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

The result was Speedy delete g1 nonsense, WP:SNOW, just like the other 48,000 Colbert articles. NawlinWiki 05:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reality (Stephen Colbert) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article was speedied, author argued that it shouldn't have been and recreated article. Now marking for deletion so it can be reviewed and consensus reached. More to follow in comments. Improbcat 03:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete see author's comment in my talk page and the subsequent discussion in his talk page for my opinions and reasons for this at length. Short version: the Wikiality thing has long been dealt with and lots of pages have been created, moved, changed, merged, etc. to deal with it, and this new page adds nothing useful to the topic. Improbcat 03:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete (Speedy delete if possible) for now per WP:NEO. Not to mention this article has no references and weak WP:NPOV, but thats an entirely different matter. Danski14 03:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete (concur with speedy if possible), WP:OR extrapolation from a single quote by Colbert. Concepts already covered in other Colbert-related articles. Krimpet 04:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Stronger than those other editors Delete. (in the interest of his huge hyperbole.) ThuranX 04:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 00:34Z

German goo girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable label per WP:ORG. Contested prod. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No secondary sources. bibliomaniac15 06:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ATT. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 06:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:V, WP:N and WP:ATT besides WP:SPAM Alf^Photoman 14:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ATT WP:OR --DSRH | talk 15:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What everyone else already said. Betaeleven 17:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not follow WP:ATT; I agree with everybody else Jtg920 17:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above ffm ^yes? 21:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ATT and smells of possible WP:OR. Does not have enough sources. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 22:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Zsinj^Talk 03:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paschal English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN losing survivor reality game show contestant, being eliminated on a special case (eg rock picking) is certainly not notable. A quick google search [4] turns up 256 ghits (not including Wikipedia and its mirrors), with most of them off fan-sites/forums or his official CBS bio. We dont create pages on losing Jeopardy or Deal or No Deal contestants just because they've been on a game show. (except the obvious celebrities on celebrity editions, etc)) --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 03:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redirect to Survivor: Marquesas - it seems that this is an altruistic case of using Wikipedia to further somebody's career - altruistic in that I doubt Paschal himself created this. From my (thankfully) limited exposure to reality TV, the only "stars" I could see passing WP:N would be Pedro Zamora, Puck, and maybe Judd Winick. Maybe I'm just an out-of-touch curmudgeon. --Action Jackson IV 04:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge details into appropriate Survivor article, then delete. The only thing notable in this article is the 'event', not the person. And the event relates only to the show itself. Shenme 05:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yet another non-notable reality TV show contestant. Being on TV for a bit does not automatically make one notable. -- Necrothesp 19:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Necrothesp and nom.-- Carabinieri 22:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously survived as a bundled nomination of various survivor contestants over 5 months ago which ended as a no consensus-train wreck. Some of them has since been renominated on individual cases, and some has been deleted on the consensus that they were not notable outside the the game show. (e.g [5], [6] &[7])

