have gone out there (A7, non-notable bio). MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 12:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not voting on this one, but I do want to point out that IMDb is not a good source for television information. Movies, yes. Television, no. Many, many shows are not up to date on who did what episodes, and many of them don't display the main characters on the main page. I think for TV stuff, I'd take TV.com, TVGuide.com, and Zap2It over IMDb... -- Grev 03:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Tv.com and TVguide.com have absolutely nothing on Michelle Kim. IrishGuy ^talk 03:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep -- zzuuzz^(talk) 02:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philippe Cousteau Jr.

Philippe Cousteau Jr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Makes no claims to notability per WP:BIO aside from his ancestry. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Changing to keep based on article expansion and new sources. Nice work! RJASE1 ^Talk 15:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I expanded the article and added some references. --Eastmain 04:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and either expand or merge to Philippe Cousteau. The stub is hovering on the edge of being an independent article; please make it tip one way or the other. Alba 05:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Eastmain. The subject is easily more notable than his father (half of whose article is about his son), and quite active politically. --Dhartung | Talk 09:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, needs a lot of work though because it still does not reflect Cousteau's real notability despite the good effort by Eastmain Alf photoman 13:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep more notable than most of the notables here. Carlossuarez46 21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article definitely needs fleshing out, but is still is about a person of some notability. --Ozgod 05:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notability is certainly not an issue here. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - meets WP:BIO with reliable sources

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of American Idol contestants

List of American Idol contestants (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This seems to amount to a directory of all contestants/televised performers associated with American Idol. I don't see the purpose of this. Plus, the redlinks encourage creation of non-notable biographies, or, alternatively, redirects to American Idol seasons. Tinlinkin 02:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete As it stands now the number of people who are eligible for this list is astronomical. If I am not mistaken hundreds of thousands of people try out for this show and are considered contestants. I wouldn't mind a list of American Idol finalists as many of them are notable. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:NOT#IINFO. Djma12 02:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete just a big list of mostly non-notable people. Wikipedia is not a directory. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 02:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

*Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk)(Contribs) 03:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• keep; i have removed all the redlinked names and cleaned it up a little Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 19:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Could this perhaps be improved by:
  • Retitling it "List of notable American Idol" contestants
  • Removing all the red-linked names
  • Adding a brief one-sentence blurb to each
• much like University Alumni lists? I would be happy to do this and would support keeping in this instance. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 03:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If anything, it should not be renamed to "List of notable American Idol contestants." I don't remember the exact policy, but I have seen arguments that a list of anything should imply notability; thus adding "notable" would be unnecessary. If you are willing to do it, you can add the additional sentences to as many of the names as possible and we'll see how it looks. I would not remove the red links until after that is done in order to see how non-notable those people are. Tinlinkin 04:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, that's not quite true. It's possible for a list as a whole to be notable, but not have every single member of the list be individually notable. For example, a prolific actor might appear in hundreds of television shows and films, not all of which are notable enough for their own article. But the "list of works" for that notable actor would probably be notable as a whole and worth including in some form in his article. Likewise, not everyone on the cast of a notable film is always notable, but the cast list as a whole for a notable film would probably be worth including. So basically the premise that every entry in a notable list must be notable isn't correct. Dugwiki 21:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well I started by creating a mirror article as a subpage to my userspace which wasn't looking too bad: User:PageantUpdater/List of notable American Idol contestants (although I do get what you're saying about the title). Anyway this was all well and good but then i started clicking on some of the blue links to see what the people were notable for and I found that many of them are simply redirects! So I'm taking a breather until I decide whether it's worth checking the rest. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 04:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Here's another consideration: Could each season of American Idol handle the names of notable contestants in their respective season? In other words, if the people are mentioned in each season, would the master list be redundant? Tinlinkin 04:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Sounds good to me. There's a similar debate over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Contestants on The Amazing Race -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 04:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
      • The redirects are intentional; they are to avoid a potential article being made when it would not be notable. If they have a subsection in the article, they should redirect. CrazyC83 14:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is one of those cases where a category, namely Category:American Idol participants, works better than an uncontrolled list with rampant redlinks. YechielMan 05:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn listcruft. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Directory list kruft in the extreme, and patently unencyclopaedic. - WeniWidiWiki 06:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Axl 08:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 09:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this page as it is directory. However, many of them should have mentions and brief sections on their season page (needs to be done for the first three seasons). Such a directory belongs somewhere else like on an Idol Wiki site... CrazyC83 14:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Keep as this will be more useful once all the redirects are done and sections written on their season pages, or their own articles. CrazyC83 22:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Daniel J. Leivick for being too inclusive. If this were a list of finalists, then maybe, but a list of all contestants ever? No way. (jarbarf) 18:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as long as it is limited to people notable enough for articles, I see no reason why the list has to be limited to finalists. Savidan 20:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean actual articles? Or including redirects? (Anyone with a section in their season article should have a redirect to that article) CrazyC83 20:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I definitely wouldn't want a category like this, as this is basically a list of combined guest spots and full contestents who appeared on television competing on the show, and we don't categorize by guest spots. However, list articles go by a different, easier to meet standard compared to categories, and a list article to handle guest stars on a show is probably ok. I also do see the potential use of having a list article index of existing Wikipedia articles about Idol contestants, since the show presumably has a fair number of readers interested in looking at articles about various singers on the show. So overall I'd say no to a category, but I generally don't have a problem in principle with a list of contestents who had the opportunity to sing on the televised show. Dugwiki 21:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep the category already exists, ergo the list should also exist. Jcuk 21:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep participants on a show as notable as American Idol are in themselves notable, and so would a list. Just H^{editor review} 22:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I strongly disagree. Like I said above there are probably nearly a million Idol participants. Nearly all of them are in no way notable. Even the small percentage that appear on TV do not get notability by default, Jeopardy is notable, but there is no need to list every contestant. The argument that the category exist therefore the list should doesn't make much sense to me either. --Daniel J. Leivick 22:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No other TV show gets 30 million viewers every week though! This is the #1 rated show on television, so there is nothing to compare it to. CrazyC83 02:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So just because it is 1# you wouldn't be opposed to a list that had everyone of the million Idol participants? --Daniel J. Leivick 03:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with a list of all the million, but I don't think anyone other than those who make it to the final rounds are notable, this is what I assume when I think of "contestants". Those people waiting in line are trying out to be contestants. Just H^{editor review} 02:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a disclaimer at the top of the page though... CrazyC83 03:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Edison 05:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I am a regular contributor to the Idol articles, but frankly, this list just isn't needed. The American Idol Participants category is sufficient. And as many have mentioned, it's an impossible list to maintain. And figuring out notability is a nightmare as it is when it comes to the Idol articles. This list is just too hard to keep up with. And it's redundant to the cat. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and definitely DON'T create a "List of notable American Idol contestants" because the only sure way to become notable as an American Idol contestant is to become (at least) a finalist. If anyone is notable for another reason, they could have an article, but it doesn't make sense to have a separate list to accommodate finalists and the odd random non-finalist who also found note somewhere else. --Dystopos 19:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Too many SPAs here stating keep; consensus by legitimate means is delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Taylor Bowles

John Taylor Bowles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Verifiability and no credible sources. Non-notable unless this "National Socialist Movement" candidate gets on any ballots or at least gets some mainstream media coverage. Dimitroff 02:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - FEC Federal Election Committee verified Candidate. Search P8003320 at FEC Disclosure Site. http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_detail/P80003320/ Candidate also has a federally registered PAC called 88 PAC. This candidate is fully credible no matter what anti-Americans may think. Candidate Bowles is fully registered with the Federal Government in the spirit of American politics. This is truly an example of a government by the people for the people at work. Deleting this candidate in favor of corporate sponsored, foreign sponsored and owned bigger Parties is a disgrace and against everything America stands for. You can't delete facts especially those with verifiable sources just because you don't agree with their platform. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.75.232.56 (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

• Strong Keep - Granted, candidate Bowles is a registered candidate with the Federal Election Commission (#)80003320) and has established an official political action committee with the FEC for his candidacy (Bowles for President 2008, #C0041148) and established a campaign website (Bowlesforpresident.com). Candidate Bowles is receiving widespread newspaper coverage --Low Profile 01:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)including Huron, North Dakota and Columbia, South Carolina, plus campaigning state-to-state. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.222.111 (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

• • Provide a link for your claims towards registration. Searches on for the registration numbers provided on both Google and the FEC website do not produce any hits. Until they are provided, the comment violates WP:NOR and WP:V. Djma12 17:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - Granted, this is a minor candidate, but he does seem to fit Wikipedia:Candidates and elections. Djma12 02:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • • I have tried to do some additional research on this candidate. The party that he espouses is not registered, nor is he a registered political candidate. Delete per Dimitroff.Djma12 03:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      
      
  • How exactly? Reading over Wikipedia:Candidates and elections it says "That does not mean, however, that all candidates for office should automatically receive their own articles in Wikipedia. Articles on candidates for office, like all Wikipedia articles, must meet standards of quality and verifiability." As far as I can see this article fails those standards. We don't even have any evidence that this is a registered candidate. Dimitroff 04:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to him actually getting some press coverage. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless some evidence that an even moderately mainstream media source has covered his candidacy. --Delirium 08:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:V by end of this AfD Alf photoman 13:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The comment from Djma12: "Granted, this is a minor candidate.." needs expanding. In fact, this a major candidate (Presidential election!). That is surely enough to make him notable, even if he is from a minor party. Plenty of Google hits to back up this candidacy, mostly from the NSM unfortunately, but there's also this [4]. Emeraude 17:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (belatedly signed)
  • The "minor party" is not a registered political party. There is no evidence this is a registered political candidate. Just because Joe Blow in Springfield, NH says he's running for president doesn't mean that he is and doesn't mean he deserves a wikipedia article. Dimitroff 17:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough to have had any press coverage. Anyone can declare themselves a candidate for any office. Let's delete this article until there are sources available. -Will Beback · † · 20:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable; if he gets some coverage at a future time, then hey, fire away, but at this point 1,200 Google hits for a Presidential candidate is pretty weak. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I'm working on his Wikinews article, and he was written up by the Columbia City Paper [5]. Also, his party, the National Socialism Movement is the largest Neo Nazi group in the US, which in turn has ties to National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, the controversial 1978 Supreme Court Case that upheld the Freedom of Speech, and allowed Nazis to parade in a traditional Jewish community. So, when put together, I believe he is notable.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zidel333 (talk • contribs).
  • Comment - A quick scan of the "Columbia City Paper" shows it to be some minor newsletter, not a credible source per WP:V. Furthermore, three degrees of separation to a 1978 Supreme Court case does not constitue WP:BIO notability criteria. Heck, even I'm three degrees of separation from the past four U.S. presidents. Djma12 17:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I find that he is usually referred to as Taylor Bowles, and doing a LEXIS newspaper search got 125 hits for the last two years. In just the first ten hits, I found articles about him in The Virginian-Pilot(Norfolk, Va.) August 21, 2005 and June 12, 2005; The Olympian (Olympia, Washington), June 19, 2006; Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News - The Olympian, June 19, 2006 (and other dates); Associated Press State & Local Wire, October 9, 2005; The Roanoke Times (Virginia), October 18, 2005; Associated Press Worldstream, June 25, 2005; Associated Press Online, June 25, 2005; and others. The newspaper articles are not flattering, but they do establish notability, as well as a certain notoriety. --Bejnar 08:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I was in South Carolina at the time that his campaign came through. The local, mainstream paper contained an article about the campaign. It also listed that this camdidate is receiving matching funds. The candidate is listed on many internet polls of registered Presidential Candidates, including the folowing link:

