Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 14: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 17:26, 14 May 2007 editShoessss (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,401 edits Adding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/ Vordhosbn ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:37, 14 May 2007 edit undoPhaedriel (talk \| contribs)11,206 editsm FormatNext edit →
Line 103:		Line 103:
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Right on Time}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Right on Time}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kelvin Bossman}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kelvin Bossman}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Groups and individuals challenging the official account of 9/11}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Groups and individuals challenging the official account of 9/11 (2nd)}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ebba von Sydow}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ebba von Sydow}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vordhosbn}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vordhosbn}}

Revision as of 17:37, 14 May 2007

< May 13	May 15 >

Guide to deletion Centralized discussion

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

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Purge server cache

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

The result was Withdrawn by nom, non-admin closure by me. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Triscuit

As far as I can see, this fails WP:N. It has had a prod removed by an anon user. ~ G1ggy! _{Reply | Powderfinger!} 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep -- the article is in terrible shape, but this is a legitimate cracker that has been around for years. Does not fail WP:N. -- MisterHand 00:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going with a Nuclear Powered Speedy Keep, on account of a huge advertising campaign ("Don't forget the Triscuit!"), millions upon millions of boxes of these things sold annually, scads of these things on my local supermarket's shelves, and many and sundry other reasons too numerous to list. In short, Triscuits are many things, but they are certainly not non-notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep as obviously notable (I've heard of these things and I live in the UK) though the article desperately needs a cleanup. EliminatorJR 00:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above --ROASTYTOAST 01:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep - definitely sourcable - clean it up! --Haemo 01:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment - My apologies...they haven't made it to Australia, hence my not knowing of them. This AfD may be closed now. ~ G1ggy! _{Reply | Powderfinger!} 01:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, MySpace band, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 02:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Moving Lights

Not referenced by reliable sources, unencylopedic tone, questionable notability. The only existing release mentioned in the article gets 4 Google hits apart from Misplaced Pages, which all seem self-published (including this BBC page, which "allows for "aspiring bands" to submit their data). Information about the second EP which "is scheduled for full release in March 2007!" can only be found on Misplaced Pages High on a tree 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete: non-notable band. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MisterHand (talk • contribs) 00:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Delete patently fails WP:MUSIC. EliminatorJR 00:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable. Philippe 02:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was snowball delete. Sr 13 21:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Cosmological meaning of human life

A very large chunk of WP:OR. Despite having a long edit history, it's also incomprehensible in some places, and sometimes reads like it was auto-translated from another language. A number of sources, but they merely source items that are tangentally referred to. EliminatorJR 23:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like an essay of some sort, which falls into the WP:OR department. Delete. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete -- is very much original research. -- MisterHand 00:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
delete OR essay. Bucketload of sources do not prevent this from bbeing WP:SYN. No WP:RS to establish WP:N Pete.Hurd 02:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - OR. Philippe 02:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. WP:OR and a giant messy essay. Ford MF 05:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Despite the author having put a lot of work into this, Misplaced Pages is not a place to publish original research. Cardamon 08:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment Given the expansive nature of the article and the references provided perhaps it would be better to request it be rewritten to a more encyclopedic nature rather than deleted outright Guycalledryan 11:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, OR, not to mention incomprehensible rubbish in places. Lankiveil 11:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Delete per nom. --Darkbane 12:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. AniMate 12:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete I know it is frustrating to see an article this long go down the drain, but the article in its current state is full, if not completely, of original research—not acceptable in an encyclopedia. —Anas 13:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, weakly. This is either a large chunk of original research, or else it is a theory being presented without the sort of context that is vital in an article like this, such as who originated this hypothesis and who accepts it. Were a simple lead section added to this article that explained these things, the article might be worth keeping. Without one, it seems soapboxy and unverifiable. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Would make a nice sientific essay but is a bad article. --St.daniel 17:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

FinanceToGo

One of those tricky ones. A piece of shareware with a few reviews here and there, but no substantive coverage. The article doesn't make any claim of particular notability. Google returns 152 unique hits a lot of which are blogs or mirrors of press releases. Notable or not? EliminatorJR 23:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep The notability is that unlike most software, this one uses the double entry system, which means it could be used for a business as well. I've never actually seen it, as I have never used a Mac, but it seems this article squeaks by. the_undertow 02:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep as well by virtue of by-the-skin-of-its-teeth notability. Ford MF 05:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep by virtue of reviews from Macworld () and Softpedia (). EALacey 15:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep - it's been reviewed and it is somewhat notable. Goldenglove 17:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep per the above comments, it squeaks by but is notable enough nonetheless. RFerreira 06:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Above is false - double entry bookkeeping is pretty standard. download.com 20 programs, sourceforge 34 programs, etc. I was not brave enough to try a Google search for "double entry". DewiMorgan 22:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 02:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Metros

Questionable notability (according to the article, the band has only recorded two untitled demos), unencylopedic tone, not referenced by reliable sources (the band's web site seems to be defunct btw). High on a tree 00:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete: non-notable band (see also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Moving Lights) -- MisterHand 00:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:MUSIC Tennis DyNamiTe 02:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete for notability. Philippe 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sr 13 20:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest 2009

Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball.--Kanabekobaton 00:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete --Kanabekobaton 00:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete 2007 only recently concluded --ROASTYTOAST 01:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - WP:NOT. Philippe 02:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Many months too soon. Not enough is knowable yet. BTLizard 03:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom as well. Ford MF 05:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep, why delete it? Lilduff90 07:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- WP:CRYSTAL isn't enough of a reason for you? Morgan Wick 07:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep, you have article about Olympic Games, regional Games (Asiad, etc) or other sporting events which are much further in the future. Eurovision is more important than most of these events in terms of public awareness. 193.56.37.1 07:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Please see WP:INN --Darkbane 19:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
KEEP.--Uannis 08:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep per WP:CRYSTAL: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Due to the national finals and semi-finals, preparation for this event begins well in advance and is easily sourced. --Dhartung | Talk 08:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per everything said above. Goldenglove 08:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete until the host is known. Punkmorten 09:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- 2024 Summer Olympics !!! Hektor 09:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Also, that's different since cities bid to be Olympic hosts. There appears to really be some merit in starting speculation 20 years in advance. That doesn't excuse that article, though, since it appears to mostly be crystalballery. However, the site of the ESC is only determined one year in advance, not seven - and more importantly, absolutely nothing is known or can be affected about it until then. Morgan Wick 15:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete until the 2008 event in Belgrade has taken place. There's potentially a lot of change coming including the possibility that the 2009 event doesn't happen. MLA 10:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete No useful info. (What is there is wrong: I see an important typo in the lead.) The JPS 10:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Very little non-speculation content can be written about 2009 yet since 2007 has only just finished and disputable with WP:Crystal. Camaron1 | Chris 11:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete I think its a little to early, the 2007 one only just finished, let alone thinking of the 2009 one.The Sunshine Man 11:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Lankiveil 11:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Delete per nom. Write it again next year, without a whole slew of TBA. --Darkbane 12:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete: apart from a rumour, this article contains no content whatsoever. --RFBailey 12:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Wanted this to be protected before some one edited it. AxG ҈ 12:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete and then protect, the same thing happened with Eurovision Song Contest 2008. --Philip Stevens 13:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete and protect if necessary. Despite being a certain and notable event, the article currently has no content. It can be created when at least basic information is announced. —Anas 13:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete until something more than "rumors" and "it will take place" can be written about it. Arkyan  15:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete- per WP:CRYSTAL Thunderwing 20:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete- per WP:CRYSTAL JDBlues 22:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete- clear case of WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. Nihiltres 23:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete as being nothing but rumours (the location can't even be known until about a year from now, and I think you'll find that at least one of the rumoured new entrants will have difficulty broadcasting the performance of a certain country with a star on its flag, even if there's chatter that it might enter). The only verifiable fact is the statement that there'll be two semis, and I'm pretty sure that's already at the entry on the 2008 ESC, which is a better place for it to be right now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Highly speculative. With any luck, Eurovision will be cancelled well before it. *Ducks for cover* Axl 19:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete (for now). For one, not enough info, for two it is still two far away.--JForget 19:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete The article states the obvious with nothing to contribute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sweboi (talk • contribs) 22:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Beer 30

Contested prod for this beverage. Speedily deleted on 3 May; recreated, then double-prodded on 4 May and contested on 9 May. Delete as non-notable, really awfully-marketed product. — mholland (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per OR and no RS. the_undertow 02:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Here at the office, Beer 30 is the time we get off work on Fridays. ;-) RFerreira 04:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Thought I could dig up some sources on Google to save this one, but there aren't any. Ford MF 05:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, spammy promotion. Lankiveil 11:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Delete. No sources. --Darkbane 12:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, weakly. This is apparently a real product - I wondered, since it read like it might be a hoax. I did find some references to this beer on state alcoholic beverage board websites through Google, but precious little about the beer itself. ~~Suggest a redirect to Reverend Horton Heat~~, who has a song called Beer:30, which is likely the source of the name. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. If redirected anywhere, it should probably be to The Full Custom Gospel Sounds, since the group's own article doesn't mention the song. EALacey 15:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  - You're right. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete-more of an advert than an article. Goldenglove 17:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I think the source is an empty beer can. - Crockspot 05:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Unreferenced and advertisement --JForget 19:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Foxed

Apparently a neologism coined by people infringing on 20th Century Fox copyrights and bitter that they got caught. —tregoweth (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete This article contains a vast amount of original research. Although a source is provided for the definition of the term, I do not consider it to be reliable. the_undertow 02:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as OR. Ford MF 06:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as NN neologism. This was all over the internets back in the late 90s but doesn't seem to have made it to many reliable sources. It's basically a synonym for terminating copyright infringement on the internet by means of a cease and desist. There are other articles that handle the legal issues better.--Dhartung | Talk 08:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, nn neologism. Lankiveil 11:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Delete or possibly merge into 20th Century Fox article. AniMate 12:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nominator, too many reliability issues for such a neologism. Burntsauce 17:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete(or merge, as said by AniMate). Goldenglove 17:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete --JHP 01:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete a7 (no assertion of notability) and g11 (using Misplaced Pages to advertise her selfpublished book). NawlinWiki 02:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Chelsea DeVries

Might be a talented young girl, but one self-published book is simply not enough for an encyclopedia. See Misplaced Pages:Notability (people). And the article is lacking sources. High on a tree 01:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete a vanity press does not a 'published' author make. The article is also written in a very promotional style. This isn't an article, it's a commercial. DarkAudit 01:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per High on a treeVgranucci 02:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Unfortunately, even the newspaper ad for her mother doesn't make her notable. ... discospinster _talk 02:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was NO CONSENSUS. Dsmdgold 21:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Hanna-Barbera works on DVD

Unnecessary fancruft (that is, there's no List of CBS Television works on DVD). Created by The Tramp (talk · contribs) after I removed this same list from the Hanna-Barbera article. It doesn't help that this list is non-comprehensive and missing a significant number of Hanna-Barbera DVDs. FuriousFreddy 01:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep - seems like a legitimate content fork of the main article, in keeping with many of the articles in Category:Videos and DVDs. If it's missing content, source it and add it. Otto4711 02:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've never seen this category before. Wasn't aware that there were more of these, but it still doesn't really seem particularly encyclopedic to me. DVD releases would do better to be mentioned in the articles for TV shows or their episode sub-articles. But if there's a precedent for it, fine. As far as adding DVDs...there's far more than even I know (and far more than just these), and it doesn't make sense to me to try and sit forever trying to list every single DVD with a Hanna-Barbera cartoon on it. --FuriousFreddy 02:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Generally the information starts out in the main article and gets forked off as this one was (although there usually isn't a content dispute involved as far as I know). If you don't want to spend time editing the article you certainly don't have to. Otto4711 02:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep. These kinds of lists are hard to maintain accurately, and frankly are more trouble than they're worth, but I reckon the info is encyclopedic enough. Ford MF 06:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, cruftalicious. Misplaced Pages is not a product catalogue. Lankiveil 11:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Delete as cruft. `AniMate 12:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I noticed this list when it was added to the Hanna-Barbera article by an IP editor that took 25 edits to get it right. I was going to suggest its removal on the talk page, before its own article was created. As it stands it's just a list of titles and release dates, so I can't see any particular reason for keeping it. Either way, I oppose merging it back into Hanna-Barbera, it was out of place there and added nothing to that article. Pufnstuf 01:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- It did not take 25 edits. It was created in one edit on April 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hanna-Barbera&diff=119746181&oldid=119629122 Tjguitar 23:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  - The one I was referring to was added on 6 May 2007, and it took 25 edits by an inexperienced editor to get it right:
    - Edit number 1
    - (additional edits omitted to save space)
    - Edit number 25 Pufnstuf 04:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      - I don't know why the May 6 edits were even happening, it looked very unprofessional and was borderline vandalism. Someone screwed it up and then I had to go back to the April edit and re-format that section because nobody bothered to revert to the correct listing.Tjguitar 18:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep The precedent was the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/Filmation#Filmation_on_DVD. If you have more to add, then add them. As far as "every single DVD with a Hanna Barbera cartoon on it", that's not what the intended list was, the list was for complete seasons/series sets that have been released, and I suppose H-B movies could potentially be added as well. It is encyclopedia content. It's relevance is that it allows the viewers to see the Historical Chronological Order in which these sets were released without having to reference every Amazon.com (or whatever retailer) listing for every set. Tjguitar 22:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's not encyclopedic content. It's fancruft. Were it intended as encyclopedic, it would mention every Hanna-Barbera DVD ever released, not "just the season sets" because it's easier. Purposely leaving out releases leaves you with an inaccurate article shaped by your (or someone else's) biases. DVD releases of series should be listed in the article for that series. And for the record, Filmation#Filmation_on_DVD is just as poorly formatted and unsightly as this Hanna-Barbera list. On to of that, the history reveals that some of the information is based upon pure speculation. As Lankiveil said above, Misplaced Pages is not a product catalogue, and certainly not a cherry--picked one. Things like this are what Tripod is for. --FuriousFreddy 01:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  - If one wants to add single-disc releases, they are more than welcome to. It doesn't make it any less encyclopedic just because some people are lazy and do not want to add more information to complete the list.Tjguitar 18:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep per WP:SS. Matthew 14:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Question: Can it be converted into a category with an appropriate name? If so, do so. -T-dot ( /contribs ) 14:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Total junk, the info only needs to be on the respective show's pages. Biggspowd 21:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Algebraic bracket

It is inaccurate and no one seems to be willing to fix it Cronholm144 02:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's inaccurate, then fix it? --Haemo 02:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the resources and I am not sure if it is notable enough even if I could.--Cronholm144 02:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've posted this to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics, which handles math RFCs and similar. Might get someone to come and have a look. Tearlach 02:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I should have talked to Silly rabbit first... He might fix it.--Cronholm144 02:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

~~Nope. I vote emphatic delete. If necessary, it can be revived ad hoc later. But I doubt we'll ever see it again. Silly rabbit 02:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)~~

~~*Delete~~ If the assertion is that this entry is inaccurate then it needs to be deleted. Misinformation is worse than none at all. the_undertow 02:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

- As the article is being corrected, I rescind my 'delete.' the_undertow 20:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep or rename. These algebraic brackets (and similar ones, due to Gerstenhaber et al.) are notable. A stub is a useful reminder that there is work to be done. Geometry guy 02:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I added the stub. On the talk page Silly Rabit thinks the definition might be inaccurate, but no errors are pointed out. The nominator seems to be echoing that whilst substituting certainty for doubt. --MarSch 09:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Rename to Nijenhuis-Richardson bracket and have this as a dab. Also Bracket algebra is currently red. --Salix alba (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep or Rename. Inaccuracy is no reason in and of itself for deletion. Lankiveil 11:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Keep The only problem with this article is that it needs a bit of work doing to it, just becasue something needs work - doesn't mean to say we just leave it and delete it - does it? The Sunshine Man 14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It's in the process of being expanded and corrected. Silly rabbit 15:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

... and move to Nijenhuis-Richardson bracket, in my opinion. Silly rabbit 15:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

move as per rabbit--Cronholm144 16:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You don't need an AfD discussion and closing admin for that. Do I take it that you are withdrawing the nomination? --Lambiam 17:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The article has been improved, and moved to a more descriptive name. Can we all agree that this is a satisfactory resolution of the matter? The renamed article looks pretty good to me. DavidCBryant 22:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

keep, as it appears legit, now. linas 00:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I guess I am... but I don't know how to close a discussion. Anyone who wants to, feel free to do so.--Cronholm144 22:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You can strike through your nomination ("It is inaccurate...") by including it between <s> and </s>, and appending "Nomination withdrawn. ~~~~". This is a ground for speedy closure, and then anyone who knows how to can do it. --Lambiam 00:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's okay, it's clear what Cronholm wants. I closed the discussion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete (CSD A3). Krimpet (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Algebraic algorithm

Poorly written, unattended stub, worse than a dictionary entry Cronholm144 02:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I almost forgot... this is the entire article "Algebraic algorithms are algorithms for algebraic problems. Or in other words, the term algebraic algorithm refers to the algorithmic approach of algebra."(citation needed)--Cronholm144 02:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please delete the article in question, because it just repeats the words "algebra" and "algorithm". -- Gesslein 02:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, first time I've gotten to use this response in AFD. Speedy delete A3. Content is only a restatement of the title. Serpent's Choice 02:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per the above. They're algorithms to do algebra. --Haemo 02:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per A3. Merely rephrasing the title. DarkAudit 02:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete looks like the best option, and the most fun way to consign this article to its fate :) Geometry guy 03:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was merge. I will add the merge suggestion tags so editors of this topic can do the content merge. W.marsh 13:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Technical demos for the Virtual Boy

Seems to be little more than a gallery of non-free content with brief explanations of each demo. Beyond the fair-use image gallery, this topic really does not seem notable. I would not even really support a merge into Virtual Boy as there are no independent sources (outside of one video-game fan site) confirming that this (1) existed and was (2) notable even at the time. (ESkog) 02:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge with the Virtual Boy article. There's some useful info here, but not enough to support its own article. Ford MF 06:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge per above. The demos are not notable. Someguy1221 22:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge to appropriate section in Virtual Boy and trim to the essentials. Neither article is particularly overlarge, so a well planned merger is practical. Cannot think of even one single reason for this article to exist at all, outside of the context of the "parent" article, for "historical" perspective or something, given that Virtual Boy itself has foundered in the sea of mediocrity. --T-dot ( /contribs ) 14:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Schedule p

Delete - This is about (or a copy of?) a schedule to some insurance document for which no article occurs; there is no context, and despite requests to add context, the creating editor cannot or will not. Carlossuarez46 02:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This is an article about a piece of an insurance industry reporting form that we do not have an article about. Does not assert notability, and I think having articles about all US government tax and reporting subforms would probably be beyond Misplaced Pages's scope regardless. Serpent's Choice 02:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No notability, no context. Ford MF 06:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no context. Possibly a joke. Lankiveil 12:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Delete, Per Ford MF & Lankiveil. --Random 20:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete- prob a speedy candidate as {{nonsense}} Thunderwing 20:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep it. This is the most notable schedule used by Actuaries. People who peruse online discussions about accounting scandals regarding insurance companies will wonder about the "schedule P." If Misplaced Pages knows what it is, that is a plus for Misplaced Pages. Perhaps the author should add some history and controvery surrounding the schedule P. (there are both.)