I will re-nominate this NN Survivor contestant who hasnt done anything since leaving the show (eg fail WP:BIO). Lack of notable secondary references, a quick google search (minus Wikipedia results) turns up [8] 650 ghits, with most of the results off fan-forums or the official CBS site. We dont create pages on losing Jeopardy or Deal or No Deal contestants just because they've been on a game show. (except the obvious celebrities on celebrity editions, etc --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 04:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just in case you didn't realize it, there is a bit of a difference between being on Jeopardy and being on Survivor. In Survivor, a contestant can be on primetime for 14 weeks. So, I fail to see the comparison. And Kim Johnson was a runner-up, so she was on TV for a lot longer time than Deal or No Deal or most Jeopardy contestants. -- Scorpion 04:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete trivial en passant in the big picture. An appearance on Jeopardy! is grasping -- let's err on the side of exclusion in this case. /Blaxthos 05:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Done nothing , Not notable. StuartDouglas 14:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pending independent references As with other game show contestents, including Survivor, the question is whether the article can provide multiple independent (ie not a bio from the show itself) published articles/interviews about this person. Since the article is unreferenced, delete unless sufficient sources are provided. Dugwiki 18:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yet another non-notable reality TV show contestant. Being on TV for a bit does not automatically make one notable. -- Necrothesp 19:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Basically a one paragraph bio sourced from show marketing (thus lacking independence), on a fairly ordinary person without significant achievements since the show. Ohconfucius 02:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, high school club, doesn't assert notability. NawlinWiki 15:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Team 830 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is about a non-notable high school robotics team, and belongs on FIRSTWiki, not Wikipedia. See Talk:Huron High School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, as most discussion regarding deletion is taking place there, rather than on the article's own talk page. Nimakha 04:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN high school club. TJ Spyke 04:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above /Blaxthos 05:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NN and almost certainly, WP:COI --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 07:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --ElKevbo 12:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chapeaumelon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This band doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC -- the only claim to fame is the song on the soundtrack of Eurotrip. But the article has been around so long I thought AFD would be more prudent than speedy-delete. NawlinWiki 05:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article itself is in poor upkeep; sure it could use an update. Even still, I agree, it doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Jtg920 23:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet WP:MUSIC. —SaxTeacher (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Sigma Alpha Epsilon. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 00:35Z

California Epsilon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Moving deletion nom to its own subpage. Nominator's statement was: "California Epsilon non notable, only part of an larger org.Samwisep86 00:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)" My own opinion is delete as non-notable or redirect to Sigma Alpha Epsilon. delldot talk 05:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete stub/redir unnecessary /Blaxthos 05:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If there is something particularly notable to say about a fraternity chapter, I think the place for it would be in the college article, the parent fraternity chapter, or both. I can't see very many fraternity chapters being notable enough for their own article... and this one doesn't even have a pipsqueak of a claim of notability. Out!! --Brianyoumans 13:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fraternity chapters are rarely notable. -- Necrothesp 19:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to absolutely no assertion of why this specific chapter is notable being present within the article; alternatively, it can be redirected to Sigma Alpha Epsilon. Kyra_~(talk) 10:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 00:37Z

Jeffrey de Fourestier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

De Fourestier, Jeffrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Extensive vanity bio of a "self-described renaissance man" who "got to know the movers and shakers of Quebec society" without being a mover or shaker of said society. He wrote some papers, including "the definitive history" of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Gotta give him credit for sheer nerve. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC) PS. This page has been on vfd before; see talk:Jeffrey de Fourestier.[reply]

• Delete per above /Blaxthos 05:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Truly amazing! I'm not exactly sure what happened with the vfd discussion: it appears that the majority voted for deletion, and the result was ignored. If it was actually deleted and then recreated, then it Speedy. --Philosophus ^T 06:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per WP:COI, WP:BIO, WP:NPOV and WP:ATT. Worst case of vanity I've ever seen... --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 07:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per all of the above and per I am speechless at so much self-promotion Alf^Photoman 11:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• "[...]truly a legend in his own mind." I think that says it all Strong Delete. Oh and given the recreations I would suggest possibly salting the page as well. Improbcat 13:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Why is this chap notable again? Sorry, he's so non-notable I've just forgotten everything about him. -- Necrothesp 19:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Any bio that titles the paragraph about childhood as "Beginnings" deserves only one fate: Delete with extreme prejudice and large amounts of salt. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What is it about Wikipedia that brings out the narcissist in some people? Pat Payne 23:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

must be all those understanding editors Alf^Photoman 00:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per everything. Resolute 05:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable person. Article fails WP:ATT, WP:BIO --DSRH | talk 15:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 00:38Z