It seems obvious that some people do not want this article because they do not like the message. However, that is not a consideration for an unbiased encyclopedic service. This articl should stand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.9.250.6 (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

• Strong KeepPolitical opponents of the National Socialist Movement obviously wish to deny their party and their message any legitimacy whatsoever. Mr. Bowles is a presidential candidate registered with the National Election Commission. He has a campaign committee and his party has held numerous political rallies in various states around the U.S. in the last several years. He has been interviewed by newspapers, and portions of his speeches have been broadcast over national cable news networks. Perhaps his chances of actually gaining the Presidency are small, but he is a legitimate candidate with a legitimate political platform from a legal political party. His Wikipedia entry should remain, if for no other reason, in order that Wikipedia should be an exhaustive source of information on who is running for President. Low ProfileLow Profile 01:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swanson family

Swanson family (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article is split into multiple articles. TigerK 69 02:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No need for a "family" article when we already have individual articles. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, moving any material necessary for maintaining links to the main article of Family Guy. Alba 05:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Each character has his/her own article, shouldn't need a family one. Isn't that baby born yet? --Nehrams2020 08:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WMMartin 14:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter arbor

Peter arbor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not seem to meet WP:BIO notability criteria. Also suspect WP:COI issues. Failed prod. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. As the person who prodded this, it looks like a vanity bio to me. The fellow seems to be quoted in a couple of news articles, but is not the primary subject of any that I could find, making almost all of the contents unverifiable. The only thing that struck me as maybe possibly notable is the claimed listing in Forbes, but I think that's too weak on its own and couldn't verify it on the Forbes site anyhow. William Pietri 02:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Please note the username of the original author. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced, most likely made-up. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. non notable. But I cannot understand why people cannot write surnames uppercase. Cate | _Talk 10:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources, no references = not notable Alf photoman 13:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lin-wood High School

Lin-wood High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

It is a public K-12 school article that fails to assert notability Butseriouslyfolks 02:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:SCHOOL as most High Schools pass this. -Drdisque 05:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Aside from the fact that WP:SCHOOL is a proposal, not a guideline, how can it be said that most high schools pass it? I think the converse is true. "A school may be best handled in a separate article if it is the principal subject of multiple reliable independent non-trivial published works." If you show me some, I might change my vote on this article, but I haven't seen one to date. -- Butseriouslyfolks 06:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unreferenced sub-stub. --Delirium 08:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Johnn 7 12:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nn sub-stub with no references; this qualifies for speedy deletion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. A non-notable schools and a pretty poorly done article. Soltak | Talk 18:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with the Lincoln, New Hampshire article. That should be sufficient at the current level of development. — RJH (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Just pointing out that the school apparently also serves Woodstock, New Hampshire. Lin(coln)-Wood(stock). Get it? Butseriouslyfolks 20:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. -Seinfreak37 21:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep My general reasons are here but I was tempted by RJHall's idea, given that the district is so small and the article is such a stubby little thing. But it is part of two different communities, as Butseriouslyfolks points out, so putting a section in one or the other doesn't seem appropriate. It is distinctive in being New Hampshire's only school that covers all grades, which might make it interesting to people studying education. Noroton 21:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:IAR. This article needs improving. --Masterpedia 21:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is not just a school, it is a school district that covers multiple communities. As a governmental body it has suffucuent standing to justify an article. Alansohn 22:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This article covers the school, not the district. They are two decidedly different entities. I agree that school districts are notable, most of the schools in those districts aren't. Soltak | Talk 22:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge. Deletion serves no purpose. If merged, a redirect is still needed. --Dystopos 00:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion serves the purpose of removing a worthless article from the server. Soltak | Talk 00:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with your appraisal of the article or your estimation of the server requirements. --Dystopos 17:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would a redirect be necessary? WP's search function finds terms in articles even when they are not in the title. So does Google . . . Butseriouslyfolks 00:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll rephrase. By Wikipedia's typical practices, a redirect would be advisable, though not, given the power of Google, strictly necessary. --Dystopos 17:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Notability is considered a guideline not Wikipedia Policy. Lack of notability is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions WP:AADD. Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. Many editors still consider notability to be a subjective WP:JNN. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability WP:V, not truth. Wikipedia is not a matter of truth. Verifiability is an official policy of Wikipedia. --Masterpedia 03:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think it is interesting that you support your argument against a guideline by citing essays, which are even weaker authority. The policy in question here is not WP:V, but WP:NOT. WP:N is a guideline used to implement WP:NOT. Incidentally, a guideline is "generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow." It is not something that should be disregarded just because an essay says its ok. Butseriouslyfolks 04:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:NOT is almost always completely irrelevant, other than to mean "anything I have decided doesn't belong on Wikipedia, for which I do NOT want to bother with coming up for a reason". In this case, you haven't even stated what part of WP:NOT you feel this article violates. Alansohn 05:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment WP:NOT is a policy. You can abuse it all you want, but we are supposed to follow it. It is one of the rules of engagement here, like it or not. The section of WP:NOT which is primarily relevant here, IMHO, is WP:NOT#DIR. This section of WP policy is implemented through the guideline of WP:N. In plain language, notability distinguishes subjects worthy of articles from the sorts of things that one would only find in a directory. Butseriouslyfolks 05:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment Let's take a look at what WP:NOT#DIR actually says: "1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). No; 2. Genealogical entries or phonebook entries. No; and, 3. Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business. No" Unfortunately, humble or otherwise, there is no element of your referenced policy that is relevant here. Alansohn 05:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment I see you missed my point. It's #3. Wikipedia is not a directory of schools. If they pass WP:N, they go in. Otherwise, they stay out as directory fodder. Butseriouslyfolks 05:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Comment You just claimed that the relevant issue is WP:NOT#DIR, and insist that this article is a directory of schools. Let's quote #3 in its entirety "Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, programme lists, etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages." Clearly, it is an article about a school, not a list of them. I don't see anything that looks like "upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, [or] programme lists" in this article. "Directory fodder" is just a rewording of "I can't come up with an actual Wikipedia policy that this article violates so I'm resorting to excuses." Any other suggestions of a relevant Wikipedia policy? Alansohn 05:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Comment I guess it's a lot easier to prove me wrong when you misconstrue policy and put words into my mouth. The policy does not merely prohibit 'articles' which are themselves directories. Rather, it declares that 'Wikipedia' itself is not a directory. (Look above the subsection you quoted and you will see the following text: "Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed.") Similarly, I did not insist that the 'article' is a directory of schools. I argued that if every non-notable school is the proper subject of a Wikipedia article, then 'Wikipedia' would become a directory of schools. As you can see, this is touching on WP:NOT#IINFO as well. Butseriouslyfolks 05:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Comment You stated above that "The policy in question here is not WP:V, but WP:NOT. WP:N is a guideline used to implement WP:NOT." Which part of policy am I misconstruing and which words am I putting in your mouth? I can only rebut the claims you make. If WP:NOT does NOT apply, then you no longer have an argument. The problem with your quote that "Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." is that the policy then goes on to state what constitutes such a directory and none of the three items fit. Do you have any other suggestions of a relevant Wikipedia policy? Alansohn 06:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (Indent reset) You are misconstruing the policy by ignoring the two sentences I quoted in my last post here. You are putting words in my mouth by stating that I am insisting that the article is a directory of schools. You say you can only rebut the claims I make, but you are doing a much better job of rebutting claims I haven't made. Are you saying that WP policies are to be read literally as exhaustive lists and that if another category of item fits the definition but is not within the letter of the law, users are free to disregard the spirit of the law? Butseriouslyfolks 06:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Again, you stated above that "The policy in question here is not WP:V, but WP:NOT. WP:N is a guideline used to implement WP:NOT." Which part of policy am I misconstruing? You have still not demonstrated that this article meets any of the three categories specified in WP:NOT#DIR. If WP:NOT really does mean something here, convince us that it does apply by referencing and quoting actual policy, not merely based on what you're sure it must mean by the "spirit of the law" (use of which term would seem to be a rather clear acknowledgment that it does NOT fit the claimed policy). Alansohn 06:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm getting frustrated. You probably are too. I explained my reasoning above. You obviously disagree. I did quote actual policy (with quotation marks and everything!) but I don't see any utility in repeating my argument that WP is not a directory (of high schools), because you'll just repeat your argument to the contrary and we'll continue gainsaying each other indefinitely like some real-life version of a comedic sketch. I agree to disagree. You can do the same or not. I'll even let you have the last word if you want. Have a great day! Butseriouslyfolks 06:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per -Drdisque reasonsOo7565 05:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep a K-12 school meets notability. --Djsasso 06:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - this school articles fails to assert any notability whatsoever. It meets speedy deletion criteria; those arguing that notability does not apply are applying special pleading. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability neither asserted nor obviously apparent, and references/sources are inadequate. WMMartin 14:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The notability of the article is the only "single school" SAU (School Administrative Unit) in the state. --Masterpedia 15:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • And that makes it notable how? If it were the only school built with brick, would it be notable? The only school with a maple tree? I'm sorry, I dont' see how that is notable at all. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I believe the only "single school" SAU (School Administrative Unit) in the state to be the argument of notabilty. If in your opinion this is not notable, based on cockeyed, crazy, loony, and loopy comparisons than your opinion is right. Here is another comparison for you; Every guy has one dick, but this one guy has a double dick. His claim to double dickness is verifiable and has regional interest in San Francisco, however every guy could have a double dick if he went Dan's House of Double Dick Installations, would no longer make the article notable. I understand your argument without the comparisons. Hopefully my articulateness expression on comparisons being useless is understood. --Masterpedia 18:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• My 1^st grade teacher just informed me I was rude with my delivery. That being said the comparisons are elementery. Since anyone reading the above comment can conclude this on there own, I figured wikihumor WP:LOL was nesscacery. Please do not take my wikihumor seriously. --Masterpedia 18:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to comment on the facts, without getting back into the keep/delete mishegas, it is the school district that is the only SAU in the state. The subject of the article is the school, not the district. Butseriouslyfolks 19:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• That is completely false. All School districts is NH are SAU's [6]. This is the only single building SAU in the state. --Masterpedia 19:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's not false, just ambiguous because I shorthanded the sentence. I'll say it again, this time including what I thought was obvious: "It is the school district that is the only SAU in the state [with only one school]." Anyway, it doesn't change the fact that the article is about the district, not the school, so something that makes the district notable would not necessarily make its school also notable. Butseriouslyfolks 20:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and improve or merge. Cooljeanius 18:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Public high schools are inherently worth inclusion. --Elonka 07:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as article has substantially improved, expanded beyond stub status, with reliable sources. (jarbarf) 23:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crew of Square One TV

Crew of Square One TV (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A list of crew members involved in the production of a TV show (no actors!) that reads like an IMDB listing. Not encyclopedic. Tinlinkin 03:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. We also have a Crew of Sesame Street page, which doesn't seem much better (except that the show itself is more notable)... DMacks 07:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should nominate Crew of Sesame Street as well. - Ozzykhan 16:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. You got to be kidding me. This isn't IMDB. --UsaSatsui 16:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. - Anas ^Talk? 16:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Highly unlikely that it will be expanded upon, and just a mirror of IMDB. --Nehrams2020 08:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - Ozzykhan 16:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Train-Driver Superbowl

