(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 29 - Wikipedia Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 28 January 30 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete as unverifiable. The one Japanese source looks pretty doubtful as it appears to be seller company. - Mailer Diablo 03:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Lloyd Glover

[edit]
David Lloyd Glover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject of article does notmeet guidelines of WP:V. I can tell he is an artist, just can't find how he is a notable artist Nv8200p talk 00:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, if it's deleted, it can always be recreated later with proper citations. Generally speaking articles without references run the risk of potential deletion until such time as the references can be provided, even if the information appears to possibly be accurate. Dugwiki 21:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it does. Articles are frequently deleted in part or in whole because they are unreferenced. The fact that it might be verifiable simply means that it will be easier to recreate the article properly at a later time. Deletion due to lack of references doesn't mean the article can't later resurface in a better form. Dugwiki 22:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 conesnsus. Cbrown1023 talk 04:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lengths of superhero film and television series

[edit]
Lengths of superhero film and television series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • also nominating Lengths of science fiction movie and television series (second nomination)
  • Delete - I know some folks don't care for the use of the word "cruft" in discussing articles to delete, bu this is cruft. A list of various superhero franchises by how long, if all filmed components of the franchise were run start to finish, it would last. Thoroughly unencyclopedic, and any bits of data that might actually be useful (like the number of episodes in a series) should be included in the articles on the series themselves. Otto4711 00:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 'Cruft' is not a wikipedia policy, nor is the fact that a single editor finds the information useless a reason to delete. Certain readers may well find it interesting and informative to compare the depth of several canons. (After all, why is number of episodes so clearly more useful? Long 1 hour per episode series cannot be compared to a series consisting of 10 minute shorts. From internet downloading to buying dvds, and given multi-episode arcs, episode number has little meaning after original broadcast, whereas total length does.) The info is verifiable, and besides, has passed AfD before (see first nom on the scifi listing). Nothing has changed to warrant reopening that decision.--Fangz 01:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is indeed information of the same kind found in an Almanac, and which can even make the news from time to time. Now that said, I do think these lists should be expanded, and cover more series, but I also think List of longest running U.S. television series would benefit from some organization like this page as well. I also must continue to express my concern with nominations using the term "cruft" . If you can't articulate a problem with an article better than that, maybe you should reconsider your nomination. FrozenPurpleCube 06:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To reiterate my point from the last time this was nominated and kept: "I have twice seen this article used as a reference on other websites, meaning people are finding it useful. It is an accurate, up-to-date, almanac-style list." --Arctic Gnome 06:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an indiscriminate collection of information without coverage in independant sources. The BBC article mentioned several times above talks about Doctor Who as the "longest running" such series, but they are not talking about cumulative run time. See List of longest running U.S. television series for how "longest running" is used in the industry context. Also, the original AFD primarily addressed the topic of WP:OR rather than WP:NOT. Although, for the record, I am not convinced the correct outcome was reached on the OR issue either; not only was much of the support in the form of WP:ILIKEIT, but many movies and television episodes exist in multiple versions with different runtimes (this is especially true of the original Star Trek series and any movie with a Director's Cut version). How do we determine which are canonical for these lists? Serpent's Choice 07:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds like a problem with those sections, which you should either rectify yourself, or bring up on the talk page. As deletion arguments go though, it's not convincing. If there is reliable information as to different lenghts, or other series, then include all of that information with the proper annotations. FrozenPurpleCube 13:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, this isn't something that I can fix by editing. The problem is that I can see no way to come up with a total runtime number without resorting to original research. So many of these sources exist in versions with different lengths, that an effort to list all the possible totals would itself approach article length for some of these franchises. Let's look at Superman. Superman and the Mole Men had a 58 minute runtime. It was recut and retitled into two 26 minute TV episodes. Do we count 58 minutes, 52 minutes, or 110 minutes? The 1978 film had a 143 minute theatrical release, a 188 minute International Edit, a 182 minute ABC television broadcast, a 151 minute DVD cut, and a 127 minute VHS/Laserdisk compressed version. Then there is Superman II. Do we add 127 minutes for the original release, 151 minutes for the television premiere, 144 for the ABC recut of the television premiere, 116 minutes for the 2006 official studio recut, or some combination of those values. Now our total -- from just three movies! -- might be 295, 301, 306, 311, 312, 317, 319, 322, 323, 325, 328, 329, 330, 336, 339, 345, 346, 347, 350, 352, 353, 354, 356, 360, 361, 362, 364, 367, 369, 373, 377, 378, 380, 381, 384, 385, 388, 390, 391, 397, 404, 405, 408, 412, 414, 419, 425, 436, 442, 443, 449, or more if we count the Donner cut as a separate movie from the Lester film. When we add the 68 6-minute New Adventures of Superman, do we just add 408 minutes?. They were not broadcast as standalone programs. 36 of them bookended The Adventures of Superboy short in the New Adventures of Superman program, while the rest were broadcast along with non-Superman material in The Superman/Aquaman Hour of Adventure and The Batman/Superman Hour. Does the entire runtime of these programs count? If not, do the Superboy shorts from the first season count as Superman content anyway? What about material that includes Superman alongside other characters? Super Friends? Nearly every franchise has this problem. Without a means to reconcile it, I cannot envision a way to assemble these articles in compliance with WP policy. Serpent's Choice 06:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems fixable to me. I would include either the longest length or the length of the most widely available version, or the original version, or all three, depending on the circumstances. If I was unsure, I'd bring it up on the talk page, or just include it all with the proper annotations. You do not, however, total two presentations of the same material just with different cuts. It should only be included once in the total, even if you can get different totals depending on what cuts you use to create the sum. The same with your questions about the Superman animated material. If you're not sure it should be included, bring it up on the talk page, get the consensus of other editors as to the proper presentation of the information. To me, your arguments make for a good reason to present this information in the fullest and most complete manner possible, not a reason for deletion. Sure, you can get different numbers, but you can get different numbers talking about casualties of war, or the costs of natural disasters. Or even the census. FrozenPurpleCube 17:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, I felt I should add that your concerns are also going to apply to the articles of the material in question anyway. There is no doubt in my mind that articles on movies/tv shows should include run time information. This is information that's included on the box of the movie/television show. Yet there will be problems like you mention in the article itself. Thus your concern also applies there, and since it will have be resolved for those articles, I don't see it as a particular problem for this article either. Might be difficult at times, depending on the circumstances, but it can be done. FrozenPurpleCube 17:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, that being said, I do have some concerns about the list possibly having arbitrary inclusion criteria, since it says it includes "popular" shows and films. It seems likely that there are numerous other shows that should be included, but aren't (eg where are all the Spiderman shows? Flash?). Not to mention that I'm not sure why the list is focussed narrowly on superheroes to begin with. Why superheros and not "sci-fi/fantasy"?
I'm also concerned about upkeep of this list. It seems to me this information is only useful if it can be kept current. But the current list is only as of May 26, 2006. So it appears that noone is updating the list, and even if someone does update it that's no guarantee editors will keep updating it over and over regularly every week (as would be necessary to keep the information accurate.
So even if you assume the information might be useful, it looks like the list has somewhat arbitrary rules for inclusion, is oddly framed as just a list for superheros, and can only be kept useful by constant, regular editorial updates. Sounds to me like a recipe for problems - I unfortunately recommend deletion. Dugwiki 21:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Dugwiki's comment about updating applies only to the "superhero" list; the science fiction list, which is bundled with this delete request, is regularly updated.
Also, if certain series have been omitted that is an argument for improving the article, not for deleting it. I don't think that the series you mention have been deliberately excluded — I just don't think anyone's gotten around to adding them. Last time I looked, incompleteness wasn't a deletion criterion.
Incidentally, the superhero and fantasy lists were spun out from the science fiction one when that became unwieldy. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reply to Josiah and Otto -
Otto, sorry we aren't seeing eye to eye since, if I recall correctly, we usually go the same way on afd/cfd. Guess we can't agree all the time, eh? Either way, feel free to post your comments on the WP:NOT talk page where there are a couple of discussion threads on the topic of just how broadly to interpret WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. I've made similar arguments there that I did here, and it is an interesting policy topic in general beyond just this article.
Josiah, normally I'd agree that it's better to improve an article than delete it. However, my concern is that this particular type of article is only useful if it is intentionally and regularly updated. "Incompleteness" isn't a deletion criterion, but articles and categories do get deleted on occasion if they are determined to be too difficult to properly maintain or their information is determined to be inaccurate or misleading. In this case, the list in question hasn't been kept properly up to date, having sat for a year with no updates at all. I'd be more inclined to recommend Keep if I felt comfortable that the article could maintain its information in a timely and more complete fashion. Dugwiki 22:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to put it one more way, if I thought the maintainence problem was short term and could be fixed in a reasonable amount of time, I'd be ok with the article. But my concern is that the lack of maintainence is due to a long term, systemic problem with the list that probably can't or won't be corrected. But hey, if someone can prove me wrong, go for it! Dugwiki 23:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Lengths of science fiction movie and television series has been regularly updated. The fact that the superhero list hasn't been would therefore seem to be more a question of whether there are wikipedians with the interest and inclination than an intrinsic problem with this type of list. If regular updating is the concern, the superhero list should be deleted and the science fiction one kept. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Josiah Rowe, we all appreciate that you are taking this AfD seriously, but it is not always helpful to respond to every single person who disagrees with you. You can make your point eloquently and concisely once and not have to post a comment under every delete vote.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. TigerShark 12:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lengths of fantasy film and television series