Black Eyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Trivial info about a short-lived band. --Czj 05:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete hardly any notability. Fails WP:BAND --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 06:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - Easily meets WP:BAND. You'll find plenty of articles about the band's 2nd album, Cough, if you just do a quick search, and there are even more if you look for pieces about the band more generally. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, released two albums on Dischord Records, who are practically the definition of WP:BAND's major independent label. Recury 15:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, their two albums were reviewed by Pitchfork Media and other music review websites, not to mention the aforementioned releases on Dischord. TheLetterM 16:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have performed general cleanup of the article, changing the formatting of one section, merging two sections together, and removing unsourced promotional statements and other unsourced statements tying the band (or its members) to other bands. I have also added 4 reviews of the band's albums and 2 other sources for their history. The band meets WP:N and the current version of the article mostly complies with WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. -- Black Falcon 20:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 00:43Z

No Regrets (Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

File:Somethingart.JPG ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Non-notable band. Article a blatant violation of WP:COI, no assertion of notability, reliable published sources nonexistant (WP:ATT noncompliance). Wikipedia is WP:NOT the place to promote your band. /Blaxthos 05:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos 05:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per A7. Why did this even go to AfD? --Philosophus ^T 06:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Complete agreement with nom. The argument on the talk page for keeping the article seems to consist of "The page should remain because I am a member of the band." Fails WP:MUSIC. janejellyroll 06:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MUSIC, WP:V, WP:N and WP:ATT(and if really tried I could throw the whole book at them Alf^Photoman 14:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:BAND. NawlinWiki 19:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I've also removed all the excess external links. We are not a linkfarm. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exploded Planet Hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Obvious candidate for deletion. As an article, there are no reliable sources and the topic thus fails the V and RS parts of WP:A. As an article on a scientific topic, it utterly fails the AS criteria of ArbCom-PS. There are few google hits, mostly to discussion boards and "Meta Research". There is essentially no media coverage, so the article cannot be saved by the Time Cube route. Philosophus ^T 06:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS. MER-C 08:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (not decided yet). I do not necessarily think that this should be "deleted", as this is a valid historical hypothesis. However, I do not think that this article can be expanded: Could the main author provide some reputable sources to prove otherwise? Also, I think that the title is not very descriptive and confusing. A merge with solar system, or some related topic, might be more appropriate. In the absence of a response, I will vote delete. Lunokhod 09:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the valid hypotheses are already documented in other articles. See below. Uncle G 15:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And the hypothesis that this article is covering is the modern hypothesis by Tom Van Flandern, which, if I understand correctly, uses his own pet theory of gravitation. It is true that the entirety of the current article could be deleted and re-sourced with proper sources to cover the historical hypothesis, however. --Philosophus ^T 20:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No reliable references (either peer-reviewed articles or media coverage). Mike Peel 09:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This pseudoscience just seems too bizarre. Dr. Submillimeter 10:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are plenty of hits via google on this theory, it is a well known possiblity that a planet did exist between Mars and Jupiter. I do think this needs more expansion but I think it should be kept as it does link to the planet v article. --PrincessBrat 10:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Delete as per my comments below Uncle G @ 18:30[reply]
• Note that we already have Phaeton (hypothetical planet), Tiamat (hypothetical planet), and Fifth planet (hypothetical). This article does nothing that those articles don't already do, and do better. Uncle G 15:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If thats the case why dont all the articles link to each other since there are varying hypothesis on this subject? And doesnt this article that is being considered for deletion act as a gateway to these articles? --PrincessBrat 16:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your question is unanswerable, because it takes a falsehood as a premise. The articles do link to each other. And the "gateways" to the subject are asteroid belt#Origin and Hypothetical planet#Planets between Mars and Jupiter. This article isn't a gateway to the subject because the hypotheses do not all involve explosion. Uncle G 18:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair point, I accept your above point and Im now stating this should be deleted - being in agreement this content is already covered, but note this is contrary to the original nomination which I therefore do not agree with! --PrincessBrat 19:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The nomination is based on the fact that the article isn't covering the historical hypothesis, but the modern nonsense by Tom Van Flandern which doesn't satisfy RS, AS, or any notability guidelines. --Philosophus ^T 20:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• deleteIwould support this if there were any discussion outside http://metaresearch.org/, the