Author's response:

1. Here is the context that I put for this article. I did my best to follow the templete of other wikipedia entries:

Please clarify if this is not what you meant.

2. You have to start somewhere. I'd like to add more as I have time but if wikipedia is missing an entire category of information you can't put it in context until you make more entries. You can't do that when your fist one is deleted for not being in context. Also this is not a 'tax subform' any person's (stock market analyst) who's job it is to analyze the financial strength of an insurance company knows what this is. Any accountant who works in the insurance industry knows what this is and would benefit from this information. Also as for the 'scope' of wikipedia apparently it's okay to have extremely esoteric topics from the tech industry but it's not okay to have esoteric topics from other industries? Here are some examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Token_ring http://en.wikipedia.org/Packet http://en.wikipedia.org/Request_for_Comments

There are 10x the number of people in the US who would need to know what schedule P was for an insurance company than would need to know about a Token ring. Do we a separate wikipedia for insurance professionals? another one for banking professionals? another for gardening enthusiests? another for physicists?

3. addressed above

4. Please try googling before making the assertion that something is a joke. http://www.ambest.com/sales/schedulep/ http://www.naic.org/store_idp_sched_p.htm http://www.casact.org/dare/index.cfm?fuseaction=browse_lev3&lev1=100&lev2=240&categorylist=249

Give time for improvements, then Delete You need to do a lot more to make something notable than to list its seven parts. You have to explain, to a layman on the page (not here!) why the thing is notable. You also have to link to external references that explain this. Explain, in an encyclopaedic way, why this would be relevant to the person searching for that term. For the moment, you are just describing a bit of esoteria on some bit of paper in a country I may never see. At the very least explain what it is, because I don't even get that much from the article as it stands. DewiMorgan 22:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Disney Channel Games

I believe this list is like a directory. See Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not. Also, unencylopediac. I don't believe is an appropriate topic for a list. --Random 02:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete, Misplaced Pages is not a product catalogue. Lankiveil 12:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Delete per nom. AniMate 12:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Would be useful if there were articles on all these games, but as is definitely not. Nyttend 15:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Lankiveil. --pIrish 15:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Exhibiting Imperialism

This is essentially a restatement of the argument of one book (Malamud, Randy. Reading Zoos: Representations of Animals and Captivity (1998)) that zoos are imperialist. Violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. If Mr. Malamud or the book are notable, they might get articles, but not a separate article for the theory. NawlinWiki 02:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete as failing WP:POV in the extreme. DarkAudit 03:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above, zoo=empire? However, sometimes this sort of thing does happen. Wooyi 03:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as POV and essayistic. Ford MF 06:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete, too unbalanced Monkeymox 08:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete as POV white guilt nonsense. Lankiveil 12:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Delete POV essay. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as an essay <3 Clamster 00:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Éirígí

Someone tagged it for speedy, but seems like it does have some notability since Bernadette Devlin McAliskey, a famous activist and politician apparently has some association with it now (see McAliskey's article). Procedural listing, no opinion. Wooyi 02:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Hold on there! It's a stub, barely 24 hours old. Let's give the authors some time to make their point. BTLizard 03:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It's stubby now, but there are references to be found, and notability is sufficient for my money. Ford MF 06:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep, if it's a current political party it shouldn't be hard to expand it. Nyttend 15:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep, Sunday Mirror article and a Sunday Tribune article substantially mentions it. Not much else in terms of independent reliable sources, but these two articles are just about enough to keep it in my opinion. Demiurge 17:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 14:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was NO CONSENSUS. I'm not terribly persuaded by the keep arguments; they seem to be a bit blinded by the Oxbridge Effect. The universities are notable, not necessarily a ski trip their students jaunt off on. But the debate doesn't delete it, and I can't reach that conclusion on some basis from the article itself. (Disclosure, not that it matters: I have jaunted off on this trip myself twice). -Splash - tk 23:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Varsity Trip

This does not appear to be notable. 34 unique Ghits, most of which are blogs from students who participated in it. Ohconfucius 03:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

addendum: as indicated below, the article did survive an AfD in April 2006. However, I believe the keep rationale was suspect, hinging on "has been going for 85 years supporting the ski competition between Oxford and Cambridge Universities which historically has been important particularly for the development of the sport in the UK", a claim not substantiated by any sources anywhere. Given that the jolly is attractively priced, hardly surprising that it enrols some 1500 students each year, but still hardly worth a wikipedia entry as it appears the intention is to promote this social club viz: "Today things have changed with the trip aiming to provide cheap skiing and promotion to newcomers to the sport", or to document the things a bunch of Oxbridge students do. There have been no earth-shattering improvements to the stub since the last discussion. Unlike the Boat Race, not all matches between the two arch-rivals merits an entry in wikipedia - this one has had little or no media coverage from what I could find. Ohconfucius 02:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Ford MF 06:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I thought this had been here before and was kept for a number of reasons including its importance for the history of the sport. However I can not find the earlier discussion. --Bduke 08:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Varsity trip --W.marsh 18:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Currently the material in the entry is poor, but event is notable. The entry should focus more on the historical role played by the Varsity Trip in the development of Ski Racing. I would agree that the current entry needs changes. --zadacka 16:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 18:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete No outside sources to show notability beyond the organization's own web page. DarkAudit 18:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep, notability hinted at in previous AfD, just needs sources. Ten Pound Hammer • 19:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Those who wish to keep an article lacking in sources are responsible for providing them. the_undertow 22:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm working on adding sources. It appears that slalom skiing was born in 1922. It would seem unlikely that the first Varsity Trip was run in 1920 (I have found a source stating that it was 1922, and have updated this) but this means that the trip will have been instrumental in pioneering the new sport. I'll try to keep working on this...Zadacka 16:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Seems notable and now has an additional source thanks to Zadacka who is working on the article. Incidentally, this diff shows the nominator removed two links to the Oxford and Cambridge clubs that host the event just before listing this AfD. Care to explain why these links don't meet WP:EL? These are non-commercial sites with no advertising, directly relevant to the article and appropriately filed under external links. Paxse 17:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The Queen's Prize

Non-notable book; "The Queen's Prize" + "Susie Cornfield" gives 68 Ghits, which are booksellers. Article was created by SkeaterMedia whose only other edits have been starting other articles related to Susie Cornfield and her non-notable books. Crazysuit 02:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete as NN. There's not even really an article here, just some dust jacket copy. Ford MF 06:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete promotion for an nn book by an nn author. Lankiveil 12:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Delete non-notable book. See also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Farewell, my Lovely which is another book by the same author. JulesH 16:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete non-notable per nom. DaveApter 09:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sara Rapoport

Non-notable illustrator. Article was created by SkeaterMedia whose only other edits have been starting other articles related to Susie Cornfield and her non-notable books. Crazysuit 02:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Ford MF 06:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nn artist. Lankiveil 12:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Delete as a non-notable artist. I guess one could argue that there's a copyvio as well since the article basically consists of nothing more than the content taken from her homepage, a tag line and two links. -- Seed 2.0 16:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment If her work is notable is she? See Farewell, my Lovely where her art is featured in the book, which has been deemed to be notable enough for inclussion. It seems that if she is prominent enough for mention in that article, then who she is should be expained either there or here. A bad article is not reason to assume non-notability of the subject. I think this bears more scrutiny and/or research before deletion. It appears to be more than vanity spam. Can we find a coupe of independent references to her work? The onus should be on the nominator to demonstrate that we can't. --Kevin Murray 18:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, in any case, Farewell, my Lovely is up for AfD as well (it's the AfD right below this one, as you know). On a more general note, there's no such thing as automatic "notability by extension". In some cases, a single notable work might make someone associated with it de facto notable but it's not an automatism. And, for the record, before I vote I always do at least a cursory search and, when voting delete, I usually verify the results with several follow-up searches. I did do that in this case, and I haven't been able to really come up with, well, anything at all in terms of RS. Now, granted, we're not talking in-depth research here but I do stand by my initial assessment. -- Seed 2.0 09:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete non-notable per nom. DaveApter 09:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete/redirect. W.marsh 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Farewell, my Lovely

Non-notable book; "Farewell, my Lovely" + "Susie Cornfield" gives 68 Ghits, which are booksellers. Article was created by SkeaterMedia whose only other edits have been starting other articles related to Susie Cornfield and her non-notable books. Crazysuit 02:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Is this title not better known as the title of a book by Raymond Chandler? BTLizard
- I'm sure the estate of Raymond Chandler would be interested in this - I would assume such an iconic title is copyrighted? Crazysuit 05:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Titles can't be copyrighted in the US. Per . --Charlene 05:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    - Nor in the UK. I think if Chandler's book isn't notable enough by itself to rate a separate article then this certainly isn't. So, delete. BTLizard 08:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
      - The Chandler is: it's at Farewell, My Lovely. This isn't. Delete (and check out SkeaterMedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for simialr promo). Tearlach 09:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
        OK, thanks. Still delete. BTLizard 09:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, again, as NN. Ford MF 06:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, an nn book. Lankiveil 12:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Redirect to Farewell, My Lovely. The Cornfield book is non-notable, but someone might plausibly try to link to the Chandler with a lower-case "my". (I'm surprised to see that the Chandler article currently features a link to the Cornfield article, but not vice versa.) EALacey 17:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment The nominations is based on the nominator's assertion that the Cornfield books are non-notable with no real demonstration why they are not. Citing Ghits is not relevant. The rest of the discussion about Chandler and his book is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion. It probably is a situation that the nomination is right for the wrong reason, but let’s follow procedure here and not get lazy. --Kevin Murray 18:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Pointing out that a book has received no discernible media attention is irrelevant? Ford MF 18:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Talking of "following procedure", maybe you should try that, Kevin Murray? If you, or anyone else, disagrees with my assertion that this book is not notable then it is up to you to prove it is notable. Of course, you won't be able to, which will show that my nomination is right, and for the right reasons. Crazysuit 00:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ford MF and Crazysuit; a lack of Google hits is absolutely relevant to demonstrating a lack of notability. A lack of Google hits = a lack of reliable sources = lack of notability. Simple. Masaruemoto 05:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Article subject does not appear to meet WP:BK, as I can only find one (possibly) non-trivial mention of the book by a non-related party that isn't trying to sell the book and is geared to a general audience (a review in Fur & Feather). All other mentions of this book I can find are either by booksellers, publishers, or in blogs or the like. --Charlene 04:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Farewell, My Lovely, per EALacey and Charlene. I haven't been able to find anything else either. Fails WP:BK. I don't see any harm in keeping the history though, so I think I simply redirect would do the job (I guess in this case that's a mere technicality though). -- Seed 2.0 09:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete apparently self-published book: publishers web site only lists two books published to date and one due for publication soon, all three by the same author; publisher is based in Croydon and 192.com lists a Susan K. Cornfield as a resident of croydon. Redirect per other users' suggestions. JulesH 16:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Susie Cornfield should probably be considered for deletion as well. See also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Queen's Prize and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Sticky Rock Café which are already being considered for deletion. JulesH 16:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Confirmed: the book's self-published. See JulesH 17:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment I agree, I'll nominate Susie Cornfield when these related afds have closed, unless anyone wants to do it before that. Crazysuit 00:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Lack of Google hits for any reliable sources shows this is non-notable. Masaruemoto 05:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep It's a book that's been published and when you claim it is non-notable, it features Jilly Cooper in the book and is also available on Amazon amongst other retailers. It's not an advertisement it's just an entry. The reviews are sourced and legit. SkeaterMedia 10:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete per G11. Sr 13 01:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sticky Rock Café

tagged speedy, but I don't think it should be, procedural listing, no opinion. Wooyi 03:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to review WP:CSD#G11, which unquestionably applies to this article. Also, this article should not have been placed here as a procedural listing as the original reason for deletion was advertizing, which is not a reason for listing in AFD, even for procedural reasons. However, I have added valid AFD reasons below. Crazysuit 05:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I originally tagged this non-notable book for speedy deletion as an advert using CSD G11, which is for Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. This article is book promotion from beginning to end I have no idea how this cannot be considered an advert, containing phrases such as; "an edgy satirical novel", "pacy, action-packed modern thriller", "could not be more pertinent", "the book published in 2006, is being enjoyed by boys and girls, and men and women of all ages", "taken up by fans of cyber-punk and sci-fi", "Listen to the great British actor, Martin Jarvis, give a wickedly mischievous reading". And I haven't even got to the selected press quotes.

Anyway, forget the blatant advertizing, this is a Non-notable book; "The Sticky Rock Café" + "Susie Cornfield" gives 87 Ghits, which are booksellers. Article was created by SkeaterMedia whose only other edits have been starting other articles related to Susie Cornfield and her non-notable books. At least now this makes a set with the previous 3 articles. Crazysuit 05:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete G11 is valid in this case, especially in light of its creator. Phony Saint 05:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as an advert and deeply non-notable. Ford MF 06:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, nn book. Lankiveil 12:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Comment, I've rewritten for now, but I haven't been able to find any reviews in Google. That doesn't mean they don't exist - and, for a Garret novel, they're likely to - but I suggest if people have access to literary reviews for the UK to check that out. Or, tell me where to look and I'll do the legwork. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Not sure what you mean by "for a Garret novel, they're likely to" as this publisher has, according to their web site, only published 3 books so far, all by the same author. See also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Farewell, my Lovely and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Queen's Prize. JulesH 17:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable self-published book. JulesH 17:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom. Self- publicising. DaveApter 09:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Ventrella

No supporting references; only 954 GHits; I can't find any way to establish notability for this person. Mmoyer 03:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete as there are no notable sources or media coverage. Ford MF 06:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete. He sounds like the sort of person who could attract independent coverage, but there doesn't seem to be much. All Google News Archive and LexisNexis turn up is some brief mentions of his involvement with There and MIT Media Lab. EALacey 17:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Astral Projection (Charmed)

Cruft, original research. ˉˉ╦╩ 03:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. There's nothing specific about the concept on the show that 1) deserves its own article, and 2) isn't already covered by Astral projection. Ford MF 06:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, charmedcruft. Lankiveil 12:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Delete - per nom. Otto4711 13:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Wave a magic wand and make it vanish - Since this is at the extreme end of fancruft. A1octopus 14:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete- completely not notable Patar knight 22:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Doesn't need its own article. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, I had already tried to redirect it to astral projection.~Zythe 15:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, separate article is unnecessary, as there is already a perfectly acceptable "List of terms" article. -- Huntster 16:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment Is there a reason why you brought this to AfD? Zythe had already redirected this page to the Astral Projection article and you reverted it and brought it here instead. You could've just left it as a redirect and saved everyone some time. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Check the history, this article was nominated for deletion before Zythe attempted a redirect. Using a redirect is a lazy way to avoid dealing with a problem article as it allows for reversion to previous content. "Astral Projection (Charmed)" is a useless search term anyway, who would type that exact phrase in the search box? ˉˉ╦╩ 21:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was Redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. If after the release of the film there are enough reliable sources discussing the Brethren to warrant an article, it can easily be restored. Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. WjBscribe 12:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Brethren of the Coast