[edit]
Lengths of fantasy film and television series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - see also the nominations for the equivalent superhero and science fiction runing time lengths. Thoroughly unencyclopedic cruft consisting of how long various franchises, if run start to finish, would last. Otto4711 00:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to meet a specific point. It's still an indiscriminate collection of information. It's trivial and probably original research as well. MER-C 05:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not original research — the information is derived from IMDb and tv.com. Lengths of science fiction film and television series has links for each series pointing to the relevant IMDb page (although the citation process stalled out a while back, the citations can be added). Similar citations could be added for this page. The fact that the citations are currently lacking is an argument for article improvement, not deletion. Please see the previous AfD nomination for the science fiction series article, in which OR claims were made and rejected. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is original research to the extent of gathering the times and adding them together. Regardless of whether it's OR or not, the information is still indiscriminate and trivial and unencyclopedic. Otto4711 16:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original research is defined at WP:NOR as "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." " Addition of times advances no position, nor does it create a novel narrative or historical interpretation. There's a world of difference between a crackpot scientific theory (which was what WP:NOR was created to exclude) and simple addition of times. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 03:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Lonero

[edit]
Bill Lonero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Endorsements by sponsors are not one of the criteria supported by WP:MUSIC. Shawnc 00:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What notability would that be, exactly? A Train take the 20:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 03:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric C. Novack

[edit]
Eric C. Novack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is the alleged author of novel Killing Molly, which was deleted from wikipedia due to non-notability, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Killing_Molly, and I was the one who initiated its deletion process. If this person's work was worth being deleted here because it is not notable, then this person is probably not notable enough to be here. Wooyi 00:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Killing Molly does exist as a publication. It is currently a literary property under development with a Detroit film production company called Thought Collide. The selling of 3000 copies, which is hard to verify when a press is independent, is a pass on a criteria of notability. The hurdle is selling 1000 copies of a work of art, such as a compact disk of music. I understand the difficulty of verifying all of this independently from where you are executing your wikipedia duties. Not a hoax. Nowak is a keep, and the Killing Molly article will be reposted with easier aids for verification. Wmjuntunen 01:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "The selling of 3000 copies, which is hard to verify when a press is independent, is a pass on a criteria of notability. The hurdle is selling 1000 copies of a work of art, such as a compact disk of music"? No! Please see the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (books) and the definitively established guidelines WP:BIO and WP:N. One reliable source is not notability. --N Shar 01:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The novel he wrote doesn't have an ISBN? Then it's not notable, and he's not notable for having written it as far as Wikipedia's concerned. Just H 03:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 04:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. "Self-styled as "The Bad Boy of Literature" may be one of the saddest things I've read on Wikipedia. janejellyroll 08:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:V. Terence Ong 11:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self-styled, self-published, self-promoting. NawlinWiki 19:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very short and somewhat promotional article that does not meet WP:BIO.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To take these objections in turn is important.
    I read 1000 copies in a guideline. It's a good number; some limited editions of undoubtable notability are published in lower numbers. The guidelines you mention are proposed guidelines, as you say. Until these proposed guidelines go into effect, kindly adjudicate by the ones that are current. Any reason for the exclamation point on your no? I thought this forum is a learned, genteel discussion, with no need for yelling, 'No!'
    Much valuable literature is published without an ISBN or a Library of Congress call number. I wonder if Abby Hoffman's 'Steal this Book' had an ISBN number at first. Why should the Wikipedia be bound by the decision of the board that issues ISBN or Library of Congress's call numbers as a gauge of notability.
    The Killing Molly article failed a AfD probably because of improper writing of the article, so the book didn't fail an AfD. An article about the book failed an AfD.
    Saying that "Self-styled as The Bad Boy of Literature" is the saddest thing you've read on Wikipedia is an unusual statement. Many authors self-style themselves one or another monicker. Heck, one of the fine points of Cassius Clay is the way he self-styled himself, especially when preparing for a prize-fight. Any one who follows publishing knows that many authors self-publish and self-promote books. The latest example is Eragon, which came to the attention of Carl Hiassen in its self-published, self-promoted, un-ISBN-ed form.
  • Hey, I just checked Amazon. Killing Molly is there ! Did you really chase down any of those ghits?
    And Killing Molly has an ISBN Number ----> ISBN-10: 0975407406 and ISBN-13: 978-0975407400[2]
  • One of my greatest complaints about this adjudicative process is the process starts to resemble a mob far too quickly. More, it seems I've rarely found bulls wasting time participating in these put-down sessions. The article for deletion process seems to attract a bearish kind of person, most irresponsible of all those who write the argot, 'nn'. If you can write full thoughts, do your comments belong in a deliberative process? Wmjuntunen 21:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
but in the AfDs the mobbing can also work the other way--once the consensus seems to shift, people come and agree with it, though they may not have contributed much to the actual discussion. --just compare the beginning of any long AfD with the end. It would, however, not be in the traditional spirit of WP to ask that people read the article before voting. The first step might be to automatically delete the comments/vote of anyone who used the word: per X. --its just as meaningless as nn (sort of a smile) DGG 07:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These deletions only delete the article but does not prevent you to write it again. So if there are more sources (like you said about Amazon) are added on, you can well reinstate the article. Wooyi 21:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - despite the comments of Wmjuntunen, wikipedia is not the place for things that are not currently notable but might be in the future; in particular, it is not the place to increase the appearance of notability to further that agenda.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Research & Rewrite The link at the article http://www.elitistpublications.com/km_reviews.htm cites five reviews of his book, but we need a better reference resourse than the author's website. Can someone verify any of these sources? Maybe a rewrite of the text would make the article more appealing. It's not improper grammer, but it just doesn't work for me. This could be a keeper with some help. I do agree with the author that too frequently the AfD looks like a mob, at first blush, but if you fix your article and recontact the mobsters you will find that each of them is a thoughtful and understanding person who will reconsider. Good luck! --Kevin Murray 01:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I rewrote the article, but my ego will not turm "self-styled bad boy" if someone reverts me. --Kevin Murray 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I would like to point out that I never self styled myself as the "Bad Boy of Literature" that was a given nickname from Living for Sundance Group and Thought Collide Films and members of Detroit Synergy. Also I appreciate the debate on if I should or should not be in Wikipedia. If the article stays I would appreciate the addition of thedetroiter.com and/or mrbellersneighborhood.com for reference purposes. I have written for both online magazines. Thank you Eric C. Novack