personal pseudojournal of the guy who thought of this version of the hypothesis. DGG 00:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of any reliable sources; all that needs to be said in general is already covered in other articles. Chrislintott 07:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I added in the references for the EPH material, haven't had time to start the rest, should clear up some of the "pseudoscience" problem. --Momentendz (talk • contribs) 19:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per WP:FRINGE or just possibly redirect to Phaeton (hypothetical planet). Anville 19:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The fact that Tom Van Flandern himself is considered notable does not make any individual piece of his silliness notable. This theory fails to meet the test in WP:SCIENCE at all (which I admit is still just proposed but provides a useful baseline for cases like this one): It neither has achieved recognition in the scientific mainstream nor has it garnered significant attention in general. So it is quote non-notable, and also is OR. --EMS | Talk 21:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Irishguy with reason A7 bio. Selket ^Talk 09:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Collins (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This player is far below notability. Additionally, the article lacks verifiability. According to the article, this player has played for the national team. Unfortunately it does not even mention the sport in question, there are several "indoor football" disciplines. His club, Deportivo football club has a Wikipedia article which meets speedy deletion criteria, but on this occasion I used prod instead, so it could be used as a reference for this AfD nomination. Julius Sahara 06:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Notability cannot be established because the article lacks primary/secondary sources per WP:ATT. Google search didn't turn up much. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 07:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I also note that the prod template has been removed (without explanation) from his team's article, so I'll take that to AfD as well. ChrisTheDude 08:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only claim to notability (which actually comprises the article's only sentence as it stands) is that he plays for the "Indoor Roos". As far as I can tell, Australia does not field a team called the "Indoor Roos" - they do field a futsal team called the "Futsalroos", but I can find no record whatsoever of a player with this name turning out for that team - "futsalroos" "david collins" returns zero results on Google.... ChrisTheDude 09:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seem a hoax. Matthew_hk tc 09:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable, unverifiable. Qwghlm 17:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete A7 as part of the AfD for Deportivo (below). So tagged. --Dennisthe2 21:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs performed on The X Factor (UK TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article seems to violate WP:NOT (directory). If you collect all songs from a movie/TV show in a list, release it as an album, it's usually called a soundtrack, in which case it may be notable - but this is not a soundtrack, an no-one nowhere has written about this list. This article has a short introduction, then is just an alphabetical list. It serves no taxonomical or navigational purpose either from what I can tell. Delete as pretty indiscriminate, and unworthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia. Ohconfucius 08:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete more info that would be best placed on someones own fansite. It serves no encyclopedic function --PrincessBrat 10:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as directory per WP:NOT and nom. Otto4711 15:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I thought it should be deleted when I first discovered it but then I grew to like it, but it's just as easy to look up the individual series articles for the show to find out what songs were sung. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this doesn't meet NOT#Directory. Does meet WP:LIST - navigation and information. I don't see how it doesn't meet navigation, as mentioned above. - Peregrine Fisher 11:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This absolutely fails NOT#DIR. It is a loose association of items which have nothing in common other than that they are songs performed on a particular TV show. The individual items did not gain fame or notability by virtue of the association so they don't pass the "Nixon's enemies list" proviso. Finally, WP:LIST is a guideline, not a free pass for every list article. If an article fails an actual policy or is otherwise unacceptable, pointing to its compliance with WP:LIST does not save it. Otto4711 17:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The association is not loose, each one is a song performed on X Factor. That's tight enough. - Peregrine Fisher 18:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, no. The performance of a song on a TV show, when the songs share no other factor in common, is not enough of a commonality. The songs vary by genre, composer, lyricist, style, vocal range, tempo, key, etc. It is absurd to say that just because some TV person decided to sing a particular song on the air that the songs as a group become notable together. Otto4711 18:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What you find absurd, I find extremely reasonable. This is where we disagree. - Peregrine Fisher 19:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is quite true that we disagree, because I tend to believe that items on an encyclopedic list should have something in common beyond coincidence. Otto4711 20:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These songs were not chosen accidentally. - Peregrine Fisher 20:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say "accidentally." And the fact remains that songs do not become notable as a set by way of being performed on the same TV show. Otto4711 00:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Driller thriller 03:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Virginia Beach City Public Schools. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 00:46Z