Fictional organization set to appear in an upcoming action-adventure film. No assertion of notability, no references, plenty of questionable fair use images. Unnecessary fanservice. ˉˉ╦╩ 03:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep!: This is absurd, might as well delete Dumbledore's Army from Harry Potter and the Council of Elrond of Lord of the Rings! And the fact that the Lords are considered to have a backstory and to have existed for hundreds of years and how the former two have no backstory and the Army existed for a few months and the Council for one day. Therequiembellishere 04:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Luckily were not discussing Dumbledore's Army or the Council of Elrond, or any fiction other than Pirates of the Caribbean. Do the "Brethren of the Coast" have any notability outside of the film? Have they been covered in multiple non-trivial sources? Are they in any way important as anything more than a plot device in a Disney flick? ˉˉ╦╩ 04:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The backstory may go back hundreds of years, but the story is only a couple of years old at best, coming from a gaggle of near-anonymous screenwriters. Not in the same league as Rowling or Tolkien. DarkAudit 12:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. Invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. DarkAudit 04:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect as not notable enough for its own article. Ford MF 06:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep this article, but delete the articles on individual pirate lords except Jack Sparrow, Hector Barbossa, and Sao Feng. The "Brethren of the Coast" are clearly intended to be an important part of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, and no doubt the article will be in much better shape when the film is released in less than two weeks. If the images are not appropriate, then nominate them for deletion separately. *** Crotalus *** 07:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Does every important plot device in a blockbuster movie deserve a separate article, or just this one? If so, why? ˉˉ╦╩ 07:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Similar plot devices in other major film series often do have separate articles, as mentioned above. If you think they shouldn't, that is a defensible position, but according to the standards now in place this is acceptable. I do think the fair use gallery should be deleted since it doesn't have any commentary and doesn't meet our standards for inclusion of fair use images. *** Crotalus *** 07:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The standards now in place are not dictated by personal preference, they are codified by fairly clear Misplaced Pages policies (WP:FICT, WP:OR, WP:NOT, a few others). Perhaps if I had run across the other examples offered by Therequiembellishere, we would be discussing their deletion instead. I don't think that the purported precedent of crufty fan service (o.r.) justifies the purported notability of this subject. ˉˉ╦╩ 07:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirect, as this organisation is not notable outside of the Pirates of the Caribbean milieu. Lankiveil 12:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Keep, agree with Crotalus, they are a key part of the movie. If it is deleted now, it will just be made into a new page that will probably have even less verifiable information. Might as well get ahead of the game Skhatri2005 02:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above. -Trampikey 00:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment I've removed the fair-use gallery and marked all the images (except this one, which is also used in Hector Barbossa) for deletion. *** Crotalus *** 02:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - First concern is that 'Brethren of the Coast' was, as far as I'm aware, historically used to describe a society of real pirates/buccaneers. Yet there's no mention of that here - the only important thing seems to be what happens in the film (and yes, I'm a big fan of POTC myself). Second is the spoiler element. POTC:AWE isn't released everywhere yet - it might be worth a little consideration for those who haven't had chance to see it. - Shrivenzale 19:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep The movie comes out in 6 days leave it be till at least then so a proper decision can be reached. It may wind up that the breathren of the coast are hugely important to the story line On3manarmy 02:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was keep. W.marsh 00:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Larry West

nn. although its great to see independent candidates, does not appear notable. —Gaff 03:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If I may, this person has been in the news multiple times, and is currently making a run for office. There are multiple creditable sources for everything mentioned on this page. -LuvataciousSkull 03:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep Article needs cleanup, including all those links to YouTube (rich media are to be avoided per WP:EL), but the person is in fact covered in some independent secondary sources, thus meeting the first criteria under Misplaced Pages:Notability (people). Furthermore, the article seems well-researched and the author has made good attempts to assert notability. --Darkbane 04:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep. Once you take away the YouTube links and the footnotes that just link to the guy's own website, the article has hardly any citations at all. But the remaining ones do seem to establish a genuine, if local, notability. If cleaned up and wikified, I think it's fine. Ford MF 06:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Point OK, I'll get rid of the YouTube links. I'll ask for some other people to help clean it up. -LuvataciousSkull 08:53, 14 May 2007

Corrections Got rid of the YouTube links, and cleaned it up as much as possible. --LuvataciousSkull 12:46, 14 May 2007

Strong Keep Everything has been kept in good shape, and I do believe that is worth keeping at this point. -LuvataciousSkull 07:19, 16 May 2007

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude Eggs

No evidence that this is a common term, within the southern region of the United States or elsewhere. Google turns up roughly 1,700 hits for "Dude eggs" the bulk of which are Misplaced Pages and Urban Dictionary mirrors and a few links to second rate Jackass episodes. Suggestion deletion unless evidence of encyclopedic merit can be provided. RFerreira 04:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete as neologism. A Jackass video does not notability make. DarkAudit 04:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete neologism. Here we call them "pickled eggs". ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as neologism. (Also, there's such a thing as a first-rate Jackass episode?) Ford MF 06:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, neologism. Lankiveil 12:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Delete per nom. ---Cathal 15:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nominator, even if it had sources it would be nothing more than a dictionary definition. Burntsauce 17:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete- per WP:NEO Thunderwing 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Per WP:NEO. Cool Blue 00:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Absurd. — MichaelLinnear 03:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 13:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Pokéthulhu

No "multiple, non-trivial" secondary sources to speak of on covering this game. THe article links to the home page (not a valid source) and a wiki (hardly reliable). Talk page shows a GameSpy page, but GameSpy themselves did not make the page, and the RPG review is only one site. Prod removed without a reason. hbdragon88 04:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Did what I could for the article, adding references to two reviews, and mention of the spinoff line of Steve Jackson Games miniatures. Serpent's Choice 05:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep. The article could certainly be beefed up, and subcultural notability is often an iffy thing to establish, but I think this one's got enough. Ford MF 06:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Maybe a bit of an expansion but notable. It is said the review is only one site, but that one site is RPG.net the largest RPG site in the world. It should also be noted when looking for information that more people spell it Pokethulhu than Pokéthulhu. I've added another review link. Ben W Bell talk 07:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, personally. What notability criteria can miss out on, when interpreted too strictly, is the mass of encyclopediac use that effectively amounts to "what the heck is _____?" While a quick browse of the topic on the internet shows sites like gamespy.com basically advertising the game, rpg.net reviews the game. I suppose that latter counts as a notable source, though I'm not sure just how to work it into the article. I don't see how deleting this improves wikipedia, though, & oppose on that basis alone. --mordicai. 19:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note: the above copied from the article's talk page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- I explicitly rebutted the GameSpy bit, though not in great detail. GameSpy offers hosting (I've seen PsyPokes hosted on GameSpy), there is an application process for it. That makes that all GameSpy links must be treated with care. In this particular case, it looks like a personal site, which isn't reliable. Also makes WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:HARMLESS arguments. hbdragon88 00:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Notable (if very niche) RPG, with a number of notable people involved, including Kovalic. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- You mention "notable" three times withotu defining it. Who are the notable people involved in it? If it's notable enough, wouldn't you think that it would have more coverage than the two sites it has currently? hbdragon88 00:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Specifically, the involvement of John Kovalic, S. John Ross, minis bu Steve Jackson Games, and published by Dork Storm. More references would be better, sure, but what's in the article is adequate to support what's there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Doesn't assert notability and doesn't seem to be very popular. DBZROCKS 20:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - the article is referenced, it exists, etc., I say, give it more time to expand. ~I'm anonymous
- Nobody is denying that it exists. We're debating the notability of its existence, whether it deserves an article or not. And it's been three years! (I was surprised to see that it as started in February 2004.) I doubt that this will gain more attention than it has now. hbdragon88 17:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. Non-notable. Andre (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Jacob Rickard

I tagged this for proposed deletion because it's an unsourced orphan biography of a living person. The tag was removed as "vandalism" so here we are. I suggest that unless something verifiable and useful can be said about this person we should delete the article. --Tony Sidaway 04:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete non-notable local presenter. BBC Kent != BBC to the whole UK. No significant coverage outside of Kent. DarkAudit 04:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. He's a student broadcaster. Plenty of those around. No notability. andy 11:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, nn regional broadcaster. Lankiveil 12:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Delete, nn. Crockspot 05:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Pokémon NetBattle

Fails WP:N: Does not have mutliple reliable sources independent of the topic itself. Smogon, Nintendo.com forums do not qualify as reliable sources. Last AFD was a unanimous "keep and cleanup." It has since been 15 months without any improvement, and the third-party sources tag was put up there six months ago. hbdragon88 04:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. hbdragon88 04:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It is considered good form to provide a link to the original AfD. Morgan Wick 07:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - There's absolutely nothing there to assert it's notability (WP:N) and no reliable references (WP:V). Marasmusine 12:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete While it's while written, it lacks sources proving notability. Unless sources can be found (I tried, but came up with nothing) it has to go. Perhaps someone might care to transfer the bulk of the article to a Pokemon wiki, but that's up to them.Cheers, Lanky ○ Yell ○ 13:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Large, active community, many fan sites to source from, and a bajillion Google hits says notable, but Alexa rank for download site and lack of media coverage puts me on the fence. The Smogon fansite (basically NetBattle's new home), however, has about a 40,000 Alexa rank (don't let the week average fool you; the site's been down.) So, keep. I can maintain if no one else wants to. -- Chris is me _{(user/review/talk)} 22:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Another article that cannot provide reliable sources to verify any claims of notability. As usual, requests for sources have been ignored. 15 months is more than a reasonable amount of time for improvement. DarkSaber2k 08:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Do Not Delete. The unofficial rules started in Netbattle have carried over to the actual games. Either keep this, make a Pokémon Metagame article, or both. --Gaming King 20:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Is there any evidence that these rules were not merely a coincidence? Suppose I were to write a Star Wars fanfic where Darth Maul was cloned; if that event then happens in the new TV series would I really be able to say "wow, George Lucas used my story", or would it just be him thinking of the same obvious way of bringing back a popular villain? Pokémon games are developed years ahead of the first announcements of their existence, so it's quite possible that ideas the NetBattle team had were already dreamed up by GameFreak's think tank a year earlier. Misplaced Pages articles can't be based on hearsay and circumstance. If you can find a publication of some sort that mentions NetBattle's ideas were implemented, then yes, that's something to consider. Garrett 01:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  - The pokemon games, starting with the Stadium Nintendo 64 games, already incorporated a metagame dynamic similar to the standard battling rules used on Netbattle, such as a sleep clause and a ubers ban, all while some other standard netbattle rules such as evasion clauses and ohko moves clauses were never implented in the games to my knowledge. So no, I dont believe Netbattle had an impact on the actual games, although it certainly had one on how wifi battles on the new pokemon ds games are played. That said, Netbattle's popularity shouldnt be measured by its own website, as it has been abandonned years ago. It is still used by hundreds of battlers from every country imaginable every week and many sites gravitate around it. I know that first hand from hosting the main server for more than a year. --Vineon 05:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Does not appear to meet the notability standard for video games or software. Hardly verifiable. Andre (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - No references, despite reference tag being up forever. I don't find any through my Googling, so doesn't seem to pass WP:ATT/WP:V/whatever we're calling not having sources. Wickethewok 04:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. 15 months with no improvement pretty much shows there is nothing out there. -Amarkov moo! 22:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete In my opinion, it's as notable as any hacking/editing program of games. They aren't made by official companies, neither is this. TheBlazikenMaster 23:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Father of the Nation

The article Father of Nation has been tagged for lacking sources, for needing cleanup and for being original research since 2006. It's a long exercise in original research, where a "father of the nation" is chosen for each country. Every single choice is original resarch, just one is sourced. To take but a few examples. Nobody denies the importance of George Washington but I for one have never heard him being called Father of the Nation. The authors of the article have decided that Micheal Collins is the FotN for Ireland, not Eamonn de Valera. No sourced reason is given to suggest why. I'm a Finn myself, and I can guarantee that our "FotN" is never called that, and many other good candidates could be found if such a title existed. I assume we can find the same situation for each country, the article just consists of persons picking their own favourites. One of the more amusing ones, naming former SNP-leader Donald Dewar as the FotN for Scotland. I can see no reason for this article to be left on Misplaced Pages. Not only is the title Father of the Nation not used in most countries, the choices are original research in each and every case. JdeJ 04:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete, OR to the extreme. Wow. fethers 05:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. This is way to POV laced and completely unreferenced/unfixable. meshach 06:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, most of these leaders seem to have been pulled out of a hat.--Nydas 08:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Huge subjectivity problem as clear from the talk page. Seems to attract opinionated editing to promote 'pet' fathers. Problem has not resolved despite extensive discussion. My involvement was over Iran and it has been a complete mess. The Behnam 14:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete strange OR article Bigdaddy1981 16:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete No defence for this to be here. Drmaik 18:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment- It is not original research for Donald Dewar- he is often referred to as the Father of the Nation in relation to Scotland. See the BBC article reporting his death 'Father of nation' dies, the Guardian's obituary "Dewar earned himself the label of "father of the nation"" for example. Thunderwing 19:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete This disaster of an article is based on OR. It is highly subjective and provides few sources. The very concept of the article is subjective. --Agha Nader 23:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I actually learned that Washington was the "Father of our country", but that was way back before schools taught how eevil our founding fathers were. But this article is still OR. - Crockspot 05:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as extreme OR, and what little is sourced could be considered synthesis, as the sources don't necessarily support what "Father of the Nation" is defined as here. Someguy1221 09:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment While I believe the text in article is original research and should be removed. I also suggest it should be changed to only a list with referenced entries. At least I know for sure Muhammad Ali Jinnah is widely called by this title. please see Google Pakistan Gov website. --Webkami 16:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Just to add a bit to the examples: In Italy, king Victor Emmanuel II was officially adressed as "pater patriae" (father of the fatherland), but he is not listed in the article. Rather, Giuseppe Mazzini, Guiseppe Garibaldi and others are listed, who would certainly not have dared to use this title... The list given for Germany just seems risible, e.g. I've never heard of socialist Karl Liebknecht given such name that might remind one of a king. --B. Wolterding 17:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment I added the page Mother of the Nation to AfD as well. JdeJ 23:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but trim intro and add references for all examples. Seems like a valid topic to me. BobFromBrockley 15:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In which respect do you think it's valid? --B. Wolterding 15:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Slavlin 15:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Pater Patriae. OR as noted above. Sandstein 22:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Albanian (form of Russian internet slang)

Not notable neologism we already have article Padonki it is more than enough Alex Bakharev 04:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete or merge with Wiktionary Nyttend 15:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel 10:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Carlton South Public School

Non-notable primary school in Sydney with lists of vice captains and school captains. The book noted in the footer is not in the State Library of NSW catalogue. Orderinchaos 04:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos 04:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos 04:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep - There is a book on it that is mentioned in the article, and i feel it is therefore notable. If it isnt mentioned in the state library of NSW, who cares? Twenty Years 11:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- From WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." If we can't even find the book, it's a bit hard to judge not only this, but which information was actually used. Orderinchaos 11:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep Published book about school would be a strong claim of notability, but further details are required. Article will benefit greatly from expansion. Alansohn 16:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Lots of schools write books about their own history, get a vanity press to print them, and sell them to parents for fundraising. That doesn't meet the independence criterion of WP:RS. And I see no evidence that this book is anything but such a vanity publication, given that it has no ISBN, no publisher, and no record in the official library of the state in which it was published. cab 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:N. There is nothing that even indicates that the school history is a book, much less a published book; it could very well be a research paper or promotional brochure produced by the school. Therefore, this article probably fails WP:V as well. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, the book isnt in the NLA either. John Vandenberg 02:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. There are a couple of articles in Google News Archive where it is mentioned. . The book could be a useful source but does not seem to have been widely distributed. Capitalistroadster 02:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:N,WP:RS - best source is a book that seems to be self-published if it isn't in the state library.Ga rr ie 03:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless the book can be cited - for all we know it is a 3 page photocopy. Otherwise, there is nothing that distinguishes this school from a million others. - Tiswas 14:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, as per above. Not convinced that the book noted is real or reliable. Otherwise seems an NN school. Lankiveil 04:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC).