  • Delete References so far are unconvincing/insubstantial. Wikipedia is not a free publicity and advertising platform. We need significant, reliable evidence of encyclopedic notability. So far we have a local newspaper event promotion article of uncertain significance, a review from a website which Mr. Novack is himself involved with as the website's literature section editor[3], and a couple of small reviews in obscure publications of uncertain reliability and significance printed on the book's own website . And yes, the title "Bad Boy of Literature" needs referencing as well if its claimed that his fans call him that rather than it being self-styled. Bwithh 01:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With Mr Novak now invloved in the editing it seems to be heading farther into vanity spam. Can't support this. --Kevin Murray 01:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? If I am involved why would it go more toward "vanity-spam". As far as I am concerned if the article is to be in Wikeipedia then it should be correct is all. And to be accurate the review of "Killing Molly" came months before my work at thedetroiter.com, the editor in chief called me and asked to work on the Lit section because maybe he felt I had a passion for the written word, who knows. And obscure lit reviews? HA please, they are probably the only reviews in Literature today that aren't bought and paid for. HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH. You guys make me laugh. And why wouldn't I print the reviews on my website. Hey maybe I should put blurbs on the back of the book too, damn author trying to give a perspective reader an idea what the book is about. What could I be thinking? (for you slow people this is called sarcasm.) Now as far as my validity of being in Wikipedia, let me ask is Marc Spitz or Jame Frey (what a piece of crap that was) in here or the author of "twelve" (one of the worst books ever written to get "big" time reviews that were complimentry. Again I don't mind that I might be up for deletion, but please when you make an argument for deletion, please make it valid and speak of something you know about. If any of you would like to trade literary blows please let me know.
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 03:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Young Mase

[edit]
DJ Young Mase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (people) and/or Wikipedia:Notability (music) at this time. Also reads as a bio/blog/ad.  — MrDolomite | Talk 21:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 03:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haversham Hall

[edit]
Haversham Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nominating this article for deletion for the same reason as The Cheetah Girls (TV series); it's an article about a show that was canceled before it was even aired. The information on the article is somewhat speculative, violating the policy that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Only sources are IMDB and an article in Variety confirming the existence of the show, not enough to pass WP:RS. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete all - Failing WP:CORP. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ardaco

[edit]

non-notable company and products. Google only 633 hit [4]--Evpf 22:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It seems like this might be okay for inclusion, but the pages seem to read like adverts almost. At best, there appears to be heavy bias in favor of the company. Perhaps add criticism? I'll refrain from making a deletion recommendation, however. -SocratesJedi | Talk 22:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explanation I'm author of original articles. I'm just started with Wikipedia but my goal was not to write spam articles. I agree that content of article must be improved. But many of other successful articles on Wikipedia started with worst content. If you can help me with my work, I would be very glad. And also, the company and products are not oriented for mass-market. But I don't think that this argument cannot be applied as reason for deletion. Company and products can be world-wide significant. So I guess that non of the article meet the criteria for deletion according Wikipedia deletion policy. So please, remove deletion tag from articles and rather help me to improve articles. Palat 23:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. At the moment, there is no evidence of the following:
1. Non-trivial published works about the company/products, OR
2. Widespread use of the products.
Evidence of one of these must be found, or the assumption will be that the company is not yet notable enough for Wikipedia. For example, if newspapers, magazines, or websites have published articles on the company or its products, you need to bring this information to everyone's attention (by adding the info to the article or noting it here.) You state that the products are "world-wide significant" -- show us evidence of this, please. --N Shar 00:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per failure of WP:CORP; Ardaco per the corporation notability criteria, and the rest per the products or services criteria. Nowhere in the article could I find a mention of anything that would come close to meeting them. It might be possible that in their current form they are somewhat spammish, due to the lack of notability assertations, they do appear to be written from a NPOV. I don't immediately get the vibe that the product articles are saying 'buy me'. Still, in the current form, they must go. Kyra~(talk) 05:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not delete I will try to describe what should improve given articles to meet Wikipedia criteria.
    • Ardaco is company from Slovakia. List of Slovak companies is the list of Slovak company on Wikipedia. Ardaco is second IT company from Slovakia on Wikipedia. First is Eset and I think Ardaco has more useful article.
    • Ardaco is security oriented company, it cannot be world-wide widespread, but it's widespread in security and research oriented areas.
    • Ardaco is member of Nessi (European Technology Platform on Software and Services) - [5].
    • On December 2006 SecureCall was certified by NBU (Slovak National Security Agency). Here is scan of certificate.
    • There are many independent articled about SecureCall but most of them are in slovak language (one of them [6]).
    • Few weak ago at many internet IT magazines was published article about new technology from India (original article - [7]). It was world-wide widespread article. PDMark is based on same principles. It can store less than GB of data but it's real technology which is used in many countries (most distant can be Peru).

This and many other information I would like to add to articles but it takes me more time. So I hope you should be more patient and allows me or better help me to improve content of articles. It's really not fair from you because some of you never improve more articles on Wikipedia then me. And I admit that I'm novice on Wikipedia and need help or some more time.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Someone who speaks the language should examine source #3 and determine if it meets WP:RS. Other sources attest to the existence of the company and to the truth of the facts in the article, but these were not in doubt. The question is not merely "Does the company do what is claimed in the article?" but "Should a company that does what is claimed in the article be included in Wikipedia?" I will refrain from making a recommendation to delete at this time. --N Shar 01:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To address the comment above about "Should a company that does what is claimed in the article be included in Wikipedia?" Wikipedia and editors can not see the future of what should or should not be included in the future. Each article has to stand on its own. 01:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, I hope article meet the requirements for WP:CORP. Palat 11:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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, but I think a rename may just be in order. - Mailer Diablo 04:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles trivia