Kempsville Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable middle school Brianyoumans 08:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN school, basicallt just a directory. TJ Spyke 09:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless attributable evidence of notability shown. MER-C 10:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Why don't you speedy delete this? Betaeleven 16:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had difficulties getting similar middle school articles removed before. Brianyoumans 16:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced directory entry. Shimeru 19:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete More school articles with no notability attached. This should be deleted quickly, why it needs to go to debate is beyond me - what use is a list of classes to anyone outside the school, and to be honest I fail to see what use this info would be to someone at the school. Its a poor list too - some of the entries are empty anyway and I doubt the teachers names used would appreciate having them plastered on the net! --PrincessBrat 19:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 00:47Z

Jason McMahon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. With credits like "Medic #2," "Baseball Player," and "Janitor," I don't think he satisfies the criteria for notability. Maybe if he landed a big role in the future, but WP not a crystal ball. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I think this really comes down to, "he was in two episodes of Veronica Mars." I'm pretty sure that doesn't cut it. Promising, but let's wait until he hits it bigger. --Brianyoumans 12:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, no sources attest to notability. Otto4711 15:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Currently seems to be a bit-part actor. When he gets more notable roles then we'll see. -- Necrothesp 19:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN. My brother-in-law has about as many credits, and for the same things. He's a professional extra, and roles like "Baseball Player #1" and "Janitor" are what they get. I haven't written a Wikipedia article about him, either. RGTraynor 19:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 00:47Z

Deportivo football club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Estadio Northchetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Procedural nomination as I noticed the Prod template had been removed without comment by the article's original creator. No !vote from myself at this time, I need to look into it..... ChrisTheDude 08:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The first result on Google for "northcote" "deportivo" is a forum thread (!), the first message of which says the following:

which to me suggests that this club is clearly non-notable as per a million other AFDs on amateur indoor "hobbyist" teams. Note also zero Ghits for "northcote league" and "northcote super league". Therefore I now !vote Delete. I'm also nominating the club's "stadium", the rather unconvincingly named Estadio Northchetti (which again produces no results on Google) and !vote to delete on that one too..... ChrisTheDude 08:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I also find as a rule of thumb that any article in which the creator has felt the need to put "this subject is notable because....." generally isn't.... ChrisTheDude 09:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In support of the above: the author of the wiki article and poster in the forum thread referenced above (under the handle: dem12345) was subsequently banned from that forum. Responses to his post criticize him for posting a thread in that forum about a non-notable team. Source: http://www.melbournevictory.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27539 This confirms proposal to delete. Gregorytopov 17:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seem a hoax. The logo look like Real Sociedad one, and fusion with Deportivo La Coruña. Matthew_hk tc 09:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - smells like a hoax or a very minor team talking themselves up. - fchd 09:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the team as (at best) a very minor-league team. They aren't in the A-League, which is the top league in these parts, and what little indication there is of the level at which they do play suggests that it's a local-league affair. As full disclosure, I previously Speedied the team and was questioned over it, which may explain the claims that the team is "very notable" in this version of the article. I see no particular reason why the stadium should be kept, although there may be something more significant which goes on there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Guys, please let this stay. I've added a real valuable source at the end of ext.source section. This is a real team and league, forget the bit about "bunch of mates" that was when we were wiki virgins. Please allow it, really means a lot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dozzaddemar (talk • contribs) 10:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • I can understand that you're keen to have this page on here, but WP has a whole bunch of policies which articles need to satisfy, the main ones being Verifiability and Notability, neither of which your team seems to meet (or be able to meet). I'm sure you understand that these policies are there for a reason i.e. if we didn't have them the encyclopedia would drown in articles on everybody's garage bands, kids, pets, school projects, etc etc. I seem to recall a recent AfD discussion mentioning that there were something like 5000 indoor soccer teams active in the UK alone - can you imagine the effect on WP if we let every such team, not just in the UK but in the whole soccer-playing world, have an article.....? ChrisTheDude 10:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two sources cited at the bottom of the Deportivo page (there was a third, but it was a link to the article on the stadium which is bundled with this one for AfD purposes) consist of a series of forum posts and a directory entry proving that the club exists. We can thus be reasonably sure that it's not a hoax (although the flagicons of some of the players still seem unusual). We cannot, however, be sure of the notability of the team. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The source prove the Northcote League exist, but seem like a Sunday league football. But still no source support for the team itself. Matthew_hk tc 10:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're quite right. My eyes are playing tricks on me BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, look, i understand what all of you guys are saying. And yes, i understand that you guys now know the team and league exists. This really means a lot to a lot of people. You have no idea.