Train-Driver Superbowl (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

No proof that this movie exists. ^{[Check Google hits]} Google search for "Train-Driver Superbowl" brings up only another Wikipedia article about Owen Wilson. Search for "John Effchrane" results in same article. IMDB shows nothing. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 18:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yuser31415 03:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I sure don't see any evidence this movie even exists (Or will exist, according to the article) Delete unless notability can be established. Eeblefish 05:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Until verifiable sources appear, this is a crystal ball article. Delete with proviso that article may be re-posted when verifiable sourcing appears. Alba 05:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Without sources, it cannot be kept. YechielMan 05:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete until real information about this film appears. I also agree with the above comment that sources are needed. fraggle 16:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as speedy as allowed - I could not find any information connecting Superbowl and/or Owen Wilson and/or Casey Wurzbach and/or John Effchrane and/or Ed Asner, each mentioned in the article. This appears to be a hoax created essentially by a single purpose account that provides apparently false information about living persons. The explanation given by the article's creator [7] is implausible - the idea that Dreamworks' first mention anywhere of this purported $140,000,000 movie would be through an intern's post on Wikipedia to "gauge the publics reaction" is far fetched. The article's creator admits to creating the movie poster image used in the article (see poster licensing), further supporting the idea that this article is a hoax. The article states that filming is now going on in Los Angeles, but Film LA has no record of it. Also, the fact that the article image includes the name "Effchrane", which could mean fuck John Chrane does not help this article. By asserting these actors are in this movie, others in the entertainment industry may be less willing to approach them for their own projects. Thus, keeping this article on Wikipedia may go directly to the livelihood of many of these living people, raising WP:BLP concerns. However, speedy delete of hoaxes may require a similar opinion of several editors. -- Jreferee 16:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Jreferee's fine reasoning. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. –mysid☎ 19:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ang Hui Gek

Ang Hui Gek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:BIO. No significant contributions or media coverage. Nv8200p talk 18:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  13:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Non-notable bio. *drew 09:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yuser31415 03:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone can find a notable mention in the Singapore press. (I can't imagine someone like this being covered in any other verifiable source.) Alba 05:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. If someone can find even a single decent source then I'd say keep. --Delirium 08:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO Alf photoman 12:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• The homepage of the Singapore Pharmacy Board does include a listing for Ang Hui Gek under the "A" section of this page. It says that she is affiliated with the Allied Health Division of Singapore General Hospital. This government report lists her as president of the Singapore Pharmacy Board, and also confirms her title as chief pharmacist on page 9. Since those are official publications, that should satisfy WP:V, at least. I'll start checking for newspaper coverage next. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• OK, she's quoted in her official capacity in this article by Channel News Asia, but that's it. Did anyone check whether there's an article in Malay/Mandarin/Tamil Wikipedia? Those might have additional sources... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Somebody should put those references in the article because they don't help in an AfD that hardly anybody bothers to read again Alf photoman 22:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• It also looks like Lexis-Nexis has five articles in The Straits Times that mention her by name between 1995 and 2002, though I can only search, not read. -22:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Though her existence and title are definitely confirmed, I do not feel that they add up to sufficient non-local notability as to meet WP:BIO. --Elonka 07:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus. PeaceNT 05:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eugenius (band)

Eugenius (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Article makes claims that are not backed up with sources, other than a Geocities site (which is hardly reliable). Author of article insists on signing it, violating WP:OWN; might probably fail WP:NN too despite its claims. JuJube 19:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 20:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Eugene Kelly. Ac@osr 22:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable band, two notable members, released albums on Atlantic and Creation records, as an Amazon search would have quickly proved. EliminatorJR

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yuser31415 03:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep per EliminatorJR. Seems borderline notable. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per WP:BAND, two independently notable band members and signed by Atlantic records, though just one album? More reliable sources would be good though. WjBscribe 09:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• More info Only one album on Atlantic, but also this one [8] on Creation, which satisfies WP:BAND straight away, regardless of the fact they satisfy point 3 and point 5 (twice) as well. I'll flesh this article out a bit when I get the chance.EliminatorJR 10:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable. fraggle 16:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:MUSIC. 2 notable members and 2 albums: Oomalama and Mary Queen Of Scots. -- Black Falcon 18:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - the reason I went with a merge is because, AFAIK, Brendan O'Hare, the second notable member only did a few gigs with the band when they were still Captain America; he was busy with Teenage Fanclub and Telstar Ponies throughout the group's existance. If he's one one of the albums I'd have gone with a keep but I'm pretty sure he never recorded with the group (except possibly the Captain America EP).Ac@osr 19:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Ah - but in that case, if the Captain America incarnation are brought into it, they're even more notable - as Captain America they supported Nirvana on their 1991 UK Nevermind tour[9] EliminatorJR 20:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• A tour O'Hare can't have done as TFC were touring at the same time. I don't mind really...Ac@osr 09:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the "if I've heard of them here on the other side of the planet, then they must have some notability" criterion :) Grutness...wha? 00:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As all of the informations is legitimate, notable band.The City 00:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Might I also add that "Oomalama" and "Mary Queen Of Scots" were both released on Atlantic records. Ampersandfrabjous(mark)

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invaderman

Invaderman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Zero claim of notability, nor sources that are not the author's own words. Google almost exclusively returns forum member pages. Prod removed without comment. Nifboy 19:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• delete per WP:NOIMAGINARYENTITIES. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yuser31415 03:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete with extreme prejudice: Copyright grant is questionable with regards to GFDL compatability; no claim of notability; not verifiable; and most important, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, which this is a grade A example of. Alba 05:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and Alba. Eeblefish 05:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete hoax and/or copyvio. Storm05 15:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, utter nonsense with no sources. The copyright bit in the bottom is definitely the last straw on my camel. Natalie 21:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with enough prejudice to run afoul of federal civil rights law. Imaginary, not notable, not verifiable, and a rather amusing copyvio to top it off. ShaleZero 02:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Şampiyon

Şampiyon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Restaurant with no claim to notability. Macrakis 19:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. El Cid 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Punkmorten 22:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yuser31415 03:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. We can't have articles on every restaurant in existence and this article makes no claim as to why this one is any more notable than any other. WjBscribe 09:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NN, but it did make me hungry. mceder (u t c) 19:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ConDem^Talk 20:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. A Train ^{take the} 20:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Becky Lee

Becky Lee (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable reality tv contestant -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 03:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, notability Dave6 ^talk 04:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There seems to be a growing sentiment around here that reality TV contestants are not notable unless they win. I'm on board with that. YechielMan 05:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've been trying hard to keep pages in check and I've been going after most of the non-Top 5 finishers, unfortunately, some have done minor things, ie. news anchor, winning minor awards, being on low-rated cable shows and it is not that easy. I think finishing third is above the notability line although many pages need clean up. -- Scorpion 15:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I think that her making it to the final tribal council makes her notable enough. Other Survivors who didn't get as far, and have no previous notability, also have articles. Jordan 05:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep She finished third AND made tribal council. -- Scorpion 15:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. All she did was place third in a game show. Hardly notable. I'm not persuaded by the WP:INN argument. Agent 86 16:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Reality TV contestant does not make you notable. mceder (u t c) 19:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, lack of sufficient references for notability For the article to show notability she is supposed have references to multiple independent articles about her. Unfortunately, the only reference in the article is the CBS biography, which isn't entirely independent and doesn't qualify as "multiple articles". Note that losing contestents can be notable, but at a minimum they must have published independent articles about them for reference. This article doesn't. Dugwiki 21:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep didn't we go through all this with Big Brother a while back? Jcuk 21:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per Dugwiki and per second runner up =non-notable loser. Edison 06:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per WP:BIO (and recreate as redirect to appropriate season) the show is notable. But the contestant is not, hasnt done anything notable since leaving the reality game show. Lack of references, and I'm sure we dont create pages on every losing 'Jeopardy' contestant just because they've been on a game show. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 05:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bekah Ferguson

Bekah Ferguson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not seem to me to meet notability criteria of WP:BIO. I can't find any reviews or mentions of the works aside from promotional info. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Why is my article pending deletion? I don't really understand, but I would like to fix it so that the article can remain.

Thanks for your assistance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Djrobbief (talk • contribs) 03:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment please refer to WP:COI, WP:OWN and WP:SOAP. Ohconfucius 02:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Note to the previous commenter: please sign your posts "~~~~" so that we know who you are. This is a typical case of a fan's bio, or an autobiography, of a non-notable figure who thinks she's notable because she published some books. See the details at WP:BIO. There may not be much of a way to improve the article if the facts are what they are. YechielMan 05:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO. janejellyroll 05:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:V by end of this AfD Alf photoman 13:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Titles published by a vanity publisher. Victoriagirl 22:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. A vanity publisher is a company that charges authors to publish their book. The books in question appear to be published by the author and her husband, rather than a vanity publisher. If multiple reviews or articles about the author from reliable sources can be found, then she would be notable. --Eastmain 02:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I see no indication that Rock of Ages Publishing is anything but a vanity press. Victoriagirl 04:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Believe it or not, a few standard books have been published what is called vanity publishers, the question is not what type of publisher put out a book but how many have actually been sold and how does that figure relate to comparable books published by standard publishers Alf photoman 22:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • While I'm afraid I don't know what is meant by "standard books", I believe my comment concerning Rock of Ages Publishing has been misconstrued. In no way do I believe that self-published and vanity press books should be disregarded, rather I argue that they should be recognized for what they are: publications paid for by the author. I think this fact is relevant to any AfD consideration... as are sales, influence and profile. Victoriagirl 23:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Also appears to fail WP:COI: author is Djrobbief, and husband of subject is one Robbie Ferguson. He also attempted to hijack the page Rebecca Smith. Ohconfucius 02:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. A Train ^{take the} 20:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sundra Oakley

Sundra Oakley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable actress and reality TV show contestant. Has appeared in a couple of episodes of prime-time tv but I can't see her being notable for that. previous nom ended in no consensus. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 04:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment What makes her less noticeable than other Survivor contestants (Christy Smith, for example)? Irk_(talk) 06:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • She isn't. I'm currently going through a purpose of nominating nn Survivor articles for deletion (have already put up at least five) so will get to the others soon... although the fact that she (Christy) is deaf makes her more notable than most, I guess. Anyway we'll see. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 06:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into a list of contestants on the relevant Survivor show. Its one thing having articles on the winners of reality TV series, but every contestant is not notable enough for a separate article. WjBscribe 09:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Being on a reality TV show does not make you notable. mceder (u t c) 19:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable game-show loser. Edison 06:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Made it to the final 4, and also part of the infamous fire-making challenge in which neither her nor Becky could start a fire without matches. Jordan 00:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete (and recreate as redirect to appropriate season) the show is notable. But the contestant is not, hasnt done anything notable since leaving the reality game show. I'm sure we dont create pages on every losing 'Jeopardy' contestant just because they've been on a game show. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. A Train ^{take the} 20:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Kanegai