[edit]
The Beatles trivia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The Beatles trivia was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-16. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatles trivia.
The Beatles trivia was nominated for deletion on 2006-09-27. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatles trivia/2nd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uncle G (talk • contribs) 02:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Earlier discussion closed with no consensus. The article still contravenes the basic policy that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and since the previous discussion a similar article has been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steely Dan trivia). I am also listing Pink Floyd trivia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for the same reason. Worldtraveller 00:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(See my second comment below) First discussion closed with no concensus, the last closed with keep! Please provide examples of how article has deteriorated or different manners which have not been previously discussed. LessHeard vanU 22:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Worldtraveller has nominated this article for deletion twice (in six months). andreasegde 13:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and in the spirit of WP:AVTRIV. MER-C 02:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge information and delete this article. I can see much of this information being relevant in the proper articles (ie merging the movie trivia into the main movie article), but there's no sense in amalgamating it into a giant bag of barely related trivia. --Wafulz 03:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments in the 2nd AfD. It does still require renaming, however. Resolute 04:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (and abridge for some) the most interesting facts into the appropriate articles. Delete the boring entries and non-trivia (e.g., the legal battle between Apple Inc and Apple Corps isn't trivial at all). mikmt 05:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The only problem with this is how to decide which material is non-trivial and which isn't. Unless each subject is split into its own article and discussed of itself, we could be heading for edit wars. Agree about the legal tussle, of course. Ac@osr 12:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its good to have the short subjects under a single heading called trivia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename, as per Resolute. Situation hasn't changed since last nom. Grutness...wha? 06:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT /Blaxthos 08:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename - as I said in the last debate, it would be very unfair to describe much of this article as "trivia" - "miscellany" might be better as most of this is of genuine interest, some may even deserve their own article. Again, to repeat what I said last time,the comparison was with an article about Keane that included such glorious nuggets as "they love food" and this article is of a totally different nature. There isn't an obvious merge target for all of it and it makes sense to have it separate from the main Beatles article. Ac@osr 12:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename - keep for all the reasons per the previous AfD's; the major articles are already very large and info here may be difficult to insert within article context - That is not to say it isn't notable just difficult to find an appropriate place. My preferred choice for rename remains Miscellenae ! LessHeard vanU 13:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest rename to The Beatles in popular culture under Category:Musicians in popular culture. The other Beatles article there, The Beatles' influence on popular culture, has a different topic. Pomte 16:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because in the end it's trivial. This really belongs on a fansite somewhere. Guy (Help!) 16:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Miscellany helps put broader issues in context. --Eastmain 16:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important trivia. TonyTheTiger 17:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The content passes all wikipedia policies. It is referenced and relates to the Beatles career and impact. There is nothing trivial about information - at the end of the day, this is an encyclopedia. The problem is that the Beatles' article is quite long. Hence, multiple articles are required. And no rename is required--JJay 18:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't honestly see how it is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and that is specifically proscribed by WP:NOT. Worldtraveller 18:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP: Not (indiscriminate collection of information) is specific not elastic. It does not encompass anything or everything that is difficult to categorize/poorly organized/I don't like/has trivia in the title/I don't understand/I think is pointless,useless,stupid etc. It specifically proscribes: (i)FAQs; (ii) travel guides; (iii) memorials; (iv) instruction manuals; (v) internet guides; (vi) textbooks; (vii) plot summaries; (viii) lyrics databases; (ix) things made up in school. It only proscribes these when the article in question is "simply" one of these nine categories- i.e. it does not go beyond the parameters of the archetype. This article does not fit into any of those catgeoriies and is in no way proscribed by the policy you cite. --JJay 18:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete though the beatles are amazing this list is quite -crufty and does seem indiscriminate. i know this vote won't help but oh well.--Tainter 19:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This article gives direct links to many people, artists and places that The Beatles were connected with. It is a stepping stone to many other pages on Wikipedia. If the name (Trivia) offends editors that much, it should be changed. andreasegde 19:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. In complete agreement with all points made by Andreasedge. Vera, Chuck & Dave 20:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For subject matter as widely known as the Beatles, even miscellany is notable as long as its sourced, verifiable, yadda yadda.. In addition, it has survived two previous AFDs in less than a year. I agree with Andreasegde that the article can always be renamed if it offends the anti-trivia bias shown by some editors. 23skidoo 21:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not just bullet points of trivia, converted into Prose and includes many points that cannot be merged. RHB Talk - Edits 21:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does seem to feature a lot of good information, but there is a lot of information collected here indiscrimininately. Sections like Business are fairly important and contain good information, for example. Cheers, Lankybugger 21:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close Nomination. I have now noticed that the previous AfD concluded with a keep. The nominee has failed to provide examples in how this article has deteriorated from the last time, and has offered no new compelling reasons for the AfD. Therefore the nomination is pointless. LessHeard vanU 21:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC) ps. Is it also invalid, or can you just keep nominating articles you don't care for?[reply]
  • Keep Some people above incorrectly assert that "trivia" is prohibited under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. In fact, words like "trivia" and "cruft" appear nowhere in that section of policy, and there is not even broad consensus on how to define trivia or when it should or shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia. Thus I discount the argument that refer to WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Moreover, it doesn't appear that the article or policy has changed since the previous afd discussions, so on that basis alone I would recommend keep for consistency. Dugwiki 22:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep again. Rename to get rid of the word "trivia" that seems to be the deletion magnet here. Carlossuarez46 03:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Apart from issues of labeling, I can't believe this unfocused pastiche of an article is on wikipedia and somehow managed to survive a previous AFD (and to the extent WP has formal deletion criteria, this article violates it and thus the fact it was previously up for deletion shouldn't matter). It has no subject but merely presents various bits of information that relate to the Beatles, with the loose theme of presenting "trivia" (or however you wish to say "random bits of information") about the Beatles. The loose format permits a lot of POV material to slide through. Why can't this material be merged into the main Beatles article, or articles about Billy Preston, James Taylor, etc.? Allon Fambrizzi 09:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
  • Merge. Some very useful data amongst the chaff. Agree that the non-trivial parts should be merged into their respective articles. Arakunem 17:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I must state that this article is definitely not "random bits of information". 1. Every section has a definite connection with The Beatles—every single section. 2. It would be impossible to merge the various pieces of information into The Beatles' articles without making them too confusing to read. 3. The Beatles' articles (and especially this one) are a stepping-stone to many other articles about artists/politicians/places, and institutions. 4. Have you ever tried to navigate your way around a city without a map? 5. Change the name of this article to something else, please... andreasegde 19:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course there's a connection to the Beatles - that's the only logic behind the article. Apart from that, there is simply no logic at all behind it. It's random, you could reassemble it in any way you like and it wouldn't make it any more or less coherent. And the point that you keep making about navigation makes no sense - we use categories to provide a navigation framework, not extra articles of random information. Finally, the problem with this article is not the title, it's the style and content. Whether you call it Beatles miscellany, Beatles stuff that no-one has bothered to edit properly, A stream of consciousness written by Beatles fans or whatever, the point is an encyclopaedia article does not just assemble random bits of information in a haphazard order. It's about synthesising the information, editing out extraneous details, describing the subject of an article in a logical way, informing the reader. This article does none of those things. Worldtraveller 19:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1. You say that the article is logical, but, "apart from that", you say that it is not logical at all. 2. It is not random—the sections are grouped under their respective headers (in alphabetical order, BTW.) 3. You say I keep making the same points, but you have nominated this article for deletion twice in six months. 4. Style and content is something that seems to fluctuate every month on Wikipedia, I'm sorry to say. 5. Editing: Look at the history page, and you will find there have been one or two changes made. 6. "A stream of consciousness" does not apply, and I find that wildly inaccurate. 7. "Haphazard"? (I refer you to point #2) 8. I find the article extremely logical, although it does refer to subjects that have no connection with each other (like Harold Wilson and Cher, for example) but they do have a connection with The Beatles. 9. This article definitely informs the reader, and that is why it is still here (hopefully...) 10. Last point (thankfully :) Would you object to an article detailing the "Seven highest mountains in the world" because they are on different continents? I wish you well. andreasegde 20:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no logic to the article; its structure is completely haphazard. If you chopped the first section out and put it at the end, it would make no difference at all to the overall sense of it. You couldn't do that with The Beatles, because that's an encyclopaedia article. This one is just an indiscriminate collection of information about the Beatles.
        • However many times I've nominated this for deletion is not relevant to whether your argument about navigation makes sense. It doesn't, honestly. What do you think all the links in The Beatles are for, and all the categories? How is this article supposed to be of any use when only three other actual articles link to it?
        • What is in this article, if it is important to the story of the Beatles, should go in The Beatles. If it's important to the story of someone or something else, it should go in their article. If it's not important enough to be mentioned in either The Beatles or another proper encyclopaedia article, then it's not definitely not important enough to be mentioned in an article that's not about anything.
        • I've got no idea what you're on about with the mountains. Sorry. Worldtraveller 00:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any useful and referenced information into the relevant articles, much like what happens when the content of trivia sections in articles is trimmed and merged into other sections. (See Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles.) Delete the real trivia as, well, trivia. In their current state these articles resemble (as any trivia section in an article would) "indiscriminate collections of information". Now, I'm not saying none of the information is useful - it's the format in which the information is currently presented that's the problem. The Beatles trivia page is essentially just a list of distantly related facts, some of which hardly have anything to do with the Beatles. For example, the mention that the video for Supergrass's "Alright" was filmed in Portmeirion - what is the relevance of this? I agree with the editor above who it an "unfocused pastiche of an article". There appears to be some serious original research problems with the Pink Floyd trivia article as well. I disagree with the notion implied by some of the above comments that anything Beatles-related is inherently notable. Extraordinary Machine 21:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just bloody keep--Crestville 10:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 03:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh De Silva

[edit]
Dinesh De Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nom & vote...
Del on this (presumably self-promotional) n-n "business leader" w/ G-Test