1.) regarding the picture, it is copyrighted for 7 years, under the Australian copyright act that any picture produced in Australia is of automatic copyright for 7 years, so please dont insult me on that.

2.) Ok, can we please reach an agreement, I havn't been lieing about anything here at all. The only semi-lie ive/weve told is the on eregarding estadio Northcetti. The place is actually (as im sure you all know) "Insportz Northcote" and we just made up the northcetti for fun. ill remove that now, and replace it with Insports Northcote - and Wont make a wiki for that. Please let this stay, it does no harm, really. It is a serious and yes, notable thing. Im not sure where you guys are from but if you were from Melbourne you would be aware - although, if you were a football fan (as that also applies to any league in the world)

Please reconsider.

Kind Regards

Dozzaddemar

• You still need to address the failure of the article (as it stands) to meet the requirements of WP:N and especially WP:V. Your argument seems to hinge on the team being "big in Melbourne" - presumably if this is the case then you can cite coverage it has received in Melbourne newspapers, which would go a long way to satisfying WP:V ChrisTheDude 12:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• You see, this is my problem, as you can probably guess i've exumed all internet resources. When i say big i dont mean everyone in the state knows, but to the football fraternity it is known. Local community newspapers do not publish their articles on the net. which leads me to my second point - you guys rely too much on the internet. Not all sources are internet. Is there a way for me to take a photo of my medal, then scan it on and imageshack it to be viewed. Note: i am being serious there, are there other ways of providing sources other than pre-made url links. i will take the photo if it means you'll allow the deportivo wiki in.

Regards

D.D.

You may provide citations that are not on the Internet, as long as they can be found elsewhere. What's most important is that they show that the subject meets the requirements listed previously. --Maxamegalon2000 15:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A photograph of a medal is not a reliable source, you need to cite coverage which the subject has received from independent third parties as per WP:N which reads:

• Delete Not notable. It's one team of many, from one location of many, from one city of many. One of the referenced websites lists nearly 20 sports centers in the Melbourne area, and this appears to be a team from a league at only one of those locations. Gregorytopov 17:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Further comment: The user who posted the article is Domenic Demaria, one of the players on the team. He is a 15 year old who posts in forums at football.co.uk, see all his posts here: http://forum.football.co.uk/search.php?search_id=1019827224&start=25 - which includes a post that mentions his age. With team members identified with names like "Billy" and opponents like "Jacob's Team", it seems clear this is just a local team composed of 15 year old amateurs at best. Claims in a forum post about the team being the subject of a Sportsnet article seem unverifiable and fabricated. The evidence points strongly to a non-notable amateur team like thousands worldwide, and a vanity article from the author about his teenager friends. To use the author's own words: "a bunch of 15 y.o playing 14-many 18 y.o.'s" Gregorytopov 17:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if the most notable thing about this club is that it owns a medal of some kind then it's not worth including. Qwghlm 17:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn team of a level equivalent to Sunday League. Oldelpaso 18:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Creator's repeated and exhaustive arguments boil down to nothing much; no matter how important he claims this team is, if he can't provide any sources at all (never mind verifiable or credible ones), then we're talking, as others have said, of a pickup duffers' league at best. Even amateur leagues get some major press coverage, if they're significant enough. This hasn't, so it isn't. Ravenswing 19:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete A7 (club, with bio by extension for others). Tagged where appropriate. --Dennisthe2 21:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• How about this, everyone can go and get effed. This is fukn wiki for gods sakes. You guys sit on this computer all day long, go to hell. Wiki is shit, i cant even site it in a bibliography at school it is seen that much as a joke. You guys are no better than a bunch of forum mods, who sit on their computer all day. Delete it if you want, you guys are morons, who sit on a computer all day, trying to improve shit wiki. Wiki is a joke, Do you guys know how many wiki play ons there are, you are jokes. go back to wikiland, and stop trying to improve wiki, its a laughing stock - all over the world.