The result was withdrawn. This has been completely rewritten since I nominated it. Chick Bowen 21:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Journeyman (sports)

I wrote this article, originally, almost two years ago. It was more or less original research at the time. Now it's worse: it's turned into a list of journeymen, which is of course a rather subjective judgment. Of course, an article could be written about the use of the term by sportswriters, but it would have to be sourced (and something more than just a definition), and this isn't it. I say axe it and start over. Chick Bowen 05:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep Seems reasonably sourced Computerjoe 's talk 20:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 13:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

SanSan

Defunct, inaccurate term only used once in a book from 1961. Google shows one mention that isn't a Wiki mirror. Delete. fethers 05:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable neologism. -Will Beback ·:· 05:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete and add the paragraph of the article explaining the term's non-notability and inaccuracy, into the related articles like Jean Gottman, Megalopolis (city type), BosWash, to discourage resurrection. --JWB 05:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep Aside from Gottman, I remember both of those place names from Mack Reynolds novels of the 60s-70s. Don't know if that's sufficient enough, but it's more than one reference, anyway. -- LaughingVulcan 03:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It is a human geography term. If not kept, save as a redirect to BosWash, at least, and add a sentence per JWB's suggestion. —Scouter Sig 19:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep I have read about this megalopolis in my secondary school geography textbook, hence it must have a certain degree of notability. (I can't remember its ISBN number though)--Kylohk 16:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep I live in San Francisco. This phrase is used a lot by people (or at least the people I know) who live between San Jose and San Francisco, it has parallels in names like Baltiwash or those other conglomerate names, and labels a distinct human geographic phenomenon with no other decription: the continuous urbanized landscape extending down the penninsula and into Silicon Valley. Zelmerszoetrop 13:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of interesting, and quite different from the original usage (in this article) for San Francisco to San Diego! Hey, if you include San Mateo, would it be SanSanSan? And how about San Rafael? --JWB 19:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was no consensus to delete but could still be merged/redirected as an editorial decision. W.marsh 13:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Southern Cayuga High School

Doesn't meet WP:N Delete Nick Garvey 05:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete, no assertion of notoriety. meshach 06:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep — Minimum satisfactory H.S. article. — RJH (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep - could use some expansion <3 Clamster 00:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep, meets minimum requirements (ex: there are two sources as external links), could use some more information concerning noteworthiness. If we delete this article, there are several others of less quality that would quickly follow. Truthanado 00:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete , per Truthanado. Just as AfDs sometime get articles improved fast, they can also be a good way to indentify additional articles on non-notable subjects. DGG 01:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 01:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:N, no assertion of notability so even qualifies as speedy, and external links are not noted as sources, so deletable per WP:V. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Cayuga County, New York per WP:LOCAL and various proposed school guidelines. RFerreira 06:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Cayuga County, NY per above. --TREYWiki 03:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep Additional sources exist and should be added to further expand the article. Alansohn 03:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
~~Weak~~ Delete. As it stands there is nothing to defend notability, per WP:SCHOOL. The "creator" of the article Kappa, who last maintained it May 10th by deleting a reference source due to "link rot", may be prepared to abandon it: "You might be able to kill off this one. Actually I don't enjoy making articles about random high schools but I can make if more necessary. Kappa 23:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)". If no editor is willing to go to the trouble of searching for notability references, national recognition, famous alumni, historical importance, athletic accomplishments, etc. with reliable sources, then there is nothing to defend a Keep, even for proposed improvements. Article has been essentially a stagnant stub since October 2005 . No school pride? Just sad. If someone commits here to making major improvements, and already has some strong examples of notablility to post, then Keep would be appropriate. --T-dot ( /contribs ) 15:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
delete - I don't see any external links that 1) actually assert any notability and 2) which are independent. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Logic Pig

nn. not a crystal ball. delete —Gaff 05:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Logic Pig is the creation of a Philosophy student at Leeds University - ie something made up in school one day. Zero useful ghits. BTLizard 05:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as local meme, fails WP:N completely. meshach 06:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not notable, sources?? Omega Archdoom 07:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as Something Made Up in School. No sources. No proof that it has ever seen in any form except on a piece of copy paper. DarkAudit 14:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as something made up at school one day. Literally. --Cyrus Andiron 15:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nominator, made up in school. Burntsauce 17:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete No sources at all, and seems to fail WP:NOT YET ON THE WEB.--Xnuala (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The university in question has about thirty thousand students and the comic has cult value. Also has small but growing notability outside of the institution in question.

The result was Keep. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

National Association for Science Fiction

Procedural nom. This was speedied as an article "asserting no notability". However, it does assert notability, as this was New Zealand's first science fiction club, and was the founding organisation of New Zealand's annual science fiction awards, the Sir Julius Vogel Awards, and an organisational force involved in the coordination of national conventions. it was also the country's only nationwide fannish organisation for one and a half decades. My own view is a strong keep on that basis, though I have to admit bias as a primary editor of the article and a former member of NASF. Grutness...wha? 06:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Sourcing, which given the era will likely be deadtree, would be nice. But I see no pressing requirement for deletion. Serpent's Choice 07:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 14:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Grutness, although I agree a source or two would be nice. -- Avenue 16:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep if the information is accurate (and google confirms it is likely to be) then it is without doubt notable. Finding sources is the next task... JulesH 17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights Statistics

unencyclopedic original research vanity article. user makes abusive/attacking edits on other pages as well. —Gaff 06:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a POV-laden rant. Violates WP:N (not asserted) and WP:V (no sources cited) meshach 06:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Plug for the author's website. No other content. BTLizard 07:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Blaring POV use. Ad for website. I see no reason to keep Omega Archdoom 07:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Advertising and lack of encyclopedic content.--Xnuala (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Userfy by moving the page back to User:Maxcrc, where it was created. (The creator moved it into article space on the grounds that this made it "easier to find teh content".) Some might still object to the site-plugging, but as a user page I don't think it would warrant deletion. EALacey 17:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete very POV, essay-ish <3 Clamster 00:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Doesn't belong in main namespace. - Crockspot 05:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Psych Desktop

Software with no evidence of notability. No independent sources, article title gets 62 google hits. Weregerbil 06:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. An ad for software of no notability. BTLizard 07:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete According to its website, this doesn't appear to have been released yet. JavaTenor 07:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. No sources. An advertisement. Omega Archdoom 07:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Parachute (smoking)

Misplaced Pages is not a "how to" manual Richard 06:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Where to begin? The article doesn't even say why it's called Parachute. No assertion that this is anything other than fiction and even if it isn't, it's completely inappropriate here. BTLizard 07:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete As stated, wikipedia is not a how-to. Omega Archdoom 07:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless expanded Guycalledryan 11:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Expansion wouldn't save this. This is a how to article, and Misplaced Pages is not a how to guide. DarkAudit 14:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:SNOW Nyttend 15:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nominator and other comments. Burntsauce 17:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Misplaced Pages is not a manual for "how-to-something". --Nehrams2020 04:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hayatabad Town

Duplicates Hayatabad and has even more POV than the original. Deprodded by creator. Morgan Wick 07:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Yep, duplicated and debased content. BTLizard 07:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete This one is just bad! Biased (for example Hayatabad is the most beautiful town of Peshawar", badly written (very unencyclopedic), and much, much more. Omega Archdoom 07:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Hayatabad, for duplication of subject? -- saberwyn 07:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Could work, but even the Hayatabad article is poorly written, and again shows the POV used in this article (as this article is a copy). Frankly, I think both should be deleted, unless someone puts a lot of effort into fixing them up. Omega Archdoom 08:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My objection to a redirect (and the reason why I didn't just do so) is that it's an unusual title for a redirect. Also, Hayatabad appears to be a real town that may be notable. Just because the article has POV problems is not a reason to delete. Morgan Wick 15:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Topeka Capitals

Does not meet WP:N guidelines and no verified sources (google) Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 17:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 07:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Without prejudice towards recreation if sources can be found that confirm notability.--Xnuala (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete non-notable --ROASTYTOAST 21:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete non-notable per nom. DaveApter 09:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Poker mustang

Non-notable. Ideogram 07:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Non notable, related to poker dream, which does not have its own article. Some parts a bit unencyclopedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omega Archdoom (talk • contribs).

If you can add references backing up your claims, it will be fine. --Ideogram 10:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Err, that would be a problem. WP:COI strongly discourages anyone writing about a business they have a financial interest in. If it is worth writing about, someone else will write about it. --Ideogram 11:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable, and I couldn't find a single reliable source to verify. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, verify, using reliable sources. If no reliable source has written enough about this web site to verify the accuracy of the information, then there's not enough reliable information to create an encyclopedia article. And no, the word of someone who claims to be the site owner is not a reliable source, because the conflict of interest means that the information is likely to be biased. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

We do need an article on Planet Poker and we would be very grateful if you write it. I can pretty much guarantee it won't be deleted. --Ideogram 11:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Leaving aside the notability issue for a moment, it seems fairly clear from the protestations above that the article is primarily an advertisement. The originator would seem to have little or no idea of the purpose of an encyclopedia. BTLizard 11:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

- Comment. From above: "3) it's so small with almost zero players". There's the notability issue, very succinctly stated. BTLizard 11:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

- Comment. From above: "4) Peter Criss's 1982 album....can you name it?? Prob not, no one bought it, but it's listed here!

So is KiSS "The Elder" who the heck has those albums?? Why dont we exclude them items of interest as well from this site. In any rate, it doesnt matter either way, the site is there and thats that, maybe in a uear when it's bigger, we will then revist it sand include it because it's then "worthy", whatever. GmanIV 11:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please don't WP:BITE the newbies. --Ideogram 11:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete for reasons all too obvious now. 2005 11:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. per above. Also, is there a process to help GmanIV learn proper WP etiquette (eg not posting )? —Gaff 11:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Just leave him alone. Don't respond to him for a while. --Ideogram 11:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable. AniMate 11:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment note that there have been deletions from this AfD. See . JulesH 17:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Orthodox Jewish Humanism

There is no such animal! This is a neologism and this article violates WP:NEO, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. Sure, Humanistic Judaism exists, but it does NOT have belief in God as one of its tenets! Hence it takes a "leap of imaginary faith" to posit that it can be somehow meshed with Orthodox Judaism to create such a hybrid. IZAK 07:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete for above reasons. IZAK 07:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)]]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 07:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Zero ghits for Frum Humanism except this article and very, very few for Orthodox Jewish Humanism.It's doubtful therefore whether this is a "movement" as the article says. I think it would need to demonstrate the existence of some organised or at least recognisably discrete bodies that recognised the tenets outlined as their raison d'etre. BTLizard 08:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable - essay -Doc 08:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per WP:VERIFY, google returns only 8 results and it looks like most of them are sourced from wiki Guycalledryan 11:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete humanism and Orthodox Judaism are clearly incompatible. It is possible that there is a tiny fringe group who call themselves "Orthodox Jewish Humanism" and do not understand at least on the those words. Nevertheless without any sources I have no reason to believe that any such group exists. The essay implies that any Orthodox Jew who does Charity work is a part of a Humanist movement - which is a misunderstanding both the ideas of humanism and the definition of the word "movement". Jon513 15:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete The article itself provides no sources, and I only found 7 ghits, none of them meaningful, and not a single item found in Google News/Archive. There seems to be no reason not to treat this as WP:NEO or WP:OR. Alansohn 18:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Origional research--Sefringle 00:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete -- looks like OR. --Wassermann 05:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I heard one of these OJH guys on Art Bell the other night, but I also heard a guy who was a time-traveling tourist on Art Bell too. - Crockspot 05:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete appears to be a neologism that doesn't comply with WP:NEO. There's plenty of evidence that some Orthodox Jews are involved in various social causes -- Avi Weiss and Joseph Lieberman are prime examples -- and this may be what the article is intending to say (I can't really tell for sure), and an article on such a topic might well be reasonable. However, because of the existance of Humanistic Judaism with its own ideology (and ideological baggage), saying that some Orthodox Jews are humanistic has a completely different meaning. In general, if an article claims to describe a contemporary phenomenon but its sources turn out to be nothing more than quotes from the Bible or similar, it's almost always an OR essay that's advocating what someone thinks should be rather than describing what is.--Shirahadasha 07:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete according to IZAK and Shirahadasha. --Shuli ] 15:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
No such thing -- Y not? 06:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per above. If just one example of someone notable or some organisation describing itself in this way were given, that'd be different. BobFromBrockley 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete as copyright violation. Sandstein 06:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Gebrauche-Musik

Orphan article about non-notable band. Should this article be kept, please verify whether they are German (I doubt that; their name sounds a bit awkward in German) and fix the category. Delete Kusma (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Certainly they exist - plenty of ghits - and no, I don't think they're German. The choice of name is probably a nod to outfits like Kraftwerk or even Tangerine Dream. The question is one of whether they meet WP:MUSIC. I have to say that's doubtful, but having just reviewed it I wonder whether a number of the criteria in there are likely to be met by musicians in this genre - possibly there's a bit of systemic bias which needs addressing. BTLizard 08:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I have seen the phrase gebrauche musik or gebrauchsmusik before. It generally means something like "occasional music", especially music that does not require great instrumental virtuosity and is intended for the use of amateur performers, and is associated especially with the composer Paul Hindemith. I suggest that if this should be kept, it should be moved to Gebrauche-Musik (band) and that the instant page should become a disambiguation. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Hmm, I like Kraftwerk, Depeche Mode and Tangerine Dream, although I guess that's irrelevant here. This band claims to have released four albums. If at least two of these have been released on a notable label, the band passes WP:MUSIC.-h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 00:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - allmusic says their record label is "Disband at Dawn Media", a term that gets 154 Google hits, which is non-notable even as an indie label.-h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 00:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Per Copy-Vio The words may have been edited (slightly), but it is clearly taken from this online magazine. (Which might have given it credence if it wasn't a copy vio.)Balloonman 03:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as plagiarism per copyvio, as per Balloonman. Ten Pound Hammer • 03:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was speedily deleted as A7. Non-admin close. --Seed 2.0 14:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Travis Mosler

This is nn bio. The band named does not have a WP page and would not meet WP criteria. delete. —Gaff 08:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. NN. Only ghits are this article and the group's MySpace page. BTLizard 08:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - being in a band != assertion of notability. Note the nonsense at the end. MER-C 09:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was no consensus to delete. Merging could still be considered, but some arguments against it were made that should be considered. W.marsh 13:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Legal terrorism

This term is nto in widespread use, and much of that use is actually not as discussed. The reference link does not support the content. A few reliabel sources discuss it, but usually in editorials as informal usage, not in main content. I don't see a proper scholarly discussion of the term. Main use seems to be bloggers-after-truth, trying to get one over on The Man and failing, representing the results as legal terrorism. It is, needless to say, a grossly POV term. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete This is entirely POV. Nick mallory 11:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep based on the terms reference in legal case. Article definitely needs more backing Guycalledryan 11:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect or merge to Vexatious litigation. It seems to describe the same phenomonon. Chunky Rice 18:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge Include the information in Vexatious litigation as suggested by Chunky Rice and leave as a redirect. --Nehrams2020 04:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge per Nehrams2020. It has been used in official legal sources, and does seem to be another name for the same concept, so should probably be mentioned on that page. JulesH 17:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge per above. Also, the term legal terrorism may be a more popular and informal than Vexatious litigation. Explain (and avoid) jargon per WP:JARGON. User:Krator (t c) 18:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly less formal, but I don't see any indication that it's more popular.Chunky Rice 18:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Slight merge per above, but redirect to State terrorism, which I assumed at first this was about. Sandstein 22:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
keep - I'm sorry, but in reading this article, I think it is on a topic specific to India, using language specific to India, and therefore should not be merged into Vexatious litigation - or into SLAPP or Chilling effect, as a box in the article itself suggests. Merging into one of these will separate it from other articles about Indian law - such as 498a, which it references; and will bury it within articles centred around other nations' legal systems, where any refernce to the phenomenon in India will be lost. However, it's still a very stublike article and should be marked as a stub for further improvement. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

note: I deleted the box for mergeto:Chilling effect, as whatever outcome from this AfD should change that. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Even so, there's no reason not to merge, really. The legal concept is the same. Take a look at Murder. We don't need separate articles on how each country deals with the concept and what they call it. We have one article that discusses the concept and how it is applied in different countries.Chunky Rice 22:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sr 13 18:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Taryn Position

Does not appear to satisfy WP:V. Not a widely-known figure skating position (no relevant GHits), named for an amateur figure skater who herself has only 20 unique GHits. ~Matticus _C 09:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete non-notable position. Also, it appears to be self-promotion. If/When someone does it as part of a competitive program, then I'd suggest sticking it into spiral (figure skating) or figure skating spins as a variation, but, for now, just delete. Kolindigo 21:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Looks like well-written self promotion <3 Clamster 00:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not for things made up in school one day -- or at the skating rink, either. Unless/until this skating trick becomes notable enough to be described in multiple external sources, this falls into the category of a vanity page. If I'd spotted it before it was AfD'ed, in fact, I would have just marked it for speedy deletion instead. Dr.frog 11:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Kolindigo. Caroline Zhang is more noted for this spiral position, which as far as I know is unnamed. --Lmblackjack21 10:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
'Keep' * To Whom It May Concern--The Taryn Position has been done in both qualifying and nonqualifying competitions beginning at the Los Angeles Open in July of 2006. The position was created in early spring by Taryn Horacek during a lesson with her coach Mary Becktell. Caroline and Taryn are friends having both trained with Becktell. Taryn can be seen doing the position at El Segundo during elite freestyles on Monday and Friday of each week.

Recently, the Glacier Falls Figure Skating club president, Don Rabbit took the move to the Governing Council and was told to call it the Taryn Position and attribute it to Taryn in all discussions and when teaching the move. There is no other way to name a move, but it is correct to assume that the first to create it and present it should receive credit.