20 of about 30 for "Dinesh De Silva" australia -cricket

of which my hits 2, 6, 10, 14, & 18 seem to show so-named employees of 4 companies in apparently 3 countries. Jerzy•t 01:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. DS 22:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Box of chocolates

[edit]

no reliable source, non-notable Wooyi 01:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Personally suggest the article simply renamed as Tom ap Rhys Pryce. - Mailer Diablo 03:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce

[edit]
Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article documents a horrible thing which was a tragedy for all involved, and I don't in any way seek to diminish that. But sadly, the fact is that there are two or three murder victims a week in this country, and only rarely do the circumstances of a murder generate the kind of long lasting impact on society that would demand an encyclopaedia entry. The Moors murders, Yorkshire Ripper, Harold Shipman and occurrences like that warrant an article, but I do not think an article on every murder victim is appropriate or desirable. WP:NOT states that subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered. Worldtraveller 01:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is the kind of article that tends to develop around a news event. Apparently, when this fellow got killed it was big news, and folks from the UK put up no fewer than 31 reference links to support their account. I would be hesitant to delete such an article, although maybe the biography is overblown. YechielMan 02:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough sources to show it was notable, don't see how the logic of 'just another murder' changes that.--Dacium 02:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If Blair said something about it, then yeah, I think that's pretty notable. --Dennisthe2 03:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It needs a good copy edit - some quite badly structured sentences here. 2cents... SeanMack 10:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I'm a little torn on this one. I'm not convinced this is notable in the grand scheme of things and is only so at the moment because it was a particularly notable murder in London. Looking at the bigger picture, as wikipedia is not a memorial and murders are not an uncommon feature around the world I'm not sure that this one will stand out. MLA 11:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. This is a notable murder event in the UK. There is a need to cleanup the article. With many sources cited, this has more than enough assertion of notability. Terence Ong 12:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this event has been publicized enough LHOON 14:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very well know death and should stay on wiki.--Skully Collins Edits 14:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the U.S it is "missing white girl" stories which get the big disproportionate big news play, and apparently in Britain it is "murdered lawyer" which dominates the airwaves. He is still just one man, otherwise apparently non-notable, who was the victim of a street crime by extremely non-notable robbers. He got his 15 minutes (in this case 3 months) of fame, but in the long run this is still material for Wikinews, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is no the tabloid murder news, and is not a memorial. Large U.S. cities have 1000 such victims a year. Edison 14:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep i wrote most of this myself, so i suppose my opinion doesnt matter but here's some reasons why its obviously notible.
  1. This was one of the first known cases were Oyster card use was used as eveidence against someone.
  2. It raised the issue of station security and how private companies where failing to keep rail users safe, even having Tony Blair promise to look into it as a result.
  3. The trial was one of the first to have the families of the victim to speak in court.
  4. David Cameron wrote an article on the issue and spoke out agaiant the governments handling of crime as a result.
  5. A charity has been formed as a result.
  6. Sir Ian Blair highlighted this case as an example of Institutional racism in the media.
Well theres more but should be enough.--FabioTalk 16:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was fairly big news in the UK for a while, and provoked a response on many issues. RHB Talk - Edits 17:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple reliable citations indicate this was a notable event which received heavy coverage in the UK press, and received the attention of the leader of the country. As such, it's rather similar to Wikipedia's article on Public opinion and activism in the Terri Schiavo case. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well referenced to multiple independent third-party sources. Completely verifiable, and covered well enough to be notable. Geuiwogbil 21:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An article with over 30 news articles included for reference is clearly fairly well sourced and meets notability guidelines for verification in multiple (ie more than one) major publications). Dugwiki 22:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we delete an article that so clearly passes our WP:N and WP:V criteria, then how can we ever justify referencing those same guidlelines as reasons to delete truely non-notable and unverifiable content? -- Antepenultimate 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - people seem to be thinking that because something is verifiable it must be encyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not Wikinews and just because something has made news headlines does not make it encyclopaedic. Also, people seem to be overestimating the impact this had in the UK. Tony Blair talks about a lot of things and his word does not bestow notability on something. There are many comparable incidents which do not have articles and which rightly should not have articles. The cases of Margaret Muller, Jonathan Zito, Mohammed Parvaiz and Michael Menson spring to mind. And to better judge the overall impact of this event you may wish to look at this BBC news search result: [8]. The BBC News website alone has had more than 500 articles about numerous murders since this one was last mentioned on 13 December. Worldtraveller 00:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was Tom ap Rhys Pryce himself notable? Would he have merited an article if this terrible thing hadn't happened? Think forward a year - will the 700 or so murders that will have happened in the UK in that time have spawned 700 murder victim articles? Does someone automatically become notable if someone else kills them? How about the 15,000 US murder victims? 25,000 victims in Baghdad? 17,000 Colombians? All the references in the article cite news sources. To me that strongly indicates that this is a suitable subject for a news website but not for an encyclopaedia. Likewise with the other cases I mentioned, where if you read what I said you'll say I certainly didn't say I thought they deserved articles. Worldtraveller 11:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yeah, I misread that one line, apologies. Anyway, as per the question "Was Tom apRhys Pryce himself notable?" - That is a completely moot point - The article is named Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce. You're making a lot of "I don't like it" sounding arguments, and I still don't see a single guideline referenced in your arguments. Until a separate Wikipedia:Notability (news) is established with multiple editors bringing consensus (and that really isn't a bad idea, as Zunaid makes some good points below), I feel we should stick by the quidelines we actually have. -- Antepenultimate 15:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Whilst not perhaps meeting criteria of notability if it had occurred in the US, this was a significant event in the UK and led to questions in the House of Commons and House of Lords regarding increased serious & violent crime in the UK, particularly in areas of London previously considered 'safe'. It also meets all WP:N criteria with regard non-trivial coverage from a number of media sources, where the commentary was based not just on the event, but its social & political implications. '15 -minutes' point covered by 'permanence of notability' of WP:N. No-brainer, in my opinion. Also, consider comments like those of Edison unhelpful, ad hominem, and ill-informed. Scandrett 14:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Seeing the notability criterion used this way makes me sad. Hesperian 12:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metacomment: At the moment there is no Wikipedia:Notability (news) guideline, and in the absence of this there will undoubtedly be many AfD's of this nature where deletion arguments can only be based on assertions of WP:NOT Wikinews or some sort of hand-waving notability or WP:BIO argument. The inherent problem with newsworthy topics is that they are de facto the subject of "multiple non-trivial 3rd-party reliable sources". Even items of merely provincial/state-wide importance (which is not the case here) fall under this description. Also, there are MANY issues which politicians or prominent figures comment on every day, if only for the sake of making a statement to the press and/or to the public. Following the letter of the guidelines then, EVERY news item covered by multiple newspapers in EVERY country EVERY day should by rights have an article in the 'pedia, which I'm sure all but the most vehement inclusionists will agree is inappropriate. At its heart, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service, and in the absence of a news notability guideline, common sense somehow has to prevail. That said, user:Fabrib's points no. 1 and 3 (but IMHO not the others) prima facie indicate why this particular murder case is notable from a legal perspective and is encyclopedia-worthy. All the other points just add to its newsworthiness, which is irrelevant to the discussion. Delete unless rewritten to focus more on the encyclopedia-worthy legal aspects of the case/trial, which IMHO are the only things encyclopedically notable about this event. The problem with this article is that it is majority focused on the news aspects such as: 1. the life details of the victim and murderers (remember: none of whom were notable in and of themselves), 2. the murder itself (this could be summarised, it is presented in FAR too much step-by-step detail), 3. politicians' quotes and 4. memorial funds and such-like. None of these things are out of the ordinary for slightly-above-average murder cases (heck, its not out-of-the-ordinary for "lesser" newsworthy events than murder) and do not contribute to raising this article from news to encyclopedia material. Zunaid©® 14:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. OK, you've come up with two latin legal terms, but still no guidelines that actually exist. That said, it probably is high time a Wikipedia:Notability (news) is created - you make some excellent points (although, in reality, I don't believe it very likely that anyone is apt to waste the time to make articles for "every news item" as you said, and such topics that are actually covered by multiple sources probably have merger potential for an existing article). Now, as for your delete vote - I still don't see any actual deletion criteria being applied here, as even you admit that this subject is encyclopedic in its way, and that the encyclopedic elements are present, although diluted. If you feel the article should be cleaned up, then tag it as such, discuss the issue on the talk page, and/or take a try at reworking the article yourself. Deletion of this article, at this point, would be little more than laziness. -- Antepenultimate 15:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there are currently no deletion criteria to apply to newsworthy topics. In the absence thereof I (and I'm sure many other editors) have to resort to long-winded arguments such as the above to explain our rationale. Remember the guideline are prescriptive, not descriptive and exceptions are allowed. This swings both ways: articles may be kept despite failing guidelines, and so too may articles be deleted without obviously failing any guidelines. My point about "every news item getting an article" isn't that editors will spend time creating them, it is that once created there is no possibility, via the current guidelines, for deleting them. As for your cleanup suggestion, my personal POV is to never !vote "keep and rewrite" on AfD's as far too many articles end up being kept without getting the subsequent rewrite done to them (there was some discussion about what to do about "keep and rewrite" on the Village Pump quite recently which touched on this very problem). Zunaid©® 09:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The conflation and confusion of news notability with encyclopedic notability is a major issue. I agree with Zunaid - almost all articles or reports in news channels are covered by multiple sources so even the most trivial or sensationalist human interest story can get a technical pass of current weak general notability guidelines. On another level we also need guidelines (I'm skeptical about leaving anything to "common sense") to start distinguishing between serious news items that are only of news notability and those that are also encyclopedically notable. These are not the same thing. News organizations have different functions and rationales from encyclopedias. Every murder or other major crime is serious and a "notable" event for police, the victims, the crime reporters - yes may even be asked in parliament or raised by some politician but that is a routine function of political systems (especially democratic ones) and not automatically an indication of encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a news report archive or a police report archive Bwithh 05:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's becoming clear to me that the real problem isn't neccessarily this article, but the lack of applicable guidelines for this type of article. Something should be done about that. In terms of this article, however - comparing this with a trivial or sensationalist "human interest" story isn't really fair, and I say that because this doesn't clear the "multiple independent source" requirement by having only two references - it has upwards of thirty, and there's no reason to assume that the list is exhaustive. Yeah, I know this could fall under "sensationalist" except for some items written above (and if sensationalism is a problem then we're going to have to start cocking our eyebrows at a lot of content within celebrity articles) that Zunaid admitted could have value. Now, as per the no Keep and Rewrite policy Zunaid has adopted, that is fine and it is his right to do so. I haven't had time to peruse the discussion at the Village Pump, but my opinion on this matter is that if less people simply stopped at giving instructions and more tried to follow through themselves - rather than expecting someone else to step up to the plate and do the dirty work - this would be less of a problem. If you feel strongly that something should be changed, I see no reason why you can't Be Bold and work on it yourself. Anyway, if someone would like to start up a discussion pertaining to getting a Wikipedia:Notability (news) policy put together, I would be happy to chime in. Some good discussion (IMO) has already taken place here, and if Zunaid can find other instances of similar AfDs, we may already have some precedents. Perhaps we can save everyone from having to resort to these long-winded explanations in the future. -- Antepenultimate 16:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment great exposition of the situation Zunaid. Though the list presented by Fabrib isn't designed to be exhaustive, I don't think point 3 is actually correct so that would only leave point 1 which isn't itself an indicator of the notability of this case. MLA 21:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per the above comments by several editors, I have created a proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (news) where these ides of distinguishing what is newsworth from what is encyclopedic, can be continued. I have borrowed some of the ideas expressed in this debate in creating the first draft of the guideline. Please comment further on the talk page for thatproposed guideline. Edison 21:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I repeat my earlier preference for Keep; however it might be more appropriate to move the article to [[Tom ap Rhys Pryce]]. LHOON 16:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 04:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Eitan