Bruce Kanegai (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

You're welcome to disagree with me, but being medevaced out of Survivor does not make one notable. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 04:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into a list of contestants on the relevant Survivor show. Its one thing having articles on the winners of reality TV series, but every contestant is not notable enough for a separate article. WjBscribe 09:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Maybe so, but being medevaced did become a national story. Why were all of these Survivor pages nominated seperately? -- Scorpion 14:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A footnote to a gameshow. As for separate nominations, we just had a bulk nomination of Who Wants to be a Millionaire contestants closed because it was a bulk nomination. I'm sure the nom didn't want to have the same results here. Agent 86 16:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Being on a reality TV show.... mceder (u t c) 19:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable reality show loser. Edison 06:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - he is one of only two people in the show who have been medevaced. Michael from Australia has a page. Jordan 23:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-winner on game show who lacks relevant reliable independent sources of biographical information. 253 unique Ghits, all being either wiki, show marketing, or otherwise trivial mentions. Having had those near-brushes with death is but trivia, and does not at all contribute to notability unless he has been perhaps struck by lightening twice and survived ;-). Ohconfucius 02:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per WP:BIO (and recreate as redirect to appropriate season) the show is notable. But the contestant is not, hasnt done anything notable since leaving the reality game show. I'm sure we dont create pages on every losing 'Jeopardy' contestant just because they've been on a game show. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - same reasons as Jordan above. Unlike Arnzy's case, the individual appeared on 17 hours of television and the U.S. version is broadcast internationally. JKPrivett 07:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. A Train ^{take the} 20:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rafe Judkins

Rafe Judkins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Survivor contestant. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 04:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into a list of contestants on the relevant Survivor show. Its one thing having articles on the winners of reality TV series, but every contestant is not notable enough for a separate article. WjBscribe 09:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Finishing third in Survivor is notable enough. -- Scorpion 14:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Third place contestant on one of many, many game shows. No big deal. Agent 86 16:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Agent 86. mceder (u t c) 19:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The article lists a number of interviews and articles about the person in the references section at the end. The minimal criteria for notability is to have multiple independent articles written about the person by reliable publications. So if the references in the article are reliable and independent of the person, then he would be considered notable. If not, he isn't. Since I'm not in a position to verify the references, though, I'll have to defer to other editors to check them out. Note that whether or not he won Survivor or placed third has nothing to do with his potential Wikipedia notability or verifiability for the article. It's solely a question of how much published information there is about him. Dugwiki 21:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Quantity does not mean quality - or notability. We are not blindly bound to a guideline that sets forth criteria that are used as a tool to determine notability. Numerous puff-pieces, human interest stories, or page-fillers do not necessarily make one notable. Notability is more than counting the number of published pieces on any given subject. Agent 86 22:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Sounds like you're trying to make a subjective call on what is a "puff piece" versus what is "an article about the person". The fact is that notability is a reflection of whether or not there is sufficient, independent published material about the person to support an article. I'm pretty sure you won't find terms like "puff piece" or "page filler" in policy or guidelines. The only question is whether these articles are 1) non-trivially about the person (ie they don't just mention the person in passing), 2) independent of the subject (ie they're not just written by the subject or their agents), and 3) independent of each other (eg they're not recopied versions of the same wire story). If the references meet those criteria, the person is notable. Dugwiki 18:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I forgot to add 4) references must be from reliable sources. Blogs and forum posts aren't considered reliable. Dugwiki 18:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I suggest that a puff-piece, etc. (words I never said were expressly incorporated into the guideline) would not constitute "non-trivial" coverage. I refuse to believe that we must be automatons that slavishly adhere to a guideline. If we are, I'm notable for the bowling trophy I won in elementary school. Agent 86 02:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually you wouldn't be notable for winning a bowling trophy unless there were multiple independent articles written about you because of it. So your sarcastic example doesn't apply. Dugwiki 19:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable reality show loser. Edison 06:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - He made it to the final 3, which is pretty good in Survivor. Jordan 00:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-winner per nom. If a TV producer wants an actor enough, he/she will be prepared to pay for services rendered - not the case here. Maybe WP:BIO guidelines should specifically exclude unpaid appearances on TV as a notability criterion ;-) Ohconfucius 02:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per WP:BIO (and recreate as redirect to appropriate season) the show is notable. But the contestant is not, hasnt done anything notable since leaving the reality game show. I'm sure we dont create pages on every losing 'Jeopardy' contestant just because they've been on a game show. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeopardy is a bad analogy, because most of those contestents don't have multiple, independently written reliable articles published about them. It is not whether or not the person has won or lost the game, it's whether or not the references available rise to the level required to reliably provide a useful article to the readers. Dugwiki 18:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - article has links to multiple independent sources that attest to the subject's notability. Otto4711 05:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per Otto4711. SirSam972 12:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Add to list of survivor contestants.

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

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

The result was voted out of Wikipedians' Tribal Council, i.e.delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brandon Bellinger

Brandon Bellinger (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Survivor contestant -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 04:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into a list of contestants on the relevant Survivor show. Its one thing having articles on the winners of reality TV series, but every contestant is not notable enough for a separate article. (Couldn't these all have been grouped into one nom?) WjBscribe 09:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, merely a contestant on a game show. No faulting the nom on the separate nominations, especially after the bulk nom of Who Wants to be a Millionaire contestants was summarily closed yesterday. Agent 86 16:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Agent 86. mceder (u t c) 19:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Article's only references are not independent of the person. To demonstrate notability it needs multiple independent articles from reliable sources. Dugwiki 21:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable reality show loser. Edison 06:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Although he lost, and although he was on a reality show, he was indeed a notable person during the broadcast of one of the most popular television shows ever. His status as a winner or looser is irrelevant, and removing this page makes Wikipedia less encyclopedic. If keeping is deemed unpractical, the contestant should be folded into a mergec character article.Transcendentalstate
  • The above would possibly be justifications for having some information about him in the appropriate article about the show, but wouldn't necessarilly suffice for him having his own independent article. A person needs to meet a slightly higher threshold of notability and references to have their own individual article. Dugwiki 19:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:BIO. I agree with Transcendentalstate, who states that "his status as a winner or looser is irrelevant". It's all in the quality of biographical information about the subject. I found nothing of substance in amongst the 253 unique Ghits, most are the usual wiki mirrors, show marketing (trivial and non-trivial), some directory listings and links to photo galleries. No independent and reliable sources for his biographical information. He does not appear to have any achievements of note since the show. As an aside, the highest quality article on any person of that name is from the Harrisburg PA Mayor's Office. Ohconfucius 02:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per WP:BIO (and recreate as redirect to appropriate season) the show is notable. But the contestant is not, hasnt done anything notable since leaving the reality game show. I'm sure we dont create pages on every losing 'Jeopardy' contestant just because they've been on a game show. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep and rename. A Train ^{take the} 20:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Abbeville Horror

The Abbeville Horror (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Lot of problems here. The name itself is POV. The article is almost completely unsourced, making it almost all OR, and since Steven Bixby and his father are still alive, it's a raging BLP vio. We've got a solid accusation of POV made by an anon user on the article's talk page. The individuals involved may merit articles (Steven Bixby in particular, see [10]), but I think this page should probably go. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• This page needs immediate, massive NPOV editing to survive deletion. Alba 05:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Provisional delete. 'Twas ever my understanding that crime and criminals form a partial exception to notability guidelines, one that is moreover hard to capture in a formula. Though local crimes are often subject to non-trivial coverage by independent, citable sources, reliable in the context of daily journalism, most of them are of purely local interest and fade quickly when the next one occurs. In order to merit encyclopedia coverage, there needs to be some measure of long-lasting or national interest. I am not sure that this incident qualifies. If kept, it certainly wants a more descriptive and neutral title and heavy editing to remove journalese and editorializing. Not sure that this should be broken up or moved into articles about the alleged perpetrators if this is a single incident. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Not willing to make a judgment call on the notability of crimes but the POV and BLP issues are incredibly serious. I would almost recommending stubbing until this AfD is decided. And, of course, if it is kept it needs to be retitled. Natalie 21:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to this, but thought that there might be an objection to me stubbing an article and THEN nominating it for deletion. If someone else wants to pare it down, please be my guest. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel like there is precedent for stubbing an article for BLP problems even if it's in the middle of an AfD. I remember this happening, but can't remember the names of the articles themselves, so I couldn't point to specific discussions. Natalie 05:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but needs to be renamed Bixby standoff or Abbeville standoff for POV and neologism reasons. Obviously, needs major copyedit and cleanup, but there are quite a few very notable sources and refs. - WeniWidiWiki 23:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep since it clearly has multiple coverage in reliable sources independent of the subjects. For a group of U.S. citizens to gun down multiple law enforcement personnel in defense of their libertarian beliefs is highly unusual and seems encyclopedic as well as newsworthy. This is no common crime of passion or in the course of a robbery. Renaming the article seems appropriate because it sounds like a Steven King novel. The article is too "chatty" in tone. Statements should be sourced to solid sources per WP:BLP. Edison 06:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I should probably clarify my position a bit. I'm not arguing that this incident shouldn't be covered in Wikipedia. I'm arguing that this article has so many problems (BLP foremost among them) that it should be deleted, with a new article or articles created to cover the subject under more appropriate article titles. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but Rename - Abbeville Horror - where does this name come from? Abbeville Standoff is a more NPOV name. The incident is arguably notable enough for inclusion. If there are POV and BLP problems, then fix them. --Richard 16:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Don't know if it is appropriate, but I vote keep, subject to some work, hopefully by myself and others. There has been much more information come to light in the media regarding the entire Bixby family, and their side of the story, and basic facts of the case are now readily available from neutral sites around the Web (not just SPLC or Patriot sites). This should help clear up the NPOV problems. 95% of the BLP issues seem to be gone as of Sunday evening, when Steven Bixby was found guilty on all 17 counts (murder, kidnapping, conspiracy, &c.) I believe that verdict actually qualifies him as a murderer (&c). As I write this, the jury is hearing testimony in Abbeville in the penalty phase of the trial: the only two options under SC law are life without parole or death - judging from the pace of the whole trial thus far, we might know the penalty by this evening. Rita and Arthur, the parents, have yet to be tried (and there is no trial date for either of them, as far as I know). Arthur is reported to have increasingly severe Alzheimer's, and many believe he will die in jail without a trial. If we can gather enough info on Steven's life, it alone probably merits an article (especially considering the length of, say, the John Mark Karr article!)

• I suggest that we work on fixing up the article (maybe this indeed will involve dumping this one and starting anew) and moving it to something like "2003 Bixby standoff" or "2003 Abbeville standoff", &c. (This appears to be in line with Wikipedia naming conventions for similar events, cf. 2007 Boston Mooninite Scare for a recent example.) WYFF, the local NBC affiliate, has been referring to the event as the "Abbeville standoff". I agree "Abbeville Horror" sounds a little edgy and needlessly dramatic, but at the time I first wrote the article, I was just learning about the event myself and found that most places around the Web had given it the "Horror" nickname.

So, let's rename the article to Abbeville standoff and then have Abbeville Horror redirect to it. --Richard 00:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• At the very least, even if we kill this article completely, I would say that a mention of this event in the Abbeville article seems appropriate.