I find it amusing that the move is notable and amazing on Caroline Zhang’s page, but not so for Taryn Horacek.Sk8rmom2all 14:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've gone through all the stuff from the GC that I can find on the USFSA site and I can't find anything about this position. Do you have documentation of this? Kolindigo 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've removed the text from the Caroline Zhang entry that claims that she both invented this move and is the only person to have performed it, since there are no sources given for that information, either. Again, regardless of who invented it, why is this spiral position notable enough to deserve its own Misplaced Pages entry? We don't have a separate entry for the far-more-ubiquitious change-of-edge spiral or dog-peeing-on-hydrant spiral positions, after all, and I believe those are at least specifically recognized in the ISU regulations. And this particular spiral variation is so obscure that there are not even any reliable sources describing it by the name given here! No reliable sources == not suitable for Misplaced Pages. And, the fact that you claim this skater has been seen at such-and-such rink doing this move is original research, not a reliable source, and again not suitable as the basis of a Misplaced Pages article. Dr.frog 19:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was Keep. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Discoveries

The article cites no sources, and is simply a list of episodes in a series, providing no additional information Monkeymox 09:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ Expand - just a list. More needed and soureces. Think outside the box 09:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The article asserts notability - "critically acclaimed" - although it doesn't as yet cite sources. Inasmuch as it's only been up since yesterday, perhaps the contributor might be allowed a little while to flesh it out? BTLizard 09:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Needs expanding. This is an actual show on the History Channel. More encyclopedic than all the Dances With the Stars type crap we have to put up with...—Gaff 09:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Landon P. Jones

nn vanity created by user of same name as page. Listed for speedy, but user contested. —Gaff 09:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity, vanity, all is vanity.BTLizard 09:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as A7. I'm afraid there are a couple of things wrong here. First of all, the tag shouldn't have been removed by the editor who created the article (that's what hangon is for -- the db tag should have stayed in place though). Second of all, there's an excellent chance that the editor just didn't know that, which would also explain the lack of an explanation on the article's talk page. Since I believe the article to be speediable, I went ahead and re-tagged it as A7 for procedural reasons and notified the article's creator and only editor that it's up for AfD and CSD (in order to explain what's going on and to avoid being a biter. -- Seed 2.0 12:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per A7. No assertion of notability. Hosting a radio show on a campus station is not a claim. DarkAudit 14:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete The JPS 10:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Heathy D

Bogus article. —Gaff 09:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Looks like a hoax-in-progress. BTLizard 09:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. For the record, Stephen Hibbert played The Gimp. Your choice of G10-in-progress or A1/A3/A7 now. Serpent's Choice 10:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a legitimate work. Heathy D is an aspiring actor and if you think his "failures" are not work writing about that's not really the issue.

The result was speedy delete - no assertion of notability at all. Kafziel 12:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirots

Generic band vanity. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Contested prod. MER-C 09:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Full of quite trivial information, with no indication of success. The JPS 10:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was speedily deleted as A7. --Seed 2.0 15:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Joe le Taxi

Non-notable band with an unsourced article. No real claim to notability. I appreciate the standard for music are lower than for any other subject but this is not an article about the notable Vanessa Paradis song. MLA 09:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete No assertion of notability. The JPS 10:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment Added tag —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Corpx (talk • contribs) 12:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Delete article and then redirect page to Vanessa Paradis A Welsh zydeco band? Whatever next? Seriously, however, I agree that is absolutely zip in the way of verifiable notability for them. A1octopus 14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was Delete. Consensus and some holes in the keep arguments, eg the board is a lobby group with no article not a govt department, and the multiple sources may not actually be non-trivial, since some of them seem to be a directory. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert Arbuthnot of Haddo

Another of the numerous non-notable Arbuthnots. At first reading this person seems notable, but when one analyses the text he is not. The positions he held are not notable. Such phrases as: "He was instrumental in obtaining the chair of Moral Philosophy for his intimate friend, Dr James Beattie" beg the question - so what?. The references are a family history by a member of that family., and two peerages which will list him because he was the father of a baronet. I shall also be nominating his son the equally un-notable George Arbuthnot, 1st of Elderslie. Giano 10:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep Perhaps I'm wrong, but his place on that board sounds impressive enough, if it's an official government-related board. If it's what today we'd call a special-interest group, that's different. Nyttend 15:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Does not satisfy WP:BIO. Edison 20:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete being the secretary of the non-notable Board of Trustees for the Encouragement of the Manufactures and Fisheries of Scotland or even the organization Encouragement of the Manufactures and Fisheries of Scotland apparently is also unworthy of note does not satisfy WP:BIO; would the secretary of the Board of Trustees of Harvard University or the secretary of the Board of Directors of IBM be notable? Probably not; why should the secretary (is this they person who is an officer or just a go-fer?) of this obscure organization be notable? Presumably Mr. Arbuthnot has predecessors and successors to his illustrious secretaryship, and they'd all be notable no doubt? Carlossuarez46 21:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete wikipedia is not a genealogical site —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pete.Hurd (talk • contribs) 21:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Delete per nom. Needs more sourcing if we are to consider him notable. The info here is hardly anything more than genealogical. The board of which he was a trustee does not have its own article. EdJohnston 22:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Clearly fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:MUSIC and WP:N/HWY, and appears never to have played football in a fully professional league. However, the Oxford DNB includes a paragraph on Robert Arbuthnot of Haddo in its article on the Select Society, "an Edinburgh debating club for gifted and socially prominent members of the city's intellectual élite". That should be an inviting red link for anyone interested in Scottish intellectual history. Pharamond 22:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your wish is our command. We already have an article, The Select Society, though it has no mention of any Arbuthnots. EdJohnston 00:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Not much of an article... It seems the poster had little info to start with, but there are plenty of sources listed in the DNB article. Anyway, I made the redirect from the name without the article. The content of this article could be merged there, once somebody gets around to expand it (now it would just look ridiculous) or to the Arbuthnot family article, if that is kept. It is funny that the author of the Robert Arbuthnot of Haddo article completely missed the one thing that made the DNB include him somewhere. Pharamond 06:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless it can be shown he was a prominent member of the Select Society.Hornplease 06:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Reality appears to be more nuanced than that. Robert Arbuthnot of Haddo has not been deemed important enough by the DNB to be given his own article (the society also included people like Adam Smith), but he is one of the only four members (out of at least 133) to be mentioned in boldface and with a significant amount of biographical detail in the Select Society article in the DNB. So is he notable enough to be given his own article here? Is he perhaps just notable enough to be merged somewhere? Or is he so disastrously non-notable that he needs to be purged to avoid making Misplaced Pages the laughingstock of the world? Pharamond 07:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete: To Pharamond's questions, let's suppose that the most startling claim in the present article is true -- that he was the "intimate friend" of James Beattie and was the reason for Beattie's appointment. Fine. That, combined with the Select Society, would indicate either great brains or great money and some brains. Well, we have diddly in this article to explain, to justify, or to trace this figure's life as an intellectual. What we have here is more pedigree, more money as qualifications. Therefore, anyone with an encyclopedic desire and knowledge would not be aided by what exists there now. In other words, I do not see anything here to be saved in order to make a future article that fills the gaps between the mystery of the DNB 's (the 1898 one?) mention and actual encyclopedic standards. Geogre 12:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep--From the DNB article: "the society was clearly a desirable club to enter, one which had no trouble rejecting peers and gentry in favour of men of talent." The UK DNB does not set the limits of our coverage, just as the Brittanica doesn't set the limits, and I would expect we'd have many more entries than they. I'd agree with George that anyone mentioned in either a full article or in bold as a paragraph is unquestionably notable. For one thing, they're a RS, and they always give references, so all of them will have two--and usually considerably more-- non-trivial references from RSs, which is the general standard. It's unfortunate that Kitty didn't think to use information from there, preferring his family genealogies as sources. Another example why paying attention to COI is important--not only will COI lead to insertion of dubious material, it can lead to ignoring good ones if one trusts one's private knowledge. DGG 02:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone with a subscription to the DNB tell us what the sources were for Robert Arbuthnot of Haddo? Until we know what the sources say, the long-term fate of this article can't be determined. EdJohnston 04:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know where people were finding the article, for my part. I jog down to consult the 2004 DNB fairly regularly, and I hadn't seen in it any of the prestigious societies getting articles, although that had been the sporadic case in the first edition. The fact that such an article wasn't picked up for 2004 doesn't mean that it's not worth knowing, or that it's dubious, but it does mean that I, at least, can't go check. Geogre 02:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per nom, and particularly as per Geogre. Nothing of value here. DES 16:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep multiple non-trivial reliable sources, listed in the article. No question that this article meets WP:N. JulesH 17:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Yet more ArbuthNotNotable spam. You would not want me to start listing all the Morgans! Or, say, the Smiths! DewiMorgan 20:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Three sources: one (Memories of the Arbuthnots) is not independent, and the other two are from directory listings. The posts listed do not meet WP:BIO, and the subject's main claim to notability is his position as Secretary of the Board of Trustees for the Encouragement of the Manufactures and Fisheries of Scotland. That may have been quite a significant position, but we don't know, because we have neither an article on the Board of Trustees for the Encouragement of the Manufactures and Fisheries of Scotland nor any references in this article to confirm its importance. If someone writes an article with proper sources to establish notability, that would be great, but right now all we have is an inadequately-sourced stub on a person of questionable significance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge If he is in fact in DNB for his involvement in The Select Society, his information could be put in there. Probably there are other less notable members that could be included to flesh out that page as well. I keep hearing the assertion that Memories of the Arbuthnots isn't independent, but it's never backed up by any evidence. As for DewiMorgan's insistence on delete votes based on the Morgan and Smith families; I say write them up if they've done anything or include them in articles pertaining to institutions they held a prominent role in. As a final note I'll say that Pharamond's statement "and appears never to have played football in a fully professional league" will keep me laughing for a while. Aspenocean 03:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Memories of the Arbuthnots was published by a well-known, mainstream publisher. I find it hard to believe they published a book purely because of its author's vanity. JulesH 20:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was tragedy, delete! - Mailer Diablo 05:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Tragedy!

(Contested speedy.) This is an article about a Fringe play -- unnotable in itself (Fringe festivals have dozens, if not hundreds, of these shows). It has only yet been produced at the author's college, and offers to independent reviews. I wish these guys luck, but a future performance at a Fringe festival does not notability make. The JPS 10:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Until such a time when and if this production satisfies notability requirements. You never know, it could end up being a big one!--Xnuala (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable play Corpx 12:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Well, it can't really be sourced if it's a fringe play. -- Chris is me _{(user/review/talk)} 17:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

George Arbuthnot, 1st of Elderslie

No notability whatsoever. This belongs like so many of the other Category:Arbuthnot family on a family history site not on Misplaced Pages. Please note he is not the 1st anything of Elderslie Giano 10:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete wikipedia is not a genealogical site Hut 8.5 15:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete wikipedia is not a genealogical site Pete.Hurd 16:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Civil servant lacks sources to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison 20:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless clarified If he was deputy governor of Ceylon, I think that would be sufficiently note-worthy; I think that WP precedent supports Vice Presidents, Lieutenant Governors General, Lieutenant Governors of US States meet WP:N. But it's hard to tell if that's the case as he's termed the deputy governor of the governor; I don't know what that means in the government of Ceylon at the time, if anything, but seems merely a go-fer job unless it's "of Ceylon". Carlossuarez46 21:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Ada Jane Arbuthnot's "Memories" has a huge entry for him; she devotes thirty pages of her book to quotations from his letters and diaries. He seems to have been content to be a reasonably prosperous guy and raise ten children. He turned down a chance to run for Parliament. He writes reasonably entertaining letters; that's the most that can be said. EdJohnston 23:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep, the number two administrator of an important province of British India. Seriously, people, I've said this before: shut down kittybrewster's project, sure, but some of these people are notable. Indian colonial civil servants are almost always notable; they had an extraordinary amount of power. Hornplease 06:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Are we sure that's what he was? I would keep if he was really the 2nd in command of Ceylon, but the deputy governor to the governor may have a meaning no different that a deputy to a sherrif has in the US (e.g., lots of deputies for each sherrif, not the #2 but one of a multitude). Unless some RS can be found to support the construct you assume, I'm still unconvinced. Carlossuarez46 19:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  - That isn't the case in Commonwealth countries. I can't get you a reference at the moment, but if you look at the page on, say, the Deputy Governor-General of Canada, as well as the discussion on the Governor-General page, you'll see that it isn't usual.Hornplease 01:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete or merge. there is nothing notable mentioned in this article to justify its retention in WP, maybe it could be merged into a general article on the Arbuthnot family, could anyone explain what the title '1st of Elderslie' refers to as there is no mention in the article of how it come about or what its standing has.--padraig3uk 08:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The phrase '1st of Elderslie' is part of the system used in Ada Jane Arbuthnot's genealogy book to identify members of the family. Since the same first names occur repeatedly, she needs 'epithets' to distinguish similarly-named people. '1st of Elderslie' was the guy who originally purchased the Elderslie house (see p.359), and later generations also lived there. (There was also a George, '2nd of Elderslie'). Her book can be downloaded as a 99 meg PDF file from kittybrewster.com. EdJohnston 13:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete: The man made it to deputy governor to a red link. Blue that link, and then mention all the deputies that person had in that article, or, better yet, establish an article on Governor General of Ceylon and list the names of those who served, but I can't see justifying more breeding stock memorials because of civil service positions they filled. This is made more the point because he appears to have gone off to the Raj and served fairly briefly, and there is no indication that he did something in that position that caused an historical ripple. I just can't see the balance working out. Geogre 12:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Frankly, I don't know what to say in reply. We haven't a clue whether he caused a ripple or not, but these were extraordinarily powerful men. I don't think we can support deletion just because the governors of Ceylon aren't yet listed. Really! WP's still growing, especially third-world-related material. See WP:BIAS. Hornplease 01:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Careful with the "bias" allegation, there. I should be delighted if we had the information on what was done by the various members of the Raj who made a difference, but, barring that, we cannot honor the titles of that regime by saying that such an appointment indicates merit. I would be stunned to see anyone genuinely concerned with, or aware of, post-colonial theory wanting to say, "Gosh, deputy governor of Ceylon? Must be important." I rather thought that we did not regard the protectors of the people with such credulity anymore. Geogre 01:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - did he actually do anything of note? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per Geogre but without prejudice if a well-sourced article indicatign that the man had significant impact or other notability is created in future. DES 16:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Week keep One non-trivial reliable source listed in the article. Could do with more sources, but I dare say they exist somewhere. JulesH 17:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete--if he were Governor (or Governor-General) of Ceylon then he would have an article as for any other head of state or head of government. I'd as soon merge the PMs into one article as the GGs of Ceylon. But our guy here was deputy to the Governor--and its not specific about whether he was perhaps actually Deputy Governor if there was such a position, or whether it was some lesser rank on his staff. If it turns out he did anything notable in Ceylon, that would justify an article. DGG 02:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge (And of course redirect his name) into Arbuthnot & Co. This bank formed from Latour & Co later became Arbuthnot De Monte & Co which was one of at least 3 large banks to collapse in 1906. His work also led to numerous offshoots of Arbuthnot & Co: Gillanders, Arbuthnot & Co., of Calcutta; Ewart, Latham & Co., of Bombay; Arbuthnot, Latham & Co., of London; Ogilvy, Gillanders & Co., and Arbuthnot, Ewart & Co., of Liverpool; and Gladstone, Latham & Co., of Manchester. John Alves Arbuthnot worked for his uncle George in Arbuthnot & Co. before forming Arbuthnot Latham & Co with Alfred Latham (a governor of the Bank of England)in London. This family's business practices and societal connections could be compared favorably to the Rothchilds. If there were less blind deletions and more merges on the subject of Arbuthnot's, one would see the significant connections, particularly in the field of Merchant Banking. I'll grant that expansions need to be made, but deletion does not reasonably lead to expansion or the inclusion of multiple editors in contributing. Aspenocean 17:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I note that your vote is 'Merge'. You seem to have a lot of specific information, but it is not yet reflected in the Arbuthnot & Co article. Are you willing to add your data there? EdJohnston 19:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Yet more ArbuthNotNotable genealogy spam. You would not want me to start listing all the Morgans! Or, say, the Smiths! DewiMorgan 20:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena

Existence of this article constitutes undue weight. It also seems like an end-run around NPOV, avoiding the necessary inclusion of the sceptical perspective at electronic voice phenomenon. Only one formally independent source, which does not give it much attention. Google and Factiva do not turn up anything reliable, all mentions appear to be in the blogs and websites of proponents of EVP, a large proportion of whom appear from their sites to be cranks. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete The criticism section has been improved which means that the article is not completely one-sided. However, I was unable to find any reliable sources that dealt with the AA-EVP. Due to a lack of sources, notability is really not asserted in the article. --Cyrus Andiron 12:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless independent, reliable sources can be found. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Edison 20:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Reluctant Keep - The involvement of the two directors of the AA-EVP in the promotion of the film "White Noise" (2005) earned it many references by mainstream sources . Since one of the org's principals has been active in POV pushing on WP, recommend the article be carefully monitored for neutrality. - LuckyLouie 00:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete As far as i can tell, the person is merely being identified as a member of the association, the links are not talking about the association. This therefore does not count as non-trivial mentions. The association has an external link on the Evp page, which is as it should be. DGG 02:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete It's not notable because it lacks sources, re everyone's arguments above. Nick mallory 14:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails stated criteria at WP:N, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and each other." Some of the material could be folded into the EVP article. Raymond Arritt 00:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Home row. W.marsh 16:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Asdf