[edit]
Wendy Eitan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nom & vote...
Del on this n-n figure's bio; only defenses against A7 & ProD were

(Notability claimed but is weak enough to warrant a prod)

and

(rm { {prod - Google shows few links for "Wendy Eitan". This may be biased, as we should search with hebrew alphabet.)}}

--Jerzy•t 01:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. — CharlotteWebb 04:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complex conjugate root theorem

[edit]

I have no idea what to do with this article. It was created at Conmplex Conjugate root Theorem, so I moved it to its current location. I also cleaned it up. The only problem is that the Google test totally fails, and the theorem is in any case a corollary of the fundamental theorem of algebra as stated in the article and in Polynomial. So we have a few options:

I abstain, because I can't decide. N Shar 01:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change Vote to Keep the article is no longer a stub and the nomination for AfD has been withdrawn. Jeepday 03:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The proposition in NOT a corollary of the fundamental theorem of algebra.
(2) Even if it, were, the fact that it is such a corollary would be far from the most important fact about it, perhaps harly even worth mentioning in this article.
(3) "Since when do corollaries merit articles on their own?" is colossally silly. Silly, silly, silly, silly. Whether a topic warrants an article has nothing to do with whether it is or is not a corollary of something else. Can anyone cite ANY article that got deleted because it's a corollary of something else? Michael Hardy 17:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (maybe to change to "strong keep" later?) This proposition is much weaker than the fundamental theorem of algebra. You don't need the fundamental theorem of algebra to prove it. So even if it is a corollary to that theorem, it silly to regard that as being an important fact about it. To say "Since when do corollaries merit articles on there own?" is also silly; that depends very much on context. Fundamental theorem of algebra is not the right place to merge it into if it is to be merged. Really, the comments above are silly, silly, silly, silly. If you believe, just because this article says so, that the main thing to be said about it is that it's a corollary of a theorem not needed to prove this much simpler theorem, then you are gullible and I can offer you a really great deal on some real estate in Florida. Michael Hardy 23:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've deleted the silly comment that this theorem is a corollary of the fundamental theorem of algebra. The fact that the proof given in the article does not rely on the fundamental theorem of algebra makes that comment even sillier. But would any of the above commentators explain to me how this simple can be regarded as a corollary of the fundamental theorem of algebra? Michael Hardy 23:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into complex conjugate. Hmm, on further thought just redirect, as complex conjugate already does tell what needs to be told in as many words as it needs. Michael Hardy is right that this cannot reasonably be described as a corollary of the fundamental theorem (I would strengthen that to denying that the fundamental theorem of algebra even implies it any more than the quadratic reciprocity theorem implies 2+2=4, namely in the trivial sense that any two true statements imply each other). However, I'm unconvinced that this theorem merits an article in itself. Is there anything encyclopedic to say about it other than to state it? I wouldn't consider proving it encyclopedic. Henning Makholm 00:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This page may be small, but it states a frequently used fact that deserves to stand on its own. The fundamental theorem of algebra asserts that every polynomial in C[x] has a root in C. The theorem under discussion does not assert the existence of a root, but merely the fact that any complex root of a real polynomial, if it exists, is accompanied by its complex conjugate as (another) root. As a corollary, it asserts that a real polynomial of odd degree has a real root, perhaps because the complex roots occur in pairs. Without checking the reference I do not know how it is proved there, but it is common to use the fundamental theorem of algebra to show that a polynomial of degree n has n roots; still, that dependency may be non-essential. It is true that the brief complex conjugate article devotes one sentence to this theorem, but if I were to cite this theorem I predict my readers would find a devoted article more helpful. --KSmrqT 02:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I've been looking at a lot of random articles lately, and I find that most are brief mentions of topics verging on trivia. On reflection, I see no problem with that. This mathematics article covers an extremely important practical fact, far more worthy of attention than most of the random topics. Maybe I'm becoming a Wikipedia "inclusionist". :-) --KSmrqT 02:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as procedural, as no valid reason for deletion is given. If a valid reason is proposed, please relist —siroχかいo 08:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Now that the misleading stament about it being a simple corrollary has been clarified, it is a decent small article that may be helpful, is well referenced and linked to form and to others. Tikiwont 09:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possible rename The page expands a lot more on the theorem than complex conjugate does. What we really need is a source to find out what the theorem is called (if anything). (Looking for a source, I found [9], which demonstrates that the theorem is real, but doesn't give it a name; I suspect most maths textbooks (all obvious sources for this) will do the same.) --ais523 11:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge as a section into complex conjugate. This result is an important aspect of algebra and is probably taught in every basic course on complex numbers. However, I've not seen a textbook give it a name, probably because the result is almost always proven (in basic complex number courses at least) as a corollary of the Fundamental theorem (and corollaries are rarely named). Inasmuch as there no name to give to this thing, but nonetheless the information must be preserved, complex conjugate seems the best place to put it. Zunaid©® 14:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Here the claim that this result is a corollary of the fundamental theorem of algebra surfaces again. How on earth would you even use the fundamental theorem of algebra to prove this? Note that the result as stated in the article say that the roots pair up as counted with with multiplicity, simply that the set of roots is symmetric around the real axis. Henning Makholm 15:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In the future, this page could maybe be renamed into Properties of polynomial roots. (This would solve the google test and the somewhat clumsy name. See above comment by ais523.) In addition to the complex conjugate property, such a page could also disucss: 1) how roots depend continuously but not differentiably on the coefficients, 2) bounds on the roots in terms of the coefficients. There are probably many other properties of polynomials that merit a discussion. Haseldon 18:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "google test" DOES NOT FAIL!. Try it and see. Either with the whole phrase in quotes or without the quotes. Even without the quotes, the first pages of google results are on the same topic. It is unreasonable to do the google test with the quotes anyway, since this is not a case where verbatim identity of names is to be expected. Michael Hardy 19:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nom. Michael Hardy is right, this is not a corollary of the FTA. I was frankly a bit surprised to see the assertion that it was, and I was a bit too willing to trust that assertion. The problem is that I'm not a good enough mathematician to be able to say that just because I can't see how it's a corollary, it isn't. Also, I grabbed the nearest algebra text (which was a high-school level text) and checked, and found this theorem listed, unnamed, as a corollary of the FTA, but without a satisfactory proof. These are the factors that influenced that statement, but clearly calling it a "corollary" is silly. The article has, in any case, been much improved by Michael Hardy and others, and sources have been provided which (presumably) verify that the name is in widespread use, which was what I was getting at with the Google hits test. --N Shar 00:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well written article on an important concept. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 04:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rezayat compound