• Everyone chime in, and let me know your ideas/suggestions. BobbyLee 18:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep because of the political dimensions. This was not a routine crime story. Someone will have to rewrite it & rename it. What do the news stories call it? DGG 01:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • FWIW, Steven Bixby was sentenced to death this afternoon. It only took the jury an hour to decide on the penalty. In the next few days, I will work on the article, now that (one of) the Bixby trials are over. BobbyLee 02:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• This article needs to be completely reworked. The main title and huge chunks of the text were stolen verbatim from an article about the "Abbeville Standoff" in one of the sources. It qualifies as plaigarism. I authored the neutrality dispute on the talk page. There are major, major problems with this article. Someone needs to rewrite it. 70.157.144.186 01:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Which source? If it's a copyvio, then that's a whole different procedure, and the offending text will be removed or the article will be deleted. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• New name for this article: How about 2003 Abbeville Right-of-Way Standoff? Or perhaps 2003 Abbeville (S.C.) Right-of-Way Standoff, as there are many Abbevilles in the South, and one in France. What do you think? 128.192.134.161 17:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel Heistand

Samuel Heistand (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Is this bishop sufficiently notable? I don't think so. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - the article makes no case for itself. -- roundhouse 09:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. This article is very weak: it has no sources, and tells us absolutely nothing about the career of the subject beyond the bare fact that he was a bishop. However, I do think that the role of a bishop is sufficiently important that they should get some sort of automatic presumption of notability in WP:BIO. BIO's criteria include "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming", and it seems to me to be silly that the same does not apply to bishop. However, as it stands, WP:BIO doesn't try to address religious careers, so I can't sa more than a "weak" keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know how many bishops of the different churches there are at present in a given area in the US. I think the answer in the UK is 2 - an Anglican one and a Catholic one - certainly notable. Eg how many bishops in total (approx) preside over Ohio? -- roundhouse 10:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There are 2 Anglican Archbishops (Canterbury and York). Many many bishops. Two Catholic Archbishops (Westminster and Liverpool). I think WP:BIO must be amended as BHG says. It would be ludicrous for minor sportsmen, pornographic actors and Pokemon characters to be deemed more notable than some religious leaders. - Kittybrewster 11:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant for a given area - eg where I am there is the (anglican) Bishop of Derby + a Catholic bishop (perhaps the Archbishop of Liverpool). I don't think there are any others. In the States there are or have been Mennonite bishops, Lutheran bishops, several sorts of predecessor UM bishops etc etc - are these all notable? -- roundhouse 12:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There are quite a few denominations with episcopal polity in the USA. In my area, we've got an Episcopal bishop, the Roman Catholic Archbishop, an ELCA bishop, bishops of overlapping Russian Orthodox jurisdictions, the Greek Orthodox (arch?)bishop... you get the idea. I hadn't heard of the denomination in question here. In general I think bishops are notable, but in this case I'm not sure if they're individually notable. Neutral for now. -- BPMullins | Talk 15:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - that is what I was trying to establish - a bishop sounds impressive but not if there are dozens of them of differing persuasions. Church of the United Brethren in Christ claims "The total number of United Brethren churches is 600, with a membership of 47,300. In 2000, membership in the United States was 24,603 in 253 congregations". It's not clear how many bishops there are (at least one) but this is not a large church today. Difficult to guess how large it was in the time of Samuel Heistand. -- roundhouse 17:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep and expand - per above. Broadly, why not? - Kittybrewster 11:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is one of a set of methodist bishops which should be treated similarly - Kittybrewster 09:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The question isn't what the church is now but what it was then, and where his office then fit into their organization--if he was the head of the denomination he would be N. Its founder were two famous evangelists, who were entitled Bishops by the group, & the denomination is very much a N part of US history. But since they did not actually have a formal organization until 1841, it is not easy to tell. If he was considered the equal of Otterbein and Boehm, he was unquestionably notable, & the article needs expansion. (The question I had whether this was one of the denominations where every congregation has its own Bishop, but according to the article there were 6 bishops at a time when the church had 500,000 members.) Other denominators aren't part of the qy, so we don't have to consider their N qualifications right now. DGG 01:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete What did he do? Nothing except have children. Not notable. --Bejnar 08:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Many people are notable, not by which what they have done but by which what they are or were. ~~ Phoe _talk 18:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

People like that are for lists not articles. --Bejnar 18:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Protest The problem is probably with the article rather than the bishop. One ought not to have to do any work or delving into Wikipedia to see whether someone is notable. The article doesn't even say that he is on List of Bishops of the United Methodist Church. Assuming this list is the complete list (not actually stated, and indeed no refs are provided for the list) then I can see that in 1833 he was one of a select few bishops (of a predecessor of the UMs). What was his episcopal area for instance? I suppose we should stick some tags on these articles. -- roundhouse 10:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment He is on this list - 1833 [11]. ~~ Phoe _talk 18:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

• Strong Keep This is one of hundreds of articles on Bishops currently being worked on or planning to be worked on (all within the constraints of time). Bishops are presumed to be notable. I assure you, when this one was alive he was VERY notable to his contemporaries. No one is elected a Bishop without such notability, at least in the United Methodist and related churches. Delete it now, if you like. But I intend to write an article on this Bishop at some point. Thanks. 70.104.101.220 18:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Note Anons aren't allowed to "vote," are they? Diez2 18:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Yes they are, but this is not a vote as such. Since the article is up for deletion, it might be good if 70.104.101.220 were rapidly to expand the article to explain why this chap was particularly notable (which for all I know he may be) rather than creating more articles for relatively obscure (mere?) bishops. I.e. turn him from a weak keep into the strong keep that 70.104 thinks he is. - Kittybrewster 20:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment 70.104.101.220 said "Bishops are presumed to be notable." Where is that written in stone? Bishops might make a list based on their status, but that alone doesn't justify an article. Come back when you have written an article based on reliable sources, not original research and genealogical records. --Bejnar 18:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep As an incumbent of a higher ecclesiastical office. ~~ Phoe _talk 18:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

• Keep and speedy expand. The problem isn't whether or not he is notable—his position in the church indicate he almost certainly is notable to someone. The issue is that the article does not enumerate his notability. The addition of a single paragraph could render this whole discussion moot. —xanderer 21:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrzej Rychard

Andrzej Rychard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prod removed by creator without explanation and replaced with a claim that "Andrzej Rychard is very famous now.". Sigh. No references. Does catching a criminal makes a policeman famous? Kudos for doing a good job, but I don't think so... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It could be argued that the police chief of a city such as Kielce (population 202,609) is automatically notable. There is another person by the same name, a sociology professor from the Polish Academy of Science, who generates a a fair number of Ghits, who may also be notable. The Polish article at pl:Andrzej Rychard is also a stub. --Eastmain 04:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • While I accept that being a 'Police commissioner' may be grounds for notabilty, first, consider that a Polish commissair (komisarz) is actually an equivalent of a lieutant (pl:Komisarz Policji). I looked at the first 10 hits from Google search: none of them refer to the commissioner. A search for AR+komisarz (Polish for commissioner) yelds 620 results, 2 first two are Polish Wikipedia, third is the scientist again, and as far as I can tell none in the top 10 reffers to the commissair again. The search repeated with Kielce [12] yelds 8 results, none of them seem to reffer to any 'komisarz Andrzej Rychard' (!). As I cannot find a single reference to the story, my current verdict has actually worsen: 'possible hoax/police-cruft' ;) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced and non-notable per WP:BIO. Awyong J. M. Salleh 10:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete due to problems with WP:V Alf photoman 12:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per wise assessment by  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  D Mac Con Uladh 15:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, but once the article has been deleted, could someone start an article on the sociologist by this name? The Polish article about the police officer at pl:Andrzej Rychard has been deleted and replaced by a new stub about (I think) the sociologist. --Eastmain 16:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I will - I nominated the article for deletion on pl wiki and seems it got an express treatment :) Update: it seems that the author of the article on pl wiki admitted it's a hoax.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Pavel Vozenilek 19:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Survivor: Palau. Cbrown1023 talk 00:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Rosenberger

Ian Rosenberger (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Survivor contestant. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 04:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into a list of contestants on the relevant Survivor show. Its one thing having articles on the winners of reality TV series, but every contestant is not notable enough for a separate article. WjBscribe 09:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Finishing third is pretty notable. What makes him less notable than fellow 3rd place finishers Rudy from Borneo or Keith from Australia or Lex from Africa? -- Scorpion 14:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into a list. I also agree with the above comment, and the other finishers should also be merged. fraggle 16:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Third place contestant on one of many, many game shows (of which this particular one is one of many versions around the world). Hardly notable, and WP:INN doesn't wash for me. Agent 86 16:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Agent 86. Also, just because there are other articles that are equally un-notable is not a good reason to keep this one. mceder (u t c) 19:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: He is the only survivor to be voted out of the game outside of the tribal council fire. Also, he has been on other television, such as, Made. --Joe 21:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article only has one reference, and it's not an independent one from the subject. To qualify as notable it needs multiple articles from independent reliable publishers. Dugwiki 21:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete since there is no inherent notability for game show losers. Edison 06:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - He was voted out away from tribal council, and that is the only time that has happened. He also made it to the final 3. Jordan 00:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The above are justifications for him being mentioned in the Survivor article, but not necessarilly sufficient justifications for him to have his own article. To have your own article requires meeting a slightly higher bar of verifiability and notability. Dugwiki 19:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete per WP:BIO (and recreate as redirect to appropriate season) the show is notable. But the contestant is not, hasnt done anything notable since leaving the reality game show. I'm sure we dont create pages on every losing 'Jeopardy' contestant just because they've been on a game show. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - links to multiple independent sources exist that attest to the subject's notability. SirSam972 13:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defense in Depth (computing)

Defense in Depth (computing) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Reads like original research, and even if it's not original research, it's written wackily. Delete unless it is shown not to be original research. --Nlu (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: It's an important IT security principle, not original research at all. See "defense in depth" security on Google. Gazpacho 06:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep now that I've removed the rambling bits. Gazpacho 06:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Military Defence in depth or Keep. This is not OR. - WeniWidiWiki 06:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but needs work. Move to defense in depth (computing) as this is not a proper name. --Dhartung | Talk 09:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This article only pretends to be about the real military concept, defense in depth. It is instead a slogan for the apparently government-sponsored organization "Information Assurance Technical Framework" which may be a real and notable organization, but the slogan that it uses is not Notable in its own right..21:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs).
• Keep, important IT security concept. Should also be moved as per Dhartung. Spacepotato 23:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, this topic is real, it deserves considerably more coverage, and its more than a slogan. renaming Depth to depth is good too. GB 05:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Not a great article at this point, but a very important concept in computer security. Agree with Dhartung re lowercase. —David Eppstein 08:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wilhelm Sasnal