These four letters on the keyboard are not very notable... the article itself is just a list of isolated and speculative trivia about the letters with no cohesion between them. Remy B 12:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Useless, non-encyclopedia trivia verging on nonsense. andy 17:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. ~Spe bi 05:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep This has become a notable part of computing culture. -- BlastOButter42 Hear _Speak 07:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no assertion of notability in the article (hard to see how there could be). No references. andy 09:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Is there a related article that any sourced notable characteristics of "asdf" can be merged in to, such as Computer Passwords?--Xnuala (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Password strength#Weak passwords already mentions this term, and says more or less everything that may be of some interest about it. Tizio 10:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Article just states the obvious. Corpx 12:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment as long as ASDF continues to note that these are the first four letters of the middle row of a standard computer keyboard, sometimes used when someone types in gibberish, then I think it'd be fine to redirect this to ASDF. The sequence asdf shows up enough that a one sentence explanation at ASDF is worthwhile. --JayHenry 17:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete unlike qwerty, nonnotable `'mikka 17:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete zxcvbnm doesn't get an article :) --ROASTYTOAST 21:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Nonnotable. Useight 23:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Home row; j, k, l, and ; deserve their screentime too. Phony Saint 00:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect as above. There are lots of links to this article (albeit most from talk pages). -- MightyWarrior 11:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to and merge good content with Home row per Phony Saint. --User:Krator (t c) 18:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect not notable for an entire article, is notable as a sub section of home row Urdna 00:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per Phony Saint. —David Eppstein 01:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge per Krator DewiMorgan 21:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Cathol

Neither notable nor verifiable; I can't seem to find any applicable google hits related to "cathol" "brandon wright". Bkkbrad 01:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Not notable Corpx 12:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BIO. No sources. No claims of having his work published. Only claim of notability at all is at a very local level. DarkAudit 14:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable, no sources cited. Having a "cult following" (which could mean 2-3 people) at one university does not make something notable. Hut 8.5 14:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Jason and Elizabeth

prod'd, prod removed and put back. Therefore, I removed the prod as per rules and took it here Postcard Cathy 17:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The article has no references, and only duplicates information that is already in the articles on Jason Morgan and Elizabeth Webber. Discussion is ongoing at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Soap Operas as to how to best define the term supercouple for Misplaced Pages standards, but this article definitely isn't it. --El on ka 19:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete We cant have articles for every couple in a soap Corpx 12:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per CorpX. Misplaced Pages is not the Soap Opera guide. DarkAudit 14:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete nope, this should be covered in the character articles Hut 8.5 14:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was listed in the wrong place. J Milburn 11:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Jewatch

This redirect was created by 66.32.71.1, the author of the website that is the subject of the Jew Watch article. He's also the original author of its article, which he created with the intention of gaining notability for his website. Unfortunately, AFDing that article may be premature, but deleting this redirect is a step in the right direction. -Etafly 22:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This is not the place to deal with redirects for deletion, that is what WP:RFD is for. Also, deleting a valid redirect to a possibly non-valid article is ridiculous. Nominate the article for deletion if you think it should be deleted, but this is not the correct place to delete a redirect. J Milburn 11:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was keep. --Selket 13:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

OQO Model 2

Article is not very significant other than being an example of the many small pcs in the world, and it is not the worlds smallest pc, the previous model was. In fact, the website states that the previous model was recognized by the Guinness Book of World Records as officially the worlds smallest fully functional pc and it also says on the main page that this model is the "World smallest Windows Vista PC",because it is a bit bigger, but improved enough specs to run windows vista,which is less significant .Rodrigue 16:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It's gained some notoriety in the review world. fethers 11:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I realize that it is a pretty well known example of a UMPC and there is alot about it on the web, but since the previous model is still technically the worlds smallest PC, shouldn't that be an article, regardless of wether or not this is? Rodrigue 15:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. "Bill Gates demonstrated a pre-production OQO 02 Model 02 in his keynote address at CES 2007" I think that's sufficient assertion of notability, and it's gotten some press coverage. Someguy1221 22:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep and expand the article's content. --Madchester 22:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment There seems to be a strong idea to keep it.But does anyone think that since the previous model technically is still the world smallest PC, that it shoudn't be an article as well?.Rodrigue 19:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Also the proper tittle of this article is Model 02, not 2, as its the term used by the company.And this model did not appear in mission impossible 3, it was the previous model, but that should have been obvious since mission impossible 3 came out last may, and this PC was released this January!.

And why has no one uploaded an image yet, even though there are plenty of them on the website.Instead someone on the talk page suggests adding an image even though they can do it themselves.

All that just shows how much people really care about this article.Rodrigue 21:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge and Delete Why not merge with OQO? It's already mentioned in that article and referenced from it. I say merge it and delete it.

Comment Well perhaps this article should be merged, but the other version is a world record holder so it is notable enough. Rodrigue 22:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge as per previous poster. Neither artcle is particularly long, merger would create a better article. vLaDsINgEr 21:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Or else merge AND redirect. Qaka 20:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge and redirect... to the section about this pc on the OQO page. This PC is quite notorious, but like the others in the line, does not deserve it's own page. --711groove 18:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

keep - I came here looking for this particular article. Not much there right now, but if you give it some time it will definitely be added to. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

comment - and by the way, the nominator hasn't even given an argument as to why the article should be deleted. If I was an admin I'd close this. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep or Merge - definitely notable, expansion could be helpful, or merge it into the main OQO article. --Bhtooefr 22:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

SIP Express Media Server (SEMS)

This organization or product lacks notability per WP standards Calltech 14:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep Based on the google hits Corpx 12:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete None of those ghits seem to be reliable sources. JulesH 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I went through several pages of google hits and found nothing to support notability - no coverage in reliable sources, awards, peer recognition etc. So, delete unless some evidence of notability appears.--Kubigula (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 13:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ana Rocha

Prod contested by an editor who should realise that wrestling fan sites are not reliable sources. Non notable minor league wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources. There's this article but it's impossible for an encyclopedic article to be created from that. Fails WP:BIO, and WP:V due to the lack of reliable sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Undecided She has not been limited to just one wresting promotion, and has wrestled throughout the South and Eastern US, so she isn't just a "one promotion wrestler." Another thing is she has wrestled in the #3 promotion in the US, but it doesn't seem to have been more than a couple matches, so her notability there is questionable. I'd say that the links and suggested reading would more than substantiate the content of the article, so I would disagree that it fails WP:V, but I'm undecided on WP:BIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theophilus75 (talk • contribs)
Keep. Ana Rocha has been the subject of at least two news articles, one for the Boston Globe and another for South Coast Today, I believe this establishes her notability as per WP:BIO. Besides making significant appearances in IWA Mid-South, Ring of Honor and the National Wrestling Alliance as well as her feuds with several notable female wrestlers such as Mercedes Martinez, April Hunter and Riptide, hardly classify her as a "minor league wrestler". I should also note the interview was added as an "external link" along with other wrestling websites as opposed to a cited reference. MadMax 22:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment The Boston Globe article is trivial coverage, and therefore insufficient to establish notability, as would be clear to everyone else if you had the decency to link to it. The rest of your argument is typical wrestlecruft, yet again notability guidelines are at WP:BIO. The promotions you have listed above are minor league, the average IWA-MS shows are attended by less than 100 people. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment. First the Boston Globe article supports the claim that Ana Rocha is a leading female wrestler among others wrestling in the United States (please note the headline "Glam Slam: Taking Their Place In The Ring, These Women Are Winning Devoted Wrestling Fans", Rocha is one of those female wrestlers the article is in reference to). Second, as I found the article though a subscription service, I did not cite the article as a reference but added it under "further reading". If you'll check the history, the article was under "further reading" at the time of its nomination. Could you please provide a source supporting your claims that IWA Mid-South's wrestling events are in fact regularly attended by less than 100 people and that Rocha has performed at these specific events ? And if so, while you may bring us such points in nominating IWA Mid-South, I'm not sure how this effects Rocha's individual notability as she's wrestled for several other notable promotions besides IWA Mid-South. MadMax 19:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I fail to see how the headline supports your claim that she is a leading female wrestler, and if she was surely you'd be capable of providing multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources? I checked the history, you're the person claiming that the article means she passes WP:BIO, when it isn't a non-trivial source. If you choose not to provide direct links to sources that are available, I will be happy to do so to prove the sources are not as claimed and are being used in a dishonest manner. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Week keep based on cited newspaper articles, but clean up regarding in-universe issues per WP:WAF. JulesH 17:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete for defeating the love of my life, Mercedes Martinez (don't tell the girlfriend I said that) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 19:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete for not passing WP:BIO; Boston Globe article mentioned above is trivial at best, while the article from South Coast Today doesn't really prove any notability, only trivial facts, and nothing to prove her notable enough to pass WP:BIO. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 02:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep The newspaper articles assert notability, but article is in dire nede of a cleanupxC | ☎ 19:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep For the newspaper articles and extensive coverage of indy work. I'll draw a parallel with the article on Vanessa Kraven, as they have similar number of links. Maybe a cleanup of the red links in Ana Rocha. Genericchimera 06:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Scott Craze

No evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC. Prod removed by creator without comment. FisherQueen (Talk) 11:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete No sources, no proof, and virtually no content. DarkAudit 14:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per DarkAudit. Nyttend 15:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete non notable --ROASTYTOAST 21:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Non notable. Search shows 84 ghits for the name, not all for this subject, and mostly related to collegiate sports. Although article claims fame for collaboration with a Charlie Kemp, Google reveals no combined match. MDonfield 12:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Cobas tree

misinformation JMK 11:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC) From the first entry this article gave completely incorrect information. Anyone can check that the Cobas (not Cobas tree) is not a Pachypodium but in the Vitaceae, genus Cyphostemma.

The article seems to mix up three species, Cyphostemma currorii, which is the Cobas of Namibia-Angola, Pachypodium namaquanum, the Halfmens of RSA-Namibia, and Pachypodium lealii, which is reported to be used for arrow poison, and then not by Van Wyk as far as I can see. Recommend: Delete and start over with correct name. JMK 11:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom --ROASTYTOAST 21:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Pachypodium namaquanum' should be the article title as per plant MOS. If all the info is infact wrong, apart from the name, then I agree Delete, otherwise move to correct name. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 22:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was speedily deleted as unremarkable web content. --Seed 2.0 15:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

FFC, FlashFlashComics

NN comic website Gareth E Kegg 11:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not notable and looks like advertisement to me. Corpx 12:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - vanispamcruftisement that doesn't assert notability. MER-C 13:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The Residence Hall Association at Florida Institute of Technology

one chapter of a national organization; no assertion of notability delete Cornell Rockey 12:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - This exists at every university campus and is not notable Corpx 12:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Banal. Be aware that the author has threatened to move the material into the main body of Florida Institute of Technology which jeopardizes the whole idea of deletion.Student7 13:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non Notable residence hall association. I don't see a problem with merging some of this information into the main Florida Institute of Technology article. --Cyrus Andiron 15:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:ORG. No WP:RS indicating otherwise. --Kinu /_c 21:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable organization, and would hate to see similar pages arise for the other colleges/universities out there. Harvest any relevant information into the main article for the Florida Institute of Technology and delete. --Nehrams2020 04:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete and don't merge While it's not true that this exists at every college, it's sufficiently common for an individual RHA to be nonnotable. Yet another case of overexuberant campus groups abusing the internet to flaunt themselves before the world. (Hey look at us, we hold programs!) I'm glad my RHA for one wasn't that presumptuous. No merge, either. The existence of an RHA at a college deserves at most two sentences in a college's article. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
KEEP or merge RHA in Florida Tech is one of the largest organizations on campus (it's even larger than our student and class governments combined. As the author and a current student, it is discriminative to assume it "deserves two sentences". RHA was in Florida Tech's article, but I believed that it did not serve the purpose of explaining the college, hence the creation of this article in the first place. And I cannot believe that Student7 is once again trying to remove residence hall-related information off of the university's content. It's not the first time, and it surely will not be the last. Just know this: I could care less what you do with the article and what you think of it since I'm no longer the vice president and I myself have left RHA because I was recently elected into student gov, but consider this, our organization is probably one of the most important student organizations on campus that is state/nationally affiliated (we're not trying to flaunt ourselves... we have our own .edu website for those purposes) Jameson L. Tai 15:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge the relevant two sentences back in, and link to their "own .edu website" that has the rest of the info on. DewiMorgan 21:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The shows of yesSTARS

Non-worthwhile list of programmes shown on an Israeli satellite channel, none of which are produced by the channel itself. Other than advertising the channel's content, I can't see the point of it. Number 5 7 12:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Misplaced Pages is not TV Guide. Nearly every one of these shows and networks have their own article. DarkAudit 14:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete this has no purpose other than advertising Hut 8.5 16:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete (was already deleted with proper capitalisation earlier) Orderinchaos 11:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yasmine lewis

The text provides no evidence of notability, and a google search of "Yasmine Lewis + Chess" reveals no reliable sources that would confirm notability FisherQueen (Talk) 12:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Well, it's all the work - and sole contribution - of one Yas12. I'm assuming this is a bit of naive autobiography rather than a cunning attack page but either way... BTLizard
Speedy Delete under CSD A7. This is a non notable bio about a middle school kid. Unless she's a grandmaster, she's not notable. --Cyrus Andiron 13:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Geogre's Law and notability not being established. AniMate 13:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete this myspacian vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 13:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as not notable per WP:BIO. These awards are not of substantial merit, and it is not clear who awarded them. For all we know, they could have been given by her friend next door. DarkAudit 14:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable. No sources provided that support the claims of this article. Hut 8.5 14:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete, violates WP:V (*cough*), no WP:RS (the references have nothing to do with the topic of the article). Clearly a WP:COI grandiose autobiography by a bored kid. WP:SNOW applies. --Kinu /_c 21:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Maybe it's just me, but the article seems slightly pov. Yay for Misplaced Pages, it's the new MySpace. --Bongwarrior 07:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. Possibly speedy. JFW | T@lk 10:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ 22:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete Per Cyrus Andiron and MER-C, it's a CSD A7 candidate clear cut and dry. And this is even before going into Coflict of Interest issues. Thewinchester 22:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy already!. John Vandenberg 02:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, I like the gratuitous Harry Potter book cover but that's the most notable thing about this page. Euryalus 10:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was no consensus to delete, but article needs improvement. W.marsh 13:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Interdictor (Blogger)

Vanity page about a non-notable blogger; neither his Blogger name (Interdictor) nor his real name pass the Google test. LoomisSimmons 12:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep It is not a vanity page, I (not the subject of the article) created the page during Hurricane Katrina because I saw the blog become mentioned throughout the media as a source of information. The subject of the article has edited the page, but his edits have not been self-promoting. "interdictor" is a term used not just by the subject (and speaking of Google test, it is the #1 Google result for the word), but a Google test of "interdictor" plus "katrina" or "hurricane" (disambiguating "interdictor" from) turns up a lot of mentions of this blog as being involved with the coverage of Hurricane Katrina. It clearly passes Google test. --Wingsandsword 13:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not too sure if the definition of a vanity page means that the subject personally has to be the one to make it; after all, I could easily have a friend make a page about me. Be that as it may, it still reads like a vanity page, has no citations and seems to just be a reason to plug some guy's LiveJournal and shout out his girlfriend. LoomisSimmons 15:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. So far as I can see no ghits except this article and his blog. No sources cited. BTLizard 13:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. A search for: +interdictor +"hurricane katrina" returns over 12,000 hits and a search for: "michael barnett" +"hurricane katrina" returns over 1700 hits; the blog only hit number 7 on "Best of the Web" for 2005 (http://www.downloadsquad.com/2005/12/31/top-10-web-moments-of-2005/) and appeared in 2 issues of Wired Magazine (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.11/posts.html?pg=2). It was a very popular 15 minutes of fame, reaching top 5000 or so websites for about 15 days (http://alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=mgno.com/&url=mgno.com/). Ikilled007 14:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per BTLizard ROASTYTOAST 21:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, one little spike of interest isn't notability. --Dhartung | Talk 10:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Wired article linked above suggests notability to me, and CNN quoting from the site also suggests notability. Needs references and copy-editing, but otherwise fine. JulesH 17:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Do not use the word "vanity" in this context. From WP:VFD, "The accusation "VANITY" should be avoided , and is not in itself a reason for deletion.". WP has got into trouble about this in the past: look after WP and avoid using that word. DewiMorgan

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

IPlay TV

nominated by dannybriggs93 but no discussion page created Hotmann 10:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete then redirect to The Great Big British Quiz. Whilst I am convinced that this former company is definitely not notbale, I remain to be convinced even that its flagship programme is either now it no longer exists. It may be that we need to create one single article along the lines of United Kingdom Phone In Television Scandal of 2007 (or suchlike) to cover all the programmes and companies involved. A1octopus 12:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - there is already a section on the phone in scandal in the quiz channel article --tgheretford (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete This duplicates page for the great big british quiz a now defunct tv channel.Hotmann 10:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Topography (I/O)

A poor quality article that cannot reasonably by improved.

It was proposed for deletion in Feb 2006 because "it is impossible to tell what the subject of this article is". The edits since then have only added more tags, instead of improving the article.

The title is wrong. It was probably meant to include the word topology, because it discusses things related to network topology.