[edit]
Rezayat compound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Is a housing complex notable? Fails WP:RS and WP:N RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 19:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeqq

[edit]
Jeqq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy; procedural nom. Jeqq does not seem to pass WP:WEB -- delete from me. --Czj 01:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Majorly (o rly?) 14:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funday PawPet Show

[edit]
Funday PawPet Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources provided to indicate notability or any sources that show that is passes the web material guideline. This was previously nominated. brenneman 01:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep: For one thing, (since brenneman brings up WP:WEB) WP:WEB says "Any content which is distributed solely on the internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content." Since Funpaw Pawpet Show perform at conventions I'd say FPS isn't distributed solely via the net. --EarthFurst 07:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP THIS This show has been around for a while and with hundreds watching at time of broadcast and even more logging in to watch the replays of that weeks broadcast they are definately notable —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.188.166.77 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Terence Ong 12:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: This is one of the best-known recurring productions in the furry community, and it's a fixture at several conventions as well as on the web. I'll ask my friends in that community to see if we can't come up with some sources for notability. Jay Maynard 13:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong Keep - Independent documentation of this program has been featured in the Orlando Sentinel on Sunday, October 8, 2000. A scanned copy of this article can be found on FPS's own web site at: http://pawpet.tv/index.php?press and can be obtained independently by request at www.orlandosentinel.com It has also been recognized in the "Folkmanis Puppets in TV and Video" section of the Folkmanis manufacturing web site. Additionally, the program's self described 4 hour format coupled with its recent 320th show (1.28.2007) translates into a remarkable 1280+ hours of recorded program time. The cast has indicated on air that the bulk of this material has been archived and still exists. This would make FPS a program with more original air broadcast hours than the full run of most network television programs. Coupled with its interactive net-based chat function with its audience, and its documented licensing to legally use ASCAP/BMI/SESAC licensed music (in itself a rarity among net-based broadcasts), I would strongly suggest retaining this article. --JC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.188.190.35 (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Re-write per 72.188.190.35 above. If there is a citeable newspaper article about the show, isn't this enough for notability? However, the article should be rewritten to be more encyclopedic. Right now, it's just a laundry list of characters and subjects, no? -sthomson06 (Talk) 21:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Re-write RE: Nydas' comment... Alexa rankings lower than 100,000 tend to be unreliable.[10] The clientele the show caters to tends to use browsers (Firefox and Safari especially) which do not support Alexa, further making the test questionable. The subject does pass a basic Google and USENET (particularly in alt.fan.furry) test, even with separated keywords. Article definitely needs cleanup of lists. Opened list discussion on Talk page. 70.168.242.19 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1,360 Google hits [11] , of which 330 are unique, does not strike me as passing a Google test for Web content.--Nydas(Talk) 15:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Following the spirit of WP:N, the topic does have valid external citations, and is clearly not a vanity article. It should be tagged for cleanup as suggested by others, but having externally verifiable citations should satisfy the requirements of WP:N. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arakunem (talk • contribs) 14:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Oops, forgot to sign, sorry. However, I would also like to respectfully point out that the nominator's recent activity in WP:AFD suggests (and only suggests, mind) an overarching mindset against the so-called "Furry Fandom", to which this article could be considered a part of. Such a mindset is, by explicit description, not a valid reason to delete. I apologise to the nominator if this is not the case, but your contrib history this week certainly raises that as a valid concern. Arakunem 17:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite If this is a verifiable fact, then maintaining consistent production for over 6 years does seem to point to a level of notability. As was pointed out, it's not a level of popularity that is in question (so number of viewers isn't really an issue), but whether the article concerns something that would be considered notable. The above citations and information seem to point to notability. --ChaseT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.154.59.250 (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
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 04:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jinen Ryu

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giulliana Weston

[edit]
Giulliana Weston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable model. The claim that she has been photographed for multiple magazines is probably correct, but there are only a handful of non-Wikipedia Google-hits of her. I'm open to anyone who can provide evidence of notability from outside the Internet. YechielMan 02:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 04:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zurich International Club

[edit]
Zurich International Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:ORG. Promotional. Nv8200p talk 02:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 04:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Seventy

[edit]
Cambridge Seventy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This "Cambridge Seventy" movement seems to utterly fail notability. Its best claim seems to be that a poster was hung in a residence dormitory. Google Search (after removing mirrors) seems to reveal nothing whatsoever that is relevant. If someone can actually find some sources proving that this even existed, that'd be nice, though I suspect it would still be non-notable. Cyde Weys 02:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 04:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afterhours fm

[edit]
Afterhours fm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I originally tagged this with {{db-spam}} because it was entirely an advertisement, but it's been removed and rewritten a bit. Regardless, the article is not verifiable by reliable secondary sources. I couldn't find any via Google. --Wafulz 02:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate article:

Will add sources now —The preceding unsigned comment was added by H4ns9l (talk • contribs).