Wilhelm Sasnal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

"Wilhelm Sasnal (born December 29, 1972 in Tarnów, Poland) is a painter who lives in Poland. He studied art at the Krakow academy of fine art and graduated in 1999." That's the content of the article. Graduating does not make one notable.  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep That's all the article said, and I agree graduation isn't enough! But there was a Saatchi Gallery link that gave a clue, and there's plenty on Google so I've added a bit to the article. He's won a major European award, worth 50,000 euros (though we haven't got an article on the Vincent Award yet) and his works have bought by major museums, like MOMA and the Tate. So, on the evidence now, it's a keep. For new readers - see the discussion on Notability (artists) --Mereda 10:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Planetneutral for adding the Vincent article before I did! Mereda 07:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• question A number of Polish artists of perhaps borderline N have been nominated for AfD lately, and I'd like to ask Piotrus whether he thinks there has been a concerted effort to insert articles about them, or whether he is being exceptionally vigilant, and we might perhaps want to watch those from elsewhere with as critical an eye? DGG 21:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • My vigilance is a result of the immensly helpful User:AlexNewArtBot which vastly improved the functioning of Category:Wikipedia new articles (particulary the Portal:Poland/New article announcements which I take care of). Over the ~3 weeks of its operation I have noticed that a significant number of artists seem to fail criteria for notability. Further, recently a discussion about artistcruft on List of Polish artists has been started on WP:PWNB. So I decided to test some of them 'by fire', and to start a discussion about Wikipedia:Notability (artists). In conclusion, I strongly recommend going through non-Polish artists categories - I expect they may contain quite a few cases that we should discuss at the very least. I don't think we are dealing with anybody inserting 'borderline WP:N Polish artists', but rather with many someones aall around the world - little knowjn artists and their fans - thinking that they are notable enough to be on Wiki. Some may be, some may not, but quite a few even if notable seem to confuse encyclopedia with a phone book...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, graduating makes only does those notable that graduated with top honors, the Van Gogh price makes even a monkey notable if he gets it ( no offense to monkeys intended ) Alf photoman 21:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Article needs expansion, but he seems notable. For example, he's exhibited at The Hayward[13] and reviewed in The Financial Times[14] and Welt am Sonntag[15], among others. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability has been reasonably established, although the original nom was justifiable given the evidence presented by the article at that point. Still needs substantial work, but the reliable external sources seem to exist to make improvement possible. Planetneutral 13:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, I don't see anything wrong with the nomination, someone should commend Piotr for the outstanding work he is doing cleaning out articles with Polish origin. Alf photoman 16:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep now it's justified. Tyrenius 04:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep John Vandenberg 12:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Planetneutral & others. Thanks to Piotrus for addressing these issues. Johnbod 01:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was voted out of Wikipedians' Tribal Council, i.e. delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Lyon

Jennifer Lyon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Survivor contestant. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 04:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into a list of contestants on the relevant Survivor show. Its one thing having articles on the winners of reality TV series, but every contestant is not notable enough for a separate article. WjBscribe 09:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete merely a game show contestant. Agent 86 16:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Agent 86. mceder (u t c) 19:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete To demonstrate notability article should have multiple independent articles/interviews from reliable sources about the person. Only reference directly about her appears to be the CBS bio, which also isn't entirely independent. Dugwiki 21:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-winner on Survivor. Neither her breast cancer nor her association with other Reality contestants do anything for notability. Amongst the 324 unique Ghits - the usual wiki mirrors, blogs, links to porn sites, CBS promotional stuff. Not much relevant, independent and reliable sources Ohconfucius 06:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 03:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nocturne in G Minor

Nocturne in G Minor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This seems a bit non-notable to me. If we have an article about this nocturne, shouldn't all Chopin's nocturnes have articles? (Maybe instead of deleting, we could merge the relevant information into articles which deal with Chopin's music.) —  $PЯINGrαgђ  04:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge a quick look at List of compositions by Frédéric Chopin shows that several of his works do have individual articles. I personally wouldn't object to a merge into a single article on Chopin's works, but I am not sure of the best way to merge. Mister.Manticore 06:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Seems at least weakly notable. I figure we can probably manage to write at least a decent-length article on it; one guy managed to write a 23-page paper on it and get it published in an academic journal, for example. [16] cab 07:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Deleting this article would also be a ground for deleting other articles about other notable musicians' equally notable keyboard pieces. (Examples: J. S. Bach's the Well-tempered Clavier; some of Mozart's and Beethoven's sonatas; Liszt's Transcendental Etudes and Hungarian Rhapsodies; and, for the sake of discussion (although it isn't a keyboard piece), maybe even Samuel Barber's Adagio for Strings). These pieces, as well as others, have been the subject of numerous musicological treatises and studies, and have received much scholarly attention that they are in itself considered encyclopedic. On a performer's point of view, information about these articles would also provide valuable information about the history of the piece, notable performances (which may be used as points of comparison), and maybe even a discussion of the music itself. However, in this nocturne's case, it needs more sourced information to make it at par with the other articles, if ever. So I would also say, expand.--- Tito Pao 08:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • In fact, all of Beethoven's sonatas have articles. I see no reason we can't do the same for Chopin. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Pretty much any of Chopin's compositions could support an article, I'd say; if we don't have articles on each, it's because nobody's gotten around to writing them yet. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep of course. How could anything by Chopin FAIL to be notable? Jcuk 21:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep pending proper references I don't have a problem with Chopin works being notable in principle. However, this particular article appears to have no actual references to establish notability or to verify any of the biographical background information about the piece. It also has some unverified/unverifiable "weasel phrases" like "The piece is one of Chopin's most famous noctures, and its playability has made it a favourite amongst students and masters alike. Both Anton Rubinstein and Arthur Rubenstein are acclaimed performers of this piece." There are no citations here, so the article hasn't verified that the piece is, indeed, "one of the most famous" or "accliamed by Rubinstein and Rubinstein".

Thus my recommendation would be to keep, but that is contingent on the article providing proper referencing. If the references never improve, I would eventually have to recommend deletion and redirect to an appropriate Chopin related article. Dugwiki 22:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I went ahead and added an unreferenced tag, since the only reference is the sheet music itself. The article needs references for the biographical information and opinions in its text. Dugwiki 18:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is a frequent concert pianist piece and there's too much subject-specific information here to be merged to the Frederic Chopin article. If there was an article entitled Nocturnes Op. 15 (Chopin) (he wrote 3 in this series), I'd consider a merge there. --Oakshade 03:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you or I could create that article. (I never would have thought of it myself.) —  $PЯINGrαgђ  21:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to clarify that my current concern is that the subject specific information in the article isn't referenced. The lack of references really does need to be ultimately corrected or it might eventually lead to the article being merged (if it turned out a lot of the article is either editorial opinion or unverifiable). Dugwiki 21:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Delete an article on a staple of the piano repertoire for going on 200 years? No. Rewrite it, source it, and merge or re-name it. It would probably work best as one section in an article on Chopin's Nocturnes, or just the Opus 15, as Oakshade says above. But if it's kept as a separate article, shouldn't the title be something like "Chopin's nocturne in g minor?" The composer's name to differentiate it from nocturnes in g-minor by any other composer, and lower-case g for the minor key. Dekkappai 19:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was voted out of Wikipedians' Tribal Council, i.e. delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gregg Carey

Gregg Carey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Survivor contestant. Article was previously kept in December 2005 but for reasons I doubt would stand up today. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 04:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into a list of contestants on the relevant Survivor show. Its one thing having articles on the winners of reality TV series, but every contestant is not notable enough for a separate article. WjBscribe 09:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nothing more than a game show contestant. Agent 86 16:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Agent 86. mceder (u t c) 19:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The article does have a couple of references to published articles other than the CBS bio, but I'm not in a position to verify them. If the article has multiple independent published references about the person, then he meets the minimal notability guidelines. If the references don't check out, though, then the article hasn't demonstrated notability and should probably be deleted. Dugwiki 22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. "Greg Carey" is a fairly common name - of the 16,500 Ghits, most are for namessakes. Search for Gregg Carey gives 205 unique Ghits. Other than show marketing, most are trivial or are not from reliable sources. Ohconfucius 06:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete (and recreate as redirect to appropriate season) the show is notable. But the contestant is not, hasnt done anything notable since leaving the reality game show. I'm sure we dont create pages on every losing 'Jeopardy' contestant just because they've been on a game show. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The Jeopardy analogy, though, isn't quite right because most of them don't have independent articles published about them. The main question is whether this person has multiple, reliable independently published articles about themselves. Whether or not they won or lost the show isn't really relevant to whether or not they have sufficient references. Dugwiki 18:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep both. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ensamble Gurrufío

Ensamble Gurrufío (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to be sufficiently notable, as all of their releases were independent releases (self-releases?). Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: I am also nominating related-article Cheo Hurtado (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for deletion for the same reason. --Nlu (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. One of the releases, El Trabadedos, is identified as Sony/Independent (released both by Sony and by an independent label - the source shows two different album covers) and El Cruzao is identified as Independent/Dorian. Dorian was a "classical audiophile" record label in Albany, New York filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2005. http://www.audaud.com/audaud/JAN-FEB05/news/newsjan19.html So I think it passes the two albums on real labels rule. Even if it doesn't, eight albums over 11 years is pretty impressive. And the review in the New York Times at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904E7DB1439F935A35751C1A962958260 is a further proof of notability. --Eastmain 05:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Whoever (User:NIu) nominated this article for deletion is basing such proposition on just an assumption, not on actual experience. I quote: "Doesn't seem to be sufficiently notable". In contrast, I have watched Gurrufío in actual performance, several times. I wrote the article (which is still incomplete) on the basis of the extraordinary brilliance and quality of the ensemble in question (and I've been to concerts worldwide, I assure you), and as a musician I know what I'm talking about. But don't believe me. Ask a celebrated musician, such as Leo Brouwer, or Carlos Barbosa-Lima, or Alirio Díaz, what do they think of the Ensamble Gurrufío. You would be surprised. I don't see the point in your reasoning about "their releases were independent releases": so what? Moreover, I hope to have news soon, as I am in contact with the group, and plan to add a wealth of additional information, and will ask their persmission to upload sound clippings to Wikimedia Commons. After you have liestened to them, I guess you'll change your mind about this article's deletion. The same goes for the article on Cheo Hurtado. Regards, --AVM 01:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Whether their releases are independent releases is highly relevant under the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Using information from the group itself to establish notability contravenes the requirement that the information be independently verified. In any case, whether the group is notable or not, the article itself, when I nominated it, did not establish the notability. --Nlu (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The purpose for procuring information from the group itself is not "to establish notability", but to enrich the article with additional information, practically unavailable elsewhere; and, as already mentioned, to obtain permission to use recorded materials. Thank you for the reference to Wikipedia's notability criteria. I'll study it and abide by its postulates. --AVM 20:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Powerpuff Girls Z attacks

List of Powerpuff Girls Z attacks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Thoroughly unencyclopedic. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm usually sympathetic to inclusion of even barely encyclopedic material on television/movies/games/etc., but this doesn't qualify. --Delirium 08:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsourced, not even remotely encyclopedic. And I'm a fan of the show! _{Doc Sigma} ^{(wait, what?)} 15:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. - Anas ^Talk? 16:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 20:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to be unreferenced, original research. (I'm not sure WP:NOT#IINFO applies here, though. That section is pretty specific about what it covers. See the talk page of WP:NOT for more discussion about WP:NOT#IINFO. ) Dugwiki 22:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trashketball

Trashketball (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not for stuff you made up in school one day, nn neologism superapathyman 05:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:NFT, what more can you say? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 05:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT. Actually, Trashketball is also the name of a non-notable online game. There are over 800 google hits, but most are not exactly reliable sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 05:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete drop the "ketball" and you have an accurate description of what this is. JuJube 06:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I've played a variation of trashketball which I called garbage-basketball. Shame I made it up in school one day... Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 12:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- blantant hoax. Storm05 15:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per G1. Also note the users only other edits besides this article: [17], [18], [19]. While it is important to assume good faith, this editor seems to be trying to prove that they are unwilling to constructively contribute. -- Pastordavid 19:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Is this a joke?--Sefringle 06:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of names derived from other names

(View AfD)

List of names derived from Laurentius (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of names derived from Marcus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of names derived from Hlodwig (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of names derived from Aikaterinē (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of names derived from Miryam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WP:WINAD. These article are merely lists of names that were derived from other names (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text other than a bit of etymology (dictionary material) and no encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so they have been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted.