The content is essentially a duplicate of building automation#Topology. Although that article also has problems, it is being actively edited. JonH 13:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

delete a mess of an article. Pete.Hurd 16:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Misspelled duplicate of Building automation#Topology created back in 2005 that somehow managed to stick around. -SpuriousQ (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Topography is not a computing term. Topology is. -- jsimlo 14:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment See Topology (disambiguation): Topology is often confused with the geographic meaning of topography. -- jsimlo 14:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Electro Mental Ignition

Delete - We really don't need articles on every one-off power that appears in a TV show. There appear to be no independent reliable sources attesting to the existence of this term outside of this single episode, let alone its usage, making this a neologism that should be deleted. Otto4711 13:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete along with any other fictional superpower. At best, this is deserving of a passing mention in the character's article. I'm going to take a wild stab that this term has never been used outside the context of this show. It could be useful when in line at the BMV, but that doesn't make it notable. --Cyrus Andiron 15:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete or merge to Charmed. No sources to show notability outside the show. Edison 20:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't even exist within the show. This is a neologism based on speculation and original research about non-canonical events in the show's history which are not notable. Speedy delete by that rationale as patent nonsense and disruptive material.~Zythe 17:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable and non-notable (or potentially merge to List of superpowers, although if it remains unsourced that shouldn't happen) JulesH 17:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Streetsabre 03:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, is that picture ok to have on Misplaced Pages? Isn't there a copyvio there? Streetsabre 07:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Unschool 03:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was redirect. Editorial decision. W.marsh 00:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sri Sumbhajee

Secondary character in upcoming film Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. Only present as a plot device. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mistress Ching. DarkAudit 13:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete At this point, not enough information/significance to warrant his own article. The information should be merged into the cast section about the character and change this to a redirect. --Nehrams2020 04:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was redirect - Editorial decision, but precedent supports redirecting minor characters, I don't feel relisting is needed to determine this. W.marsh 23:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ammand The Corsair

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 20:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Shenouda & Associates, LLP

I saw this page get created last week and although I suspected vanity (see the creator's username), I decided to hold off and give the author time to expand the article. So far nothing has happened. I don't think they meet WP:CORP as the only google results I can find for them are listings in various directories. There is also nothing encyclopedic on the page - were we to delete all the material which does not live up to wiki-standards, there would be an empty page. Bachrach44 14:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as spam. Article only exists to draw traffic to their own web site. DarkAudit 15:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was redirect. Editorial decision, supported by precedent. W.marsh 23:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Capitaine Chevalle

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yaniv Azran

Non-notable player. He was never international in senior's team. He played in weak teams of semi-professional leagues and he has never won a trophy. user:KRBN 17:09 14 March, 2005

Keep - Played first-team football in Israeli top division and also played for Israeli Under-21s. GiantSnowman 14:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Why always putting professional player to AFD? How semi-professional were the Israeli top division? Matthew_hk t c 16:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep - several years of playing in national top divisions is good enough for me. - fchd 17:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Because he plays in a semi-professional league. Also he never played in any strong team. Also when we discussed about in talk page of WP:BIO, the big majority said that international players are ok to be included but not of playing in U-21. Highest level are the Champions League or World Cup etc. not the israeli league. Also I will remind again,Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Andreas Stylianou, he played in top division of Cyprus, however he was deleted. Why such article must be kept? User:KRBN 17:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Judging from the comments on the AfD page, that article was about a basketball player, not a footballer, so I don't see the relevance of the comparison......? ChrisTheDude 18:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment - I know we should assume good faith, but it seems the nominator's standard of notability is somewhat different than most others (and, I daresay a little political). For instance, he/she has just prodded the article for the Minister of the Interior of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. - fchd 18:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. He is a Israeli top division football club player, so he is obviously notable. --Carioca 19:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep he plays for Ashdod which in turn plays in the UEFA Cup if they qualify. Seems notable to me. --Cyrus Andiron 19:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Andreas Stylianou is a basketball player, but yes it is very relevant of comparison, since both played in top league of their countries. What better does this Azran have? As about the so called minister, he is actually a non-recognized minister, since TRNC is an illegal country, but this is another matter and a very irrelevant comparison. I doubt if Israeli top league is a fully professional league. User:KRBN 10:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- The basketball comparison is not relevant, as there may be vast differences between the top basketball league in a country and the top football league. In England, for example, the top basketball league is very small-time stuff and a million miles away from the football Premiership..... ChrisTheDude 07:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment - However, WP:BIO says for players who have played in a fully professional leagueUser:KRBN 16:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- In one of your comments above you said "I doubt if Israeli top league is a fully professional league", suggesting that you don't actually know whether it is fully professional or not, yet you have nominated this article for deletion based on a definitve statement that the player has only played in semi-professional leagues. Can you prove that the Israeli league is not fully professional? ChrisTheDude 13:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Played in the top flight in Israel, fully notable. And yet again from the same nominator, a nomination that should perhaps not even be considered for deletion. And I must also add that I fully agree with fchds comment. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Since unfortunatelly some of you, insist for doing political comments in such talk page, I have to answer about politics first. WP:BIO says Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures. however there is a note However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless. So it means that it is regardless to include all the ministers. It doesn't mean being a minister, it is automatically notable. Especially for someone who is not legal minister but he is considered minister by only one country (Turkey) and is not recognized as a minister.

The basketball comparison is not relevant, as there may be vast differences between the top basketball league in a country and the top football league. said here someone. However here some claimed that WP:BIO by saying Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports means top league of a country so Yaniv Azran since he played in a top league of a country, must be kept. And I said for the same reason Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Andreas Stylianou should have been kept as well since it satisfies that criteria. The article was deleted since it was accepted that, playing in top league of Cyprus does not mean notability. For what I understand according to ChrisTheDude, he considers him notable because the level of israeli league is notable. However, WP:BIO clearly says Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming and tennis are considered notable. Since Israel is not fully professional it can not be considered as notable. I ask the same question. Can you prove that the Israeli league is fully professional? User:KRBN 11:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Apostolic Pentecostal Bible Colleges

The page is a list of colleges, with the first two items being external links to the colleges' websites. I prodded a couple weeks ago with the reason "Misplaced Pages is not a repository of links, or a directory"; the prod was removed with the comment that the page would be improved, but it hasn't been edited further and still seems intended to be a list of links and nothing more (or forgotten altogether). The article is orphaned. Propaniac 14:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - non-notable, not NPOV, uninformative, etc etc. It's not even a good list - there are only two working links on it. Created by an editor with an excellent track record of creating deletable articles. andy 20:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Clearly a case of linkfarm interruptus, and as such fails WP:NOT. From the people who brought you Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Daniel Briggs, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/University of WCMA, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Mental Health Software Development Companies. Deor 21:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

19th century turnpikes in Massachusetts

Prodded as indiscriminate information; prod removed. This is mostly a long list of redlinks; all the blue links seem to be included in Category:Pre-freeway turnpikes in the United States (they make up most of the 21 articles in that category). This doesn't seem notable or useful to me. The article is orphaned. Propaniac 14:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the article below for deletion; it's another long list of redlinks, with no blue links at all. Propaniac 14:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. You can see in the references that there's a whole book written about these (ISBN 0942147057). The abridged version is 428 pages, so there's clearly enough information to write an article about each. You should also learn what indiscriminate means. Limiting a list from all roads in Massachusetts to turnpikes that were chartered by the legislature, and on which a toll was charged, is very discriminate. --NE2 15:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I took and used "indiscriminate" to mean the inclusion of the list itself in Misplaced Pages; the list itself does discriminate, and my prod should perhaps have been clearer in my meaning. Propaniac 16:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Just because they are mostly red links is not a reason for deletion. Many of the turnpikes are now state highways and can be redirected to specific highway articles. Also, as NE2 indicated, these road have significant history. If it helps, I am willing to create stubs and/or appropriate redirects for the entries in the list later this week since I can easily get a copy of the referenced book. --Polaron | Talk 15:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I want to clarify that it's not the redlinks, in themselves, that led me to nominate this article; it's that the list itself makes no assertion of why this content is notable, and obviously the items on the list cannot support the list's notability when the items have no articles themselves in which to make or imply such a statement. Propaniac 16:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep, see no reason for deletion. Subject is notable and list is expanding. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 16:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict)Keep. I agree with Polaron and NE2.
The nature of Misplaced Pages means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. Plenty of articles exist that probably shouldn't. Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they're missing before they're created, a lot of articles don't exist that probably should.

This is from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I think it's important, because you're suggesting that it should be deleted because the red links suggest that its not notable. I believe that based on NE2's argument, it is notable, but those articles just haven't been written yet. --myselfalso 16:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, by mentioning the red links, I don't mean that you are nominating this for deletion because of the red links; rather I'm responding to the argument "the items on the list cannot support the list's notability when the items have no articles themselves". --myselfalso 17:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep but move to a "List of..." title. —Scott5114 ↗ 17:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep -- these roads are of potential historic interest, either as the forerunners of modern roads or as roads that were abandoned. This system (and the system in Rhode Island) probably isn't as historic as the National Road, but there's most likely history to be found in it. --Elkman 20:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Has refs to satisfy WP:N and WP:A. Since the title implies more than a list, it would be good for the proponents of such articles to add some meat to the description of the turnpikes, such as, were they corduroy, gravel, cobbles, dirt, or what? What was the charge to use it? Edison 20:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep and expand. - Crockspot 05:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, the book has been scanned by Google Books: --NE2 06:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep History of major transportation arteries is notable and does not need any claim of notability. Fg2 10:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep There are lots of reliable sources out there. Because all of these roads are historical, there is no need to have any claim of notability. Also supporting a move to a "List of..." article name. V60 02:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Maris Martinsons

Does not meet notibility req's, improper references 99DBSIMLR 14:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Note: previous AfD is here. Looks like he would pass WP:PROF as a significant figure in the field if the claims here are true ("According to Google Scholar, Martinsons has authored 4 of the 10 most cited articles on Chinese management.", "He has been published in many leading English-language journals and translated into languages such as Chinese, French, Japanese, Latvian, and Russian."). I don't have access to a LexisNexis-type database right now, but some Google hits like , , are promising. -SpuriousQ (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 21:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Full professor at a leading university. As for his papers, using Scopus 33 papers, with the highest ones having 39, 30, 26, 19, 15 hits. h=9 for those who think it means something, I don't know how it compares in this subject. Decent journals, some first rate. What would have been translated would be a book, but LC only has one. I've added this. I've removed some fluff. DGG 02:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep. Associate prof, not full, according to the one news item I could find related to him (repeated in several publications), a fairly trivial quote about Chinese business leadership. And the article is unsourced and says very little that couldn't be said about any other business professor. But he does seem to be a (or perhaps the) leading expert on Chinese management information systems, a much more specific topic but still of some importance. —David Eppstein 15:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep, 38 works in OCLC and article text establishes notability; RS for impact in the real world would be helpful. John Vandenberg 15:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Jake Dinwiddie

This was originally speedy-deleted as a copyvio of IMDb. DRV overturned, mindful of the rule in Feist v. Rural that the copyright on compilations of public information is minimal. (I'm not sure the first edits of the article satisfied Feist, as they were in a style similar to IMDb, possibly betraying an infringement of the IMDb's "creative" element; the current revision is not similar at all, and does satisfy Feist.) Anyway, the question remains whether the actor meets WP:BIO. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Everybody who has an entry at imdb doesn't need to be here. This actor has a few guest spots on episodic tv and some minor film roles. Not notable. Corvus cornix 23:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no notability. One obscure nomination is not notability. And a copyvio dispute? Please, who has the time? --Dhartung | Talk 10:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep The copyright issue is settled, it really was a misunderstanding to start with. As for the rest, two cinema films, three TV movies, nine other TV appearances, and an award nomination is not exactly the heights of fame, i will agree, but I think it is above the bar for basic notability, particularly since this actor's career is obviously in progress, and the entry may be expected to expand in future. Noter also that before this article was created it was a redlink on a number of articles where this actor is listed as a cast member. DES 15:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- What links here shows two Charmed episodes and the two Au Pair movies. That's it. Corvus cornix 18:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete eminently non-notable actor --Steve _(Stephen) 04:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was no consensus to delete. Merging can still be considered as an editorial decision that doesn't require AFD. W.marsh 13:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

BRIMC (2nd nomination)

WP:OR; Neologism Limongi 15:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion - As BRICS, BRICA, BRICET and others, BRIMC it would have to be a section of article BRIC (the original and more used term). João Felipe C.S 15:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep - It is hardly OR since there are sources indicating the existence of the term: BRIMC is a financial term being used since around 2001. See the sources already in the article ( ) I didn't "invent" the term, so it is not OR. Neologism? Well BRIC was invented in 2001 also, is it a neologism? Should we nominate it for deleteion? No, right? It is the same with this term. Sadly, this 2nd nomination is another Mex vs. Brazil crusade started by the same Brazilian users. Aditionally the other terms the first AfD nominator of BRIMC mentions (Joao) were deleted because he literaly copy-pasted the info and sources in the article BRIMC and created all of the other articles. AlexCovarrubias 15:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - BRIMC is a financial term being used since around 2001.??? The term BRIC is created in 2003, how a variation can have before been bred? Alex, didn't invent the term. But gave one emphasis more, what it makes of the BRIMC a more important term that BRICS, BRICA, BRICET…? Come on Alex, you only wants to favor your country. João Felipe C.S 16:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion - It is not Orignal Reasearch or neologism by the editor, but it does not deserve its own article, it should be metioned on the BRIC article and thats it. BRIMC is derived from the BRIC concept, the article does not add enough information to be considered a different subject. A redirect from BRIMC to BRIC should suffice Chico 16:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion - Here are a few reason why the article should be deleted:

The term is not used at all (with the exception of a newspaper article);
The term is not notable;
The term is based on one newspaper article: an opinion;
The term tries to advance the idea that Mexico is in the same category as a BRIC country. Though the idea may be true, creating an article for only that purpose is personal promotion
The article looks like original research WP:OR

Or, just search "BRIMC" on the internet and see what you find: nothing. In other words, this article misinforms the readers of this encyclopedia - leading them to believe that BRIMC is a Goldman Sachs thesis (which it is not) and is a term widely used in international economy and politics (which it is also not), and that alone should be reason enough for deletion. Limongi 16:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - It is interesting how you stole the words from my friend Hari (from when he hadn't seen the sources). You just copy-pasted his comment of months ago. It is also interesting how three brazilians voted consistently "delete". AlexCovarrubias 16:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - He was not you who reverted my editions in Developed country article alleging: Sources must be in ENGLISH? What it is this then: ? João Felipe C.S 16:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It is also interesting how one mexican voted consistently "keep". João Felipe C.S 16:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

And now, the user AlexCovarrubias is practising Lobby. João Felipe C.S 16:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep - It is referred to in reputable, reliable sources, such as Le Figaro . The article discusses how Mexico is expected to become one of the five largest economies in the world by 2040, thus qualifies as much as Brazil, Russia, India and China in the BRIC category. If the director of economic research of Goldman Sachs and inventor of the term "BRIC" has determined that the term BRIMC is more valid then the subject ought to have its own wikipedia article. Worldwide conglomerates such as L'Oreal use it to determine sales performance . An Indian magazine mentions both BRIC and BRIMC as separate entities and a Portuguese newspaper refers to BRIMC, not BRIC , as well as an Italian publication . I have seen the term used in reliable and reputable publications of Mexico, US, France, Spain, Italy, Brazil and India. --FateClub 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment FateClub, the concept BRIMC is derived from the concept BRIC, there is not enough information to separate the articles, yes some people refer to BRIMC, should'nt that be cited in the BRIC article? if yes, is it really necessary to have a different article for BRIMC??? Thanks for the civility!Chico 20:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it could be argued that since BRIMC is derived from BRIC and both terms were created by the same person then BRIC should be moved to BRIMC, since BRIMC includes BRIC plus Mexico. But, I think THAT would be more controversial, since BRIC is an older, more established term. To be perfectly honest, I had never heard of BRIMC until this wikipedia article was created and was going to vote "Delete" until I started realizing it is being used in more than one source, so I think having its own article would be more beneficial overall. At this point neither article has enough content, so they should both be expanded and improved. In the short term we can merge without prejudice and once they both have enough content separate them.--FateClub 21:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge any relevant and sourced information into BRIC as this concept is a logical extension of that one, and makes more sense within the context of the larger concept. No need for a seperate article here. Arkyan  21:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge. If the nominator intended to merge it and convert it into a redirect anyway, he should have gone ahead and done it rather than bring it here. Hornplease 06:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Hornplease 06:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge We cant keep adding articles every time a new alphabet is added to the same acronym.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually we can. Misplaced Pages:NOT#Paper--FateClub 16:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep and attempt a merge. Accusations of OR and NEO are completely bogus as this term is being used widely. A merge should be suggested in the usual way as that does appear to be desirable. John Vandenberg 07:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion unless the article can be proven to have more relevance. Saber girl08 15:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment More? How much is that? In other words, how would we determine how much relevance? I mentioned several international publications and conglomerates, that is usually more than enough. --FateClub 16:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment The term and thus the article have proven their relevance as the previous AfD nomination failed. Most importantly, the term BRIMC is being used instead or along with BRIC, which clearly shows they are two independent terms (related, but independent). It is not only a matter of a "new letter added" it is not that simple, it is what that addition represents, a whole new country, a whole new financial reality for the emerging markets. AlexCovarrubias 16:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep Actually the original term was BRIMC, but because of the illegal immigration issue, they excluded Mexico from the acronym, but later they rectified and mentioned that if they could re-name the group it'd be named BRIMC because this 5 countries are supposed to be the 5 largest economies by the year 2040.