DEM OUT! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dozzaddemar (talk • contribs) 07:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment: Wikipedia is materially improved every time someone with a chip on his shoulder gets into a hissy fit, the moment he finds that policies apply to him too, and takes a hike. Editors who can handle the principle that their work is subject to quality standards and editing are assets. As with any other contributor, it's up to you which you wish to be. Ravenswing 14:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the stadium per WP:V. i've already speedied the team per CSDs G4 and A7. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the A7, and definitely as above I am a 'delete', but can't see any evidence for G4 (unless I'm missing something, which is quite possible!) - fchd 13:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I was missing something. Good work. - fchd 16:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 00:48Z

Cocobat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Found this needing to be wikified, but is it worth doing or should this be deleted? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 10:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but this article needs attention from somebody who knows Japanese. Most corroborating sources appear to be in that language. They do have an Allmusic entry, though I'm not sure that satisfies WP:N. ObtuseAngle 16:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have multiple album releases on the Toy's Factory label. Toy's Factory is mid-major, with at least two chart-topping groups on their label (Mr. Children and Yuzu (band)). I think that is enough to meet WP:BAND. Neier 10:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would agree; it's hard to source articles about Japanese acts. ObtuseAngle 20:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no actual content on this article worthy of its own article. Even if it were to be updated to meed wiki formatting standards, the page would not be purposeful. Jtg920 17:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kusunose 08:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep iff cleaned up by the end of this AFD. This band may merit an article per the sources above if it is cleaned up. I'll take a swing at it now ... -- Black Falcon 20:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I have significantly changed the article. I removed all of the tracklists that cluttered the page and added a half-detailed history section for the band. I have left the cleanup tags on the page so that further improvements can be made by someone more knowledgeable and/or interested in the subject, but think it qualifies for inclusion at this point. -- Black Falcon 21:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks much better now then when I nominated it, as it is, keep. --BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 19:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, does not assert notability, horribly fails WP:BAND. NawlinWiki 19:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Skeen (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band, of which the opening sentence is "Andrew Skeen was formed by five teenagers in early March 2007". Due to the length and the claimed notability I am bringing this article to Articles for Deletion rather than requesting a speedy delete. Sam Blacketer 10:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Have just discovered this is a vandalised version: Andrew Skeen is actually a notable Indian Army Officer who died in 1935. I have reverted to the correct version, can an admin please close this debate? Sam Blacketer 10:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Revived as the article now created elsewhere. Sam Blacketer 10:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry, I attmpted to change the real article about Andrew Skeen, but I promise you that there is a new band with this name as a title, it is just so recent that they have no reliable information on the internet to proove its whereabouts and existance, but I know it exists, so please give me a chance to find some reliable information, by the way, I hope this is the respective page, lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackjack114 (talk • contribs)

• Not to sound imposing, but from the time of the AFD listing, you have five, maybe six days. In this time, you need to prove, through the use of several reliable, third party sources (such as books and newspaper articles), that the information in the article is correct. If this cannot be done, the article will be seen as not meeting the Wikipedia:Attribution core policy and the Wikipedia:Notability (music) nitability inclusion guideline, and will most likely be deleted. -- saberwyn 11:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• "no reliable information on the internet to proove its whereabouts and existance" - the article's own creator seems to have pretty succinctly put the case for this article to be deleted. "I promise you it exists" isn't exactly a reliable source.... ChrisTheDude 11:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, could it not been tried the other way around: first find sources and then create an article? Alf^Photoman 14:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a radical idea, it'll never catch on ;-) ChrisTheDude 15:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, bury at a crossroads at midnight, and sow the earth with salt. Some teenage garage band founded just this week, and already they have "former" members? And what's an "unofficial" band anyway? Violates WP:V, WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO and WP:BULLSHIT, come to that. Ravenswing 19:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Music of Afghanistan, and create a new article DJ Besho. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 00:49Z

Afghan Hip-Hop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Afghan hip hop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It fails Wikipedia:Notability (music) and should not have a seperate article on it. It might go to article about Music of Afghanistan --- ALM 10:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Merge with Afghan music. Guroadrunner 10:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• According to the BBC, Afghanistan has only one hip-hop/rap star, DJ Besho. All three sources for this article are about him, in either a major or minor way. Suggest that someone who is inclined towards this subject use the sources to write an article about the artist, as he appears to be more notable than the genre at this point in time. Following this, write a very short section for Music of Afghanistan (very short as per BBC, there is only one star at this time). Link DJ Besho to the MoA article in this section. -- saberwyn 11:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Music of Afghanistan and create an article on DJ Besho. Besho's notable by himself, his genre is not. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 00:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, don't merge It appears that there is indeed an Afghan HipHop scene which meets WP:V, is distinctive, and not simply limited to one high profile rapper. Mostlyharmless 07:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge: It does not have enough material and notability. -- ALM 11:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge and agree that DJ Besho would be a good article subject based on the existing sources. I'll add a stub for him once the decision on this page is finalized. JavaTenor 23:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move/merge page to DJ Besho and tag for cleanup so that the content is later changed from a focus on a genre to a focus on the person. -- Black Falcon 21:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mostlyharmless - if not, merge with music of Afghanistan. Redirecting a genre to a musician article does not make sense to me, and is unwise if more Afghan rappers gain fame. 96T 18:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Original nomination withdrawn. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aherla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article does not assert notability in any semi-meaningful way, is poorly written, and doesn't cite sources. Ardent^†alk_∈ 10:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I wonder if this is not a hoax, I cannot imagine a town of 5000 in Ireland that has only two pubs, unless they are the size of a small soccer stadium Alf^Photoman 11:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have an inspector's report for Cork County Council that tells you what one can find in Aherla. Uncle G 15:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I live in aherla and there are no more than 200 people living here and the history is right as far as i know 09:51, 8 March 2007

• • And if that's not enough, see pages 58–61 of this plan by Cork County Council, which has a wealth of demographic and planning detail on the subject of this village, including a map. Uncle G 15:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and I'll bookmark this in case I ever need a job... a new pup in an Irish town of 5000 that has only two is surely huge business Alf^Photoman 16:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination Withdrawn in light of recent improvements to the article. It still needs work and more reliable sources, however. Ardent^†alk_∈ 18:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Guild Wars. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 00:51Z

Guild Wars Eye of the North (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not pass WP:A "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". This is a hotly debated subject, and developers of the game have both denied and confirmed certain aspects of the quoted article without further specification. This speculation is not encyclopaedic in the least. Mikkelm 10:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep There is nothing exceptional in this subject, this is only a videogame, not "historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people". Moreover, the development of this product was widely announced months ago, and devs have partially confirmed the contents of this article. The only reason they cant confirm it completely, are commercial agreements they have with magazines, and I dont think wikipedia is bound to respect agreements between third parties. The source, The Inquirer, is reputable, and has revealed other "scoops" in the field of videogames before. I think the notice {{Future Game}