• See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zulu first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Persian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zazaki given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most common Russian names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian given names‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian given names 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman praenomina, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Modern Greek given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish given names Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Swedish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latvian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kurdish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hispanic surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of hypocoristics, etc.

Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 05:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete after transwiki of course (as with all those that have come before) per WP:NOT a dictionary or an indiscriminate collection of information etc. WjBscribe 09:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WINAD and completed transwiki. Just to clarify (and also for future reference), the "Transwiki:" prefix will be removed from the article titles eventually, correct (or at least redirects established without a prefix)? -- Black Falcon 19:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not very informative. Articles on first names get usually deleted from WP so I do not expect the red links to disappear soon. 20:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was {{sofixit}}, keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What Computers Can't Do

What Computers Can't Do (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article currently reads like a book report, and it contains a lot of text that appears to be at least arguably copyright violation. Delete and start over if necessary. --Nlu (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as copyright infringement. TJ Spyke 05:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - needs a total rewrite for length and clarity, but notable. OR: I Googled several complete sentences and no hits turned up. - WeniWidiWiki 06:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Unless copyright infringement can be shown, I don't think it should be assumed. It seems to be worked on almost every day and the main contributor left a "This article or section is currently in the middle of an expansion or major revamping" tag on the article. Why would it be deleted now? Bbagot 06:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep unless a copyvio is proven. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the book is very notable. The article itself should definitely be cleaned up to read more like an encyclopedia article, but not deleted. --Delirium 08:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The article sounds like the person just copied parts of the book word-for-word. I can't check myself at the moment since I don't have the book. If someone else can confirm this, then the article would be speedied. TJ Spyke 08:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, seminal work that needs an article. The summary, though, is ... pretty nerdy. As far as I can tell from Google Books (which blanks large chunks) this really is a conceptual summary, section by section. I'm pretty sure that isn't the best way to write an encyclopedia article about a book (it's more like a Cliff's Notes approach). I suggest excising it and rewriting it all in a handful of paragraphs. --Dhartung | Talk 09:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe that since it's free and clear, a transwiki of the book summary to Wikisource would be one way to salvage this editor's obviously diligent work. --Dhartung | Talk 09:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - OMG - How many assumptions can be cast without any knowledge!? I am actively writing the article. The book is 1. VERY noteworthy, 2. Difficult to decipher, as it is written in a very polemical style. I am summarizing the book, section by section, as a prelude to any better work that can be done later. If anyone thinks they can just sum up the work in one swoop, let them go ahead! I have read the book several times, and without first summarizing it diligently and systematically, it would be impossible to glean the actual argument from the forest of polemical debates which seem to permeate the book.

I particularly resent being accused of copyright violation! Where? This is a summary, my own work, with minor quotes which are totally "fair use". Samfreed 10:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please give us an indication as to how many quotes there are. That will be a big determining factor as to whether it is copyright violation or fair use. --Nlu (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, most of the quotes are from places where Dreyfus himself is quoting others, though not all. This is definitely fair use. Samfreed 14:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Samfreed, please take the questions about the article in good faith, as this is not personal. You obviously have access to the book, others do not. The sheer volume of text in the article, and the way it is structured like a table of contents, should make any editor want to take a second look. In part this is because few articles about books in Wikipedia look anything like this -- that is, they are articles about the book, not articles summarizing the book. I would like you to consider that writing how the book was received and what sorts of criticism and influence it has had are more encyclopedic things to include than a blow-by-blow analysis of the arguments, particularly since that comes perilously close to original research (and thereby jeopardizes the existence of the article itself). --Dhartung | Talk 18:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Not to quibble, but how notable is the book? I see two assertions the book is notable, with no evidence of such being given. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

How are we to give evidence that something is notable? I have yet to meet anyone who is seriously interested in Philosophy of AI who does not either love or hate this book. (I am busy completing my MA in Cognitive Science) Samfreed 14:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability gives some guidelines. "Secondary source availability and depth of coverage, not popularity or fame, establishes notability." for example. Is this book mentioned, preferably prominently, in two or more non-trivial secondary sources? NYT book review, for example? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Would [20] count for you as evidence for notability? Samfreed 14:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

no, they are inclusive not selective. Right idea, though. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you seem a much more experienced wikipedian than myself, so teach me. This is Dreyfus's most important work in the field of AI criticism. Everyone agrees that he is an important thinker in the field (see [21]) - So how do I "justify" the central work of a central thinker? Philosophy of AI is not an easy-to-grasp subject, and this feels like justifying Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, or Knuth's "The Art of Computer Programming" - like, I feel, anyone who knows anything about the field would agree.... Samfreed 15:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly more than two or so; it has thousands of citations, and at least hundreds of prominent ones. Here is Google Scholar's list of 264 citations to the book. And here is a review of the book in AI Magazine by John McCarthy. --Delirium 14:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There are as well 614 Google Books citations. This is not a minor work. --Dhartung | Talk 18:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and tag for Cleanup - notability established, however article reads like a (lengthly) book report. Suggest editor(s) remove "work in progress" part to subpage, edit massively, citing sources, prior to attempting to integrate with article, or simply remove all that and add in little tiny well sourced bits. Should be article about book, with brief summary, not condensed version of book. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the article. The book seems notable to me; it meets the "heard of it before I read a Wikipedia article about it" test, and I'm fairly sure it's been discussed by Daniel Dennett. On the other hand, I suspect that portions of the text here might find a more worthwhile home in the philosophy of artificial intelligence article. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep very notable book. Needs proper referencing and an overhaul, though. Quick advice to the author, you can work on articles in a subpage of your user page and release them when they are done in the future. - Anas ^Talk? 16:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a very notable book (see the statistics provided above by User:Delirium and User:Dhartung). However, it does need to be cleaned up and improved so that it is not a summary of the book (possibly transwiki to WikiSource but without deleting the article). Also, "appears to be at least arguably copyright violation" is no reason for deletion unless the copyright violation can be proven. At the least, the nom should have raised the issue on the talk page or contacted the primary author of the article. I could not find evidence of either action being taken. -- Black Falcon 19:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Week Keep A read the full article and alot of the book now. The author is paraprasing and is definatly not directly copying. The article needs a focus more on the book itself, and not on preaching the books message--155.144.251.120 21:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your efforts to understand are appreciated. I am writing this article - and as you, who read the book, can see - to even give a summary of what Dreyfus is trying to say, I need to first clean out an awful lot of polemics. This is work-in-progress. As I said above, if anyone can do a better job, go ahead, this is the wikipedia.... Samfreed 06:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, looks like a notable enough book - but the article still needs work. But that's a cleanup issue. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The book looks notable; however, the summary needs to be shortened immensely to the summary length at The Well of Loneliness or Oroonoko. ShadowHalo 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agendism

Agendism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Neologism I can't find in a real dictionary; thus WP:ATT/WP:NOR --Clay Collier 05:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, along with Agendist. Non-notable neologism with no even halfway reliable references. --Delirium 08:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school in one day. Storm05 15:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. fraggle 16:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Please note that the term is used in the four references provided in the article. Whether they are reliable sources is a different matter. -- Black Falcon 19:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Of the four sources used here, the first two are blogs- one where the term is defined in a blog, and another where it is used without being clearly defined. Neither blog appears to be particularly notable or significant. The third source again uses the term without definition- it's an editorial on a gun ownership site by the same guy who wrote this piece- his bio is at the bottom. The final "citation" is actually just a link to a Google search result page for the related term 'agendistic', which returns a Urban Dictionary page and a few other uses in blogs and web editorials. None of which, in my opinion, constitutes adequate sourcing for an article on this term that wouldn't constitute original research or, at best, a dictionary definition. --Clay Collier 09:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, along with Agendist. Non-notable neologism, it seems to me. Might offer it to Wiktionary, but I suspect it fails their guidelines. WMMartin 14:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to List of Donkey Kong characters. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:34Z

[edit] Lanky Kong

Lanky Kong (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Chunky Kong (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Tiny Kong (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

grouped Chunky Kong, Lanky Kong, and Tiny Kong into one AfD

Delete all. Chunky Kong is in one game as playable with one minor cameo in another, Lanky Kong is in one game as playable only, and Tiny Kong is in one main game as playable, minor cameos in a couple of games, and a character in a couple of racing games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge (more information from these articles) into List of Donkey Kong characters. JackSparrow Ninja 06:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • YES! Merge them all, right now! --PJ Pete

• Strong Keep Tiny Kong is a definite keep, because of the many games she is now in. Chunky and Lanky also both deserve articles. Link's just trying to delete everything that's only been in one game. His profile mentions how he's going to merge/delete articles for Earthbound characters, even though they're important. And no, I'm not biased. Don't judge me by my name. ChunkyKong12345 22:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • So what if I believe being in only one game to not be enough to warrant them to have articles? It's not like I'm the only one of them. Why does a character who appears in only one game and has no character warrant an article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, you seem to be mistaken with the notability criteria of video games. For Tiny Kong, it is not the sheer number of appearances, but the importance of these appearances. The only games in which Tiny Kong is of any importance are Diddy Kong Racing DS and Donkey Kong 64. Two games is not enough, especially when these games' plots are not very important. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh! This article is REALLY important, do NOT delete it. If there's an article of a character than makes only one appearance, please merge it into an article of a list of characters. I merged Lanky Kong in the List of Donkey Kong characters article and put the image there. For the Chunky Kong article, someone should merge it into List of Donkey Kong characters also. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PJ Pete (talk • contribs) 05:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

• Merge/Redirect them all into List of Donkey Kong characters or into their respective video game articles. None of these characters are notable outside of their video game appearances.Jonny2x4 01:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect into List of Donkey Kong characters. According to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction),

  Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters."