I also googled the term BRIMC and I found 5,170 results, so I think that's quite a lot for a term that was "invented in Misplaced Pages" don't you think?. Supaman89 21:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Can you or anyone else provide at least ONE reference from Goldman Sachs that states that? Because from what I know, the term "BRIMC" was 'invented' by an economic analyst, and not by a thesis of Goldman Sachs as stated on the article's page. The fact is that the article "BRIMC" is misleading, and the references don't support even half of what is written in the article = ORIGINAL RESEARCH! The references only cite the term "BRIMC" that's it. Read it... if I'm wrong, just post the referenced information here!

Yes, they mention them, and use them, what else did you expect from a reference? --FateClub 00:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried searching for "BRIC" (3 million results) and "BRICs" (1.3 million results)?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Limongi (talk • contribs) 22:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

This is not a competition between the terms, we are trying to determine whether the term BRIMC is notable.

By the way, BRIC may also mean:

Biotech Research and Innovation Centre
BRIC studio,
BRIC Engineered Systems
Bric-à-brac,
BUILDING RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE AND CAPACITY
Biomedical Research Imaging Center (BRIC)
Bioprocessing Research Industry Club
Behavior and Reading Improvement Center
Bridge Research and Information Center
Boca Real Estate Investment Club
Bric hogar
Bric, a media company
Biotech Research and Innovation Center
Bric, a brand of handbags
Bric Della Croce
Block-like Representation of Interactive Components
Bric Fusta
Bric McMann
Bric's Life Travel Accessories
Brain Research Imaging Center at the University of Chicago --FateClub 00:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete Using (BRIC economics development -brac) as the search , Google has 870 of which 2/3 are our meaning, including Bloomberg "BRICs, according to the 2003 Goldman Sachs report that popularized the acronym,..." substituting BRIMC for BRIC gets 7, note relevant. BRIMC by itself gets 437, including which has the very helpful quote: "It should be BRIMC," he said. in closing, the PRESIDENT described how he wants to change Mexico's global image. "We want to revert the image of the guy ..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 17:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC) (UTC).

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Smart Parts

Spam. 99DBSIMLR 15:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Not exactly my area of expertise and I do agree that the article could use some sources but I don't really see the spam aspect. There are some weasel words and the link to a retailer (which I've just removed) is probably inappropriate as well but I don't see anything other than that. The company also appears to be a major manufacturer of paintball equipment and one might say that the patent issue only adds to their notability. On top of that, we're talking about an article that has been around for almost two years. -- Seed 2.0 16:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Smart Parts is currently one of the leading manufacturers of paintball equipment, virtually a household name (in paintball households). At its peak, the patent dispute was huge news in the paintball scene, which makes it extremely notable. Any spam content can be edited out. --Donutmonger 07:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Smart Parts is known around the world to be one of the largest paintball suppliers. It offers some of the best paintball markers around; including the Ion marker. If you delete Smart Parts you may also want to delete Tippmann - who is also side by side in high quality markers with great prices. PLEASE KEEP SMART PARTS! Thanks, SmartPartsPros.com your contributor of the Smart Parts page. --User:Wikipaint 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Smart Parts deserves an article as much as any other well known (in a specific field) company. The article probably does need some references though, especially about the - very interesting - patent issue. Chandon 03:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: Please add new comments to the bottom of the AfD. Thank you. -- Seed 2.0 15:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was no consensus to delete. Several people seem to want to merge the useful content, so they might go about doing. W.marsh 13:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

John Bernard Arbuthnot

This man is totally un-notable so much so that even the article informs us "Arbuthnot Road is not named after him.". FGS delete it fast. Incidentally, both references are written by the primary author. Giano 15:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, had an entry in The Scottish Nation as late as 130 or so years after his death, and Project Gutenberg has his "History of John Bull". In mathematics, he seems to have been one of the earliest translators of works by Huygens on what is now known as probability theory. Unless there are reasons to doubt these references (I suppose I could toddle down to the British Library and check them out if Giano can give me reason to doubt them) this article is not a deletion candidate. --Tony Sidaway 15:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC) I think Tony you have linked to and are comentating on the wrong page. Giano 16:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep -- The silly statement about the road notwithstanding, this is a good article on a very notable and significant subject. -- MisterHand 15:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The link you are comentng on is not the page I nominated Giano 15:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It's the link in the AFD. -- MisterHand 15:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I think somehow there was a mislink (anyhow solved now) Giano 16:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
This fellow founded Beachcomber in name, although not in the form in which it became famous. This is important to the Beachcomber article but little else. So I suggest that any useful information from this article be merged to Beachcomber (Pen_name) and this article left as a redirect. --Tony Sidaway 16:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tony - at present, the Beachcomber link is the only notable element and anything of note here should be merged there. It may be worth having an article on him in his own right if he actually did anything of note in the Boer Wars, or he did anything interesting to be awarded the MVO. Surely there are lots of other things that are note named after him. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I too agree with Tony make, it into a redirect - so long as him being a beachcomber is verified by a references written by an independent source. Giano 18:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge and redirect: Over half the article is devoted to the quotidian and non-encyclopedic task of proving the breeding stock of a family. Aside from the pedigree, the material is better as a sentence in the literary achievement that might draw comment. Geogre 18:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Becoming a Major does not provide inherent notability. No sources to show the article is more than part of a family genealogy. Edison 20:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per User:Geogre. If this article were to be kept, the excessive genealogical details ought to be removed. Also there is a concern about sourcing. A look at the reference to thepeerage.com shows that some of the submitted data came from private emails. I can see accepting a little bit of not-fully-attested data to fill in the gaps in an otherwise well-sourced account, but this one seems very skimpy. EdJohnston 20:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge Beachbomber bit and redirect. The thepeerage.com ref - He was author of the 'Beachcomber' column in the Daily Express - is misleading to the point of disingenuousness. As Tony Sidaway says, he had nothing to do with Beachcomber in the iconic comic form developed by later authors. Tearlach 21:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Deputy editor of London's largest newspaper of the time, and one of the writers of By the Way. Note that By the Way was almost certainly not initiated by him; it was brought over when the old Globe shut down. One of the people who wrote By the Way for the Globe was PG Wodehouse, as I recall. Anyway, this is tiresome. Hornplease 06:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

comment

Weak keep, according to the material found by Tearlach and Hornplease, and their argument. There are probably sources to do careful bios on almost all of the adult Arbuthnots from printed sources, and if done really well with local newspapers and sources for the particular profession, there would be some element of notability in a great many. But anyone who puts in dozens of entries from a indiscriminate source on anything will not do justice to the material. (For comparison, In terms of intrinsic notability, we accept members of state legislatures, past or present. There are about 10,000 at any given time in the US alone, and most serve only for 2 years. Go back just to 1900 and there would be at least 50,000). DGG 05:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Yet more ArbuthNotNotable genealogy spam. You would not want me to start listing all the Morgans! Or, say, the Smiths! DewiMorgan 20:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I would like that - provided they are notable. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Smiths were very notable, don't let me hear otherwise. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - many of them. We could use more stubs to build upon. - Kittybrewster (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was keep/rename. W.marsh 00:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Osbourne judgment

article could be better incorporated elsewhere Berk2 15:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

neutral the article suggests that this is a notable ruling, but there are no sources. Google returns a whack-load of hits from various wikis, but nothing suggesting that this is commonly referred to by reliable sources. Article is of poor quality. Pete.Hurd 16:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep, it is Osborne judgment.

osbourne.judgment -wikipedia = 9 results

osbourne.judgement -wikipedia = 41 results

osborne.judgment -wikipedia = 286 results

osborne.judgement -wikipedia = 408 results

which sounds about right for an obscure century-old court ruling to me. There are 600 Google Books results for osborne.judgment and a hundred more if you add the "e". It was only in effect for four years, but led to the legislation that provided a crucial turning point in British democratic institutions. --Dhartung | Talk 10:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep - per Dhartung. The only move I could see would be to Trade Union Act of 1913, but I could see both becoming full articles, and don't support such a move. Smmurphy 22:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was Delete. No notability offered except being a captain. No achievements, only articles linking to the page are from dab pages, or the 1938 page when he was born. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Bryan Telfer

NN, no source. Matthew_hk t c 16:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable bio Corpx 17:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is not notable? IS it necessary to delete articles just because YOU don't know who the person in question is? He is mentioned on HMS Intrepid and noted by Margaret Thatcher. He also was mentioned in dispatches in recognition of his service in the Falklands conflict. Please don't delete the article before you have verified his credibility to be included. He served 37 years in the Royal Navy, attaining the rank of a 1 star captain, so should be noted for this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.46.119 (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2007

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- Matthew_hk t c 12:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Matthew_hk t c 12:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Whether you like it or not, you cant just blank this page. Corpx 16:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment Note that Cokes360 and 217.42.46.119 are taking turns removing the AfD tags, blanking this AfD, and moving the article to a different name to try and hide it. The IP has been blocked for 24 hours. Cokes360 has been warned. IrishGuy 18:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep He was mentioned in dispatches in the Falklands War and captained an important ship - HMS Intrepid - during the conflict. He's also notable for rising through the ranks to this position. It's not the best written article in the world but it needs to be improved, not deleted. Nick mallory 15:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, Several SD officers have made Captain/ Cdre (one Cdre at present in fact is a former radar operator) and being CO of a Capital ship is not inherently notable. ALR 17:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Several actors have acted in films as well, the point is not that he was unique, the point is that this achievement is notable. He also commanded a capital ship during a major recent war in a role which was pivotal to the success or failure of the war - the troop landings under heavy Argentinian air attack at San Carlos Water on the 8th of June. Nick mallory 02:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And my point is, that neither of those is particularly notable.ALR 06:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Prepared to wait until Clokes360 provides some substantiation on the article before I make a judgement.ALR 19:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep Like Nick Mallory said, he was recognised for his duties in the Falklands War, and being honoured by the then prime minister Margaret Thatcher. Not only was he a naval commodore who made his way up from the lowest of the low to just below an admiral, it should be noted. And what doesn't seem to be recognised to people who haven't read the full article is that he was the head of NATO for the whole of the United Kingdom and the chairman of national events and commitees. Does no-one seem to realise this? It hasn't been an issue before now so why must he be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cokes360 (talk • contribs)
Delete. The link in the article does not satisfy his individual notability requirement of WP:BIO. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The man was easily notable enough. But the article needs a lot of work. DewiMorgan 21:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
delete. The article makes no claim of notability, and I can't find a revision that does. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Shining Force II. W.marsh 23:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Bowie (Shining Force II)

Moved to gaming wiki as said in template. It can now be found here and here so either merge or delete the article. --Cs california 16:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Uh, there's no need for the machinery of AfD then. Just redirect the article, which will preserve the history for those who find something worthy of merging. Being bold and doing that. SnowFire 23:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was redirect to the album. This is what we do with most album track articles, and that people here want to delete suggests there's not consensus for keeping them separate articles. W.marsh 13:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Right on Time

Whilst updating the Californication (album) article, I turned a lot of the articles for the individual tracks in it into redirects as they weren't independtly important articles, there were no sources to back up the claims, and there wasn't anything that could be said that wasn't original research. Most of these redirects stuck, but two of them, Right on Time and Savior (song) have been reverted twice. I spoke with User:MiTfan3 about it and he seems to have ignored my comments about policy, etc, and so I believe it would be better if the articles could be decided about by outside parties and just deleted. There is (in my opinion) no reason for them to exist. Kamryn Matika 16:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating: Savior (song). Kamryn Matika 16:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete both. There's nothing in those articles that couldn't be said on the album page. BTLizard 17:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, it wasn't me who reverted the Savior page, but it was who reverted the Right on Time page because there is sufficient enough information mentioned on that page, not mention on the Californication (album) page, to leave it alone. And don't say I've ignored your comments about policy, I left all of the other pages redirected except for Right on Time, like I said, I didn't revert Savior. - MiTfan3

I meant that in your reply you didn't respond to my comments about policy. Nevertheless, as you didn't reinstate the articles, I'll strike my comments. :) Kamryn Matika 02:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep The song is released by Red Hot Chilli Peppers, a long running and famous band. According to the proposed guidelines at WP:MUSIC, it should at least give it a pinche of notability. However, more sources still are needed regarding the band's comments on the song.--Kylohk 10:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:MUSIC the songs need to be a released single by a notable band. These are not singles. Kamryn Matika 03:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

delete - the proposed guidelines at WP:MUSIC shouldn't supersede WP:N, there's a discussion about that right now. If there are no external sources who have written about these two songs, then delete them both. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was Speedy Delete --light darkness 17:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Corpx 17:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete lacks idependent sources, speedy is fine since the claim to notability reads as hype. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep - if only to kick against the anglophone systemic bias. I've removed the hype and sourced it a bit: interesting family background, and chief editor of a notable Swedish mag that's been running since the 1930s. Tearlach 02:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yamla: just saw the context at Talk:Ebba von Sydow. Thanks. They're a NN bunch generally, but I think she has a bit more interest. Tearlach 03:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete, I'd happily speedy if not for Yamla's request. Non-notable editor of a non-notable magazine, sources cited aren't near enough, and notability is not inherited. Seraphimblade 03:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if you'd come to the same conclusion if it were an American magazine run by a Kennedy. VeckoRevyn has a far longer pedigree than many others already here: see List of women's magazines. Tearlach 10:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep I strongly agree with Tearlach, not only the relation to important and well known public figures in Swedish society but also the fact the she is involved in a well known publication makes this article valid for inclusion. The afd and comments appear to be very biased. If she was from the US or the UK and in a similar position this article would most likely not have been nominated. According to the nominators userpage the nominator is a native english speaker, leading me to assume that Ebba von Sydow would not be notable to the nominator. However the fact that she is notable to at least 2 million Swedes does indeed in my opinion make the article worth keeping. It's also in my belief that the article fits very well withing the critera of Creative Professionals as stated in WP:BIO. I also think that each article should be judged by it's on merit not on what the creator may have had deleted in the past. Sweboi 23:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please note that Sweboi (talk · contribs) has only five edits in the Misplaced Pages article space. Furthermore, please note that I, the nominator, do not live in the U.S. and am not a U.S. citizen. However, I am also not a Swedish citizen. --Yamla 23:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note also that the Swedish edition of Elle outsells Vecko Revyn in Sweden while the Swedish edition of Cosmopolitan trails. We have no article on the editor of Elle (that is, the international edition, not the editor for the Swedish version) but we do have an article for the editor of the international edition of Cosmopolitan (though again, not for the Swedish edition). This random sample indicates to me that being the editor of a magazine is not necessarily sufficient grounds for notability but may contribute to notability. That this magazine is apparently not notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article and that no other claim of notability exists in the article makes me believe my nomination was appropriate. Note that no claims as per WP:BIO (creative professionals section) are made in the article itself. --Yamla 23:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  - I am in no way trying to make out that user A is from country B or anything like it, I am trying to point out that certain personalities may not be well known outside a certain geographic area. However they can be very influential inside that area. I would also like to point out that even though I am a Swedish citizen I have spent the majority of my life elsewhere. Sweboi 00:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  - I also fail to see the validity in the argument that sales figures of a publication determines how well known the publication or it's editor is. There are several examples both historical and present of publications that for example are so despicable and vial in content and opinion that they do not sell in larger numbers, they are however well known for being just that, despicable and vial. Hence their editors would also be well known for their contributions, positive or not. I am not saying that the publication in question, or it's editor is good or bad, I am merely pointing out that the sales figures of the magazine in question does not necessarily contribute to the editors notability or lack thereof. Several other factors weigh into the equation of notability. In this case I think that there is a certain amount of notability in this article as pointed out by Tearlach. Sweboi 00:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. Very famous person, noted for her columns on fashion and the author of a recent book receiving considerable press coverage. As pointed out by Tearlach, there is no way a person of similar notability in the US or UK would be deleted from Misplaced Pages.JdeJ 03:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The referenced articles seem to satisfy her WP:BIO criteria of being the subject of an article in a secondary source. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'd also like to request that voters restrict their commentary to the notability of the article itself, and refrain from making this a debate about perceived ethnocentrism of Misplaced Pages or making assumptions about other voters. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm sorry: I overstepped the mark, and got into the area of WP:NPA. But I do think regional/anglocentric bias is something we all need to bear in mind. Tearlach 23:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely no intention to make assumptions about other voters, just used the comparison to make it clear that the person is notable. If anybody perceived it as criticism of their contributions, I offer my sincerest apologies. Nothing of the kind was intended, but I should have worded my post better. JdeJ 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Very famous in Sweden. Vints 09:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge & redirect to one of her famous relatives, since she pretty much fails WP:BIO. >Radiant< 12:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
keep - no, she passes WP:BIO. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Vordhosbn

It is not necessary to recreate a new article for each single of the album. Shoessss 17:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Corpx 17:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Totally unecessary article. A1octopus 21:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)