From what I understand Alexa rankings are based on sites accessed by IE. The AH community is made up of mainly computer savey users who use other browsers. --68.144.1.36 04:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some links for reference. Are they not good enough? Im still learning, trying to figure out how to make it look more professional. I dont see much difference between this and a site like Digitally imported whos only references link back to their own site. Please explain the problem better so i can make the necessary changes --H4ns9l 22:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't really "idependent sources" about the subject. Have a read through WP:WEB. If Digitally Imported doesn't get sources, I'll probably end up nominating it for deletion as well. Also, sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). --Wafulz 21:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 04:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional expletives

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

Indiscriminate, unencyclopedic list, with potential to grow forever. - ∅ (∅), 02:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 WSX television ratings

[edit]
2007 WSX television ratings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

very crufty page for an upstart wrestling promotion. Had prod attached, but was removed. I can understand somewhat why TNA/WWE/WCW may have ratings pages (although maybe those should also be considered for deletion), but this promotion just started, and it just isn't needed. TV shows in general don't always have pages just for their ratings (not including those episode guides that have ratings intertwined. This page just isn't needed. Booshakla 02:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 04:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tallgeese

[edit]
Tallgeese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fancruft and/or original research. Doesn't have a connection to reality as required by WP:NOT. Contested prod. MER-C 02:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INN. MER-C 07:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was merely answering Blaxthos' question, and wasn't using the articles I mentioned to support any view. Shrumster 21:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 some, keep others. There seem to be consensus to delete Unity Area Ambulance, and Harley Street Ambulance Service. Mersey Ambulance Service, Staffordshire Ambulance Service and Surrey Ambulance Service are keeps. Schaefer Ambulance Service was not commented on much, so that is no consensus. Majorly (o rly?) 18:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Area Ambulance

[edit]
Unity Area Ambulance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local and regional ambulance companies Dicklyon 02:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles that all have the same non-notability problem:

Harley Street Ambulance Service
Mersey Ambulance Service
Staffordshire Ambulance Service
Schaefer Ambulance Service
Surrey Ambulance Service
Can you say what you'd be looking at in the others? I can't see where any of them make any claim to notability; the only links are their own sites. Dicklyon 04:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did a Google search on all of them and not all of them are open and shut non-notable. MER-C 05:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mersey, Staffordshire and Surrey. County ambulance services are as notable as county police forces or education departments. Abstain on the American ones as I don't know enough about their scope. - fchd 17:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you volunteering to add the evidence of notability? Or are you saying we should be deleting non-notable police and education departments as well? Dicklyon 18:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After examining the recent changes to some of these articles, I'm quite sure that we've got apples and oranges together here. This is the problem with buffet-style AfDs like this. I would suggest to the nom that this AfD be withdrawn and new AfDs be initiated for the individual articles that s/he still feels are problematic. A Train take the 17:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added references to Staffordshire Ambulance Service to show the kind of coverage these organisations get in the UK - in national and local media. This were just a few I found from the 31,000 google hits. Other UK services may have less because they've only been in existence in their current form since last July - but that doesn't make them less notable. Madmedea 22:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, please, please can we unbundle the UK NHS ones from this AfD. If someone wants to nominate them separately then that's fine because I can provide plenty of non-trival 3rd party references for all of them in a discussion if it comes to that. But they should not be considered alongside services of a very different nature. Madmedea 10:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eric, I already linked our discussion in my comments above, so that people would know what you were able to find as evidence of notability. Please don't resort to personal attacks (calling my statement a lie is a personal attack). Dicklyon 02:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are proposing to delete these Ambulance articles then you better delete the other hundreds on Wikipedia:

Eric 01:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably see what we decide with the present list before expanding the scope of the AfD. Dicklyon 02:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And then when you get done destroying the hundreds of articles on Ambulance services, then you should go and propose deletion for all the police departments, and then schools, and pretty soon we will have all of Wikipedia tore down. Eric 03:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eric, I realize you haven't been at wikipedia for long, but you have a strange idea of how it works. I know you have put a lot of effort into removing spam links, and that's part of what it takes to keep wikipedia on an improvement trajectory. Removing unsuitable articles is another part. I have no intention of dedicating a lot of effort to it, but if I did, I might follow up your suggestion, since I agree that most such departments and organizations are in fact not notable according to wikipedia criteria. But the large number of articles presently escaping scrutiny should not in any way influence the action on these that are currently nominated AfD. Dicklyon 03:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all then submit as seperate debates where needed. Combining Unity (3 vehicles and 3 employees) and Mersey (vehicles in the hundreds, employees in the thousands) into one debate is unworkable. Nuttah68 13:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 04:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gharrio

[edit]
Gharrio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Self described neologism Goodnightmush 03:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 04:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrance Williams

[edit]

A congressional page who also started a group in Michigan. nn. Just H 03:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • do not delete I am an officer of this organization and I can assure you that the information is valid for both pages and that it allows teens from around michigan to learn more about the Michigan Federation of Teenage republicans and its chairmanmigop12345 16:35, 31 January 2007 UTC
  • Delete vanispamicruftisement. JChap2007 04:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete [User:Migop12345|Migop12345]] 16:16 UTC, 1 February 2007
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 19:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scatha (band)

[edit]
Scatha (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 03:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 04:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Federation of Teenage Republicans

[edit]

Get 'em while they're young? nn. Just H 03:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 07:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Belton

[edit]
Mark Belton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Please see the prior AfD; an overwhelming majority voted for delete but the discussion was ignored for procedural reasons. Sdedeo (tips) 03:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment the nominator of the prior AfD was User:Aqua Nation who is currently a banned sock of User:JB196. Signed Jeepday 03:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Majorly (o rly?) 17:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Planet (band)

[edit]
Daily Planet (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Band's main claim to notability is the theme song for a barely notable television show. When I Googled the band (a process complicated by the common nature of the name), I found one media mention which is mirrored on some other sites. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC, but there could be more info about there. janejellyroll 03:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They are lesser known now, as I believe they are less active. That may be why it was hard for you to find much info on Google. Tim Long 03:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the theme song isn't their only significance. Check the links. If they weren't well-known at the time of their activity, I don't think Christianity Today and The Christian Post would have covered them. Tim Long 03:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Reunion Records is a major label with well-known artists. Tim Long 03:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's notability for Reunion Records, not for the band. janejellyroll 03:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if both albums were released on Reunion and it is a major indie label, then the band passes WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 10:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only their second album was on Reunion. Their debut came out on SPV. Caknuck 17:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 07:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Lind

[edit]

Delete. 980 Ghits, of the results that relate to this Kelly Lind, most are from his own sites, MySpace, or the sites of his subjects. None show publication in mainstream magazines, gallery shows or anything notable consistant with WP:Notability. Ckessler

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 07:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King Edward VI Five Ways school song

[edit]
King Edward VI Five Ways school song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article gives the lyrics of the school song for the British school King Edward VI Five Ways. I first thought of merging but the school article is already pretty long and should not be burdened with this. I believe WP:NOT pretty much discourages such lyrics articles in any case. Pascal.Tesson 04:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the school's fairly long history, I doubt that there is still any copyright on this song, if there ever was. Pascal.Tesson 05:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If deletion is carried through, leave a note on my talk page, and give me a day to either squeeze it into the Five Ways page, or at the very least copy the lyrics onto my computer. Alex Holowczak 19:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Assuming it is in the public domain, why not Wikisource it? Tiakalla 07:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Because I didn't know that existed. If I add the category to the page will it avoid the page being deleted? Alex Holowczak 21:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 07:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young Conservatives of California

[edit]
Young Conservatives of California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The founder of Young Conservatives of California created a page for his organization as well as one for himself, as far as I can tell no reliable source exist on this topic and they do not meet WP:NOTE not to mention blatant WP:COI violation Daniel J. Leivick 04:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete. Gogo Dodo 06:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shearman

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

massively non-notable and/or vanity frymaster 04:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Majorly (o rly?) 18:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ACQ-Kingdom Broadcasting Network (2nd nomination)

[edit]
ACQ-Kingdom Broadcasting Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously deleted through a mass-nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batang Kaharian, but this one was much fuller than the others, so listing separately. No vote. Chick Bowen 05:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]