• Clear case here. Gracenotes^T § 05:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Individual articles are capable of meriting multiple paragraphs (already two of them do). In that case, it would fail the definition of a minor character on WP:FICT. Also, it passes the "interesting and importance" test. Tuxide 05:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  Many entries on Minor characters from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy have multiple paragraphs. Gracenotes^T § 17:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Edison 06:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Abundantly clear Merge. Nintendo characters in general, no matter how minor, are clearly worthy at least a redirect. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge for reasons above. Suriel1981 13:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Closed early - The nomination concerns no longer apply, the article is fully fledged, so I closed the debate early so that it can be used on WP:DYK. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gokak agitation

Gokak agitation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Appears abandoned by its creator, and right now contains no real useful information. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 07:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Do NOT delete. Gokak agitation is probably the single biggest agitation in recent Karnataka history. It is just a stub that needs to be expanded and improved. I just marked it as stub. But the issue is 100% encyclopedic and notable. Sarvagnya 08:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's an an encyclopedic topic and the current article is as at least useful as a basic stub, with two references from which it could be expanded. --Delirium 08:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are good sources on this 1980s language rights campaign, though they weren't in the article when it was nominated 14 days after creation. --Mereda 08:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong and Speedy Keep - This article is not for deletion. I just came across this article, when it was linked to Rajkumar article. It was/is certainly an important topic, with a wide coverage from both people and media. The article is undergoing further improvements from several users, and certainly there is a huge scope for improvement. I am doing whatever I can to improve this article. - KNM ^Talk 14:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - This is an important topic which defenitately needs improvements. I have worked on providing some more references and imporoved some sections. -- Naveen ^(talk) 14:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- abandonded by it's author. What sort of reason is that for deletion? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. We are ever a work in progress. Abandonment is never grounds to delete worthwhile information on a worthy subject, which this seems to be. Even if this is incomplete, I learned something from reading it. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Gokak agitation is an important chapter in the history of Karnataka. I don't think "abandoned by creator(which apparently is me)" can be considered as the valid reason for deletion. In that case there are thousands of articles in wiki to be deleted. And regarding "real useful information", it does contains now, thanks to editors like Mereda, KNM, Sarvagnya and Naveenbm. Gnanapiti 18:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep A very important social issue pertaining to the history of modern Karnataka state and Kannada language.Dineshkannambadi 18:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep per significant improvements. "Abandoned by its creator" should never be a reason to delete unless the article would have been deleted anyway and the creator requested some additional time (which I don't think is the case here). -- Black Falcon 19:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - a very prominent part of kannada history.Bakaman 23:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Sarvagnya and Black Falcon --Iwazaki 13:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Snowball - the current article is not the one-line stub, that was nominated for AFD. -- Petri Krohn 04:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Wesley Lord

John Wesley Lord (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Is this bishop sufficiently notable? I don't think the article shows it. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep no different from a mayor, anyway, but many links show up on google books. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete (Does a mayor necessarily get a page?) How many bishops (of different churches) are there in a given US state? (Google gives 105 hits for "John Wesley Lord" most of which seem to be valid. Some are for John Wesley, others from wikipedia + clones.) -- roundhouse 09:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - A Google search on '"John Wesley Lord" -Wikipedia' turns up a number of interesting articles on Lord, including this Time article where he makes some anti-Catholic statements and this New York Times article where Lord joins Martin Luther King Jr. in an anti-segregation protest. (I almost wonder if both people described in the articles are the same person.) Clearly, this individual was once an influential spokesperson. The problem with this article is that the primary author (Pastorwayne) cannot distinguish between stating historically relevant facts (the person's anti-segregation work or his anti-Catholic statements) and facts that describe the individual but have little relevance to the modern reader (the schools where this person was educated or the exact dates on which the person was ordained). The article needs to be rewritten to describe the person's notability, but it should be kept. Dr. Submillimeter 09:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite per Dr. Submillimeter. -- Black Falcon 19:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite per Submillimeter. (And in 1960 that was a normal attitude toward a Catholic President...) --Dhartung | Talk 20:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment if so, was his making them a notable event? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carlossuarez46 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC).Carlossuarez46 21:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think the fact that TIME was asking Bishop Lord to effectively represent the feelings of skeptical Protestants generally speaks for itself. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Dr. Submillimeter . The cites establish notability. Please add thenm to the article. Edison 06:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - (change vote) Dr S makes a convincing case for this bishop, although the primary author (Pastorwayne) does not. I would be interested in views on Samuel Heistand, another bishop under afd. -- roundhouse 09:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Although I do not feel that the article currently has adequate references/sources, I am confident that such references can be found. Tag for Cleanup/References. WMMartin 14:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I recommend using Template:Importance on this article. Dr. Submillimeter 16:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to List of football clubs in England. - Daniel.Bryant 08:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English Football Teams

English Football Teams (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Abandoned by its creator, and right now contains no useful information. Moreover, even if fleshed out, it appears that the content belongs either in another article or a template. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of football clubs in England, which may not be what the creator of this article had in mind, but would probably satisfy a reader who was looking for an article on English football teams. --Metropolitan90 06:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete utterly pointless article which seems to have been abandoned before it was even properly started. No idea what the creator was actually getting at..... ChrisTheDude 08:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of football clubs in England or Football in England, as the article would likely duplicate the content of one of these. WjBscribe 09:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• I had left a comment on the creator's talk page and they said it would have been expanded by last weekend; as it hasn't then Redirect to List of football clubs in England per Metropolitan90. Qwghlm 09:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of football clubs in England. "English Football Teams" is a plausible term one would search for if looking for the main list of FCs. -- Black Falcon 19:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of football clubs in England. HornetMike 15:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Easily meets guideline of WP:PORNBIO for notability. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avy Scott

Avy Scott (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I'm unconvinced that simply doing your job earns you a place in wikipedia, even when that job is in the nature of "Butt Lick'in Sweethearts 1 Platinum X Pictures Facial Swallow IR." This person has Zero Gnews hits and of the 747 unique hits I was unable to locate anything from a reliable source. As much as I liked her wearing a toolbelt and it's ilk, her 600K+ Alexa rank makes me think that she fails the spirit of the inclusion guideline for humans. Delete unless reliable sources provided demonstrating that she is in some way distinguished from the other hard-working souls like her. brenneman 05:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm not 100% sure what to make of this but it looks pretty damning. - brenneman 05:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

While I find very few references to her on UseNet, a search of AdultDVDTalk.com reveals 205 movies. SubWolf 17:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you should have searched for this or this, corresponding to an Alexa ranking of >600,000 or <2,500. -- Black Falcon 19:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable per nom, but it's good to know that people are still doing their jobs, thereby fueling the economy of this great nation, increasing the standard of living for all, and providing essential services to the people. Or something like that. --N Shar 06:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep 100 movies, really? -- Kendrick7^talk 07:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no source so the 100 movies figure is rubbery and there is no other assertion of notability. I wondered where my toolbelt went - Peripitus (Talk) 11:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:V by end of this AfD Alf photoman 13:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete myspacecruft. Storm05 15:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please explain that remark. --JJay 22:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Has starred in 116 movies and directed 4 movies ([22]). -- Black Falcon 19:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a poor nomination and the nom's patronizing attitude regarding Ms. Scott is insulting. The nom neglected to link to our WP:PORNBIO guidelines, which Ms. Scott seems to pass with over 100 film appearances and four directorial efforts. Furthermore, according to our AVN award list, Ms. Scott won was nominated for two AVN awards in 2004- see AVN Awards 2004. Lastly, the nom's assertion that MS. Scott gets "zero GNews hits" is false. She actually gets 22 News hits [23]. --JJay 18:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually she was nominated for two awards in 2004, not winning two awards. Tabercil 19:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The "number of films" criteria is under "dubious methods of establishing notability"... It's a double-edged sword in this case. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 20:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps. Although the exact wording: modern American heterosexual performers are not usually notable if they appear in fewer than 100 films...implies that 100 films is a benchmark. Coupled with four director credits, I believe Ms. Scott qualifies for inclusion. --JJay 22:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  Gosh, where to begin...

  1. What's wrong with my tone? "She does her job" is only insulting if you think there is something wrong with her job. I don't, but it is just her job.
  2. If we're going to fling guidelines around, don't pick and choose... she fails Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors).
  3. I'm not 100% clear on what jiggery-pokey resulted in more news hits than I (still) get, but I'm not seeing anything in the article to show she has multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources.

  brenneman 06:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• 1) Afd is not a forum for you to make coy remarks about article subjects. Don't do it again in the future.
• 2)Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) is the applicable guideline for porn actors. You should refer to it if you are going to nominate porn articles for deletion. By my reading (and that of others), she passes.
• 3) Your nominations continually misrepresent the number of google news hits. If you don't know how to search using google and/or google news then you should not cite those tools in your nomination. The article is fully sourced. Add more sources from the google news hits if you are not satisfied. --JJay 15:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Sources present in the article and over 100 films. And I have to agree with JJay regarding the tone taken by brennerman in presenting the nomination. Tabercil 19:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Despite the poor tact of the nominator (what happened to WP:AGF, anyway?), the article does not meet any of the valid criteria laid out in WP:PORNBIO. The only criteria this presently meets is dubious at best, which is hardly enough to keep the article. Sorry. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 20:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - over 100 films and nominated for two AVN awards. --Oakshade 23:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Which is part of the guideline that is not widely accepted and/or nominated doesn't mean "won. "- brenneman 06:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Part of a guideline nonetheless, even if someone doesn't like it. And nominated for 2 AVN awards in an extremely crowded profession demonstrates distinction and notability. --Oakshade 07:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. In addition to being nominated for 2 AVN awards, she also won (see the first source) a Rog Reviews Critic's Choice award. In addition to starring in >100 films, she is a director. Finally, she has been the subject of at least two interviews (which I think is enough to establish multiple non-trivial coverage). Please keep in mind that the central criterion for WP:PORNBIO is that "An erotic actor or actress may be demonstrated as notable" if he or she has been "the subject has been covered by multiple sources which are independent of the article subject and are reliable." The two interviews alone suffice. -- Black Falcon 18:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Nominated for two AVN awards isn't really enough. Not bad, but not enough. However, Rog Review's Critic's Choice award isn't, from my point of view, equal to an AVN award. It's merely some website award, despite Rog's significance in the field. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 21:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I didn't mean to suggest that the award nominations alone are enough. I think she passes WP:PORNBIO by her film history, directing credits, and multiple coverage (interviews). The award nominations are just extra. -- Black Falcon 21:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Krimes

Alan Krimes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable driver. Has not participated in any National series. All wins came at low levels of competition. Written in vanity/fanity style. Drdisque 05:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: no sign of any significant acheivements to indicate notability --Pak21 14:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete:Wikipedia is not myspace or for things made up in school in one day. Storm05 15:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Only one of the raceways mentioned even has an article (and the other two appear to be the same raceway? I cant tell, but neither is in WP). So, if the raceways themselves are not notable, then how is the (alleged) winner notable? Further the one raceway that is in WP doesn't mention him at all. It's hard to take this article seriously. - grubber 19:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• ""Delete"" - No sources or notable achievements to make him seem like a notable driver. (Third3rdIII 01:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Brownback

Thomas Brownback (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I've looked all over and can't find any references. Cannot find any published papers contrary to articles claim. Can't find any reference to subject as a musician. Nominating for deletion on basis of hoax or at least non-notable. Glendoremus 05:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless a reference is produced for verification. --Delirium 08:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I am unable to find any references for any of this. I certainly can't find anything to back the claims that he played with Monk, Davis, or Coltrane. Probable hoax. IrishGuy ^talk 08:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 13:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. An unverifiable (I tried) article created by an anon? Yeah, my hoax alarm's going off. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 08:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goldman v. tyngsborough county sch. bd.

Goldman v. tyngsborough county sch. bd. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This case describes a purported U.S. Supreme Court case from the current term. However, no such opinion is reported on the Supreme Court's list of the current term's opinions. [24] Furthermore, there are several reasons to believe this is a hoax, albeit a creatively written one. There is no Tyngsborough County in the United States, and the school where this incident supposedly originated does not appear to exist. The earliest version of this article had the case in an unidentified state but being appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers the western part of the U.S.) whereas the current version has the case originating in Massachusetts. Also, a since-removed portion of the original version had the Supreme Court resolving the case by promoting a student to acting principal and demoting the principal to the 7th grade. That version was submitted for proposed deletion, but the WP:PROD tag was removed. I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 06:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Appears to be a hoax. TJ Spyke 07:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as likely hoax. --Delirium 08:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete silly hoax, possible attempt to use wikipedia as myspace.Storm05 15:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - obvious facile hoax. AlexTiefling 15:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - G1, G2. -- Pastordavid 19:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:HOAX. -- Black Falcon 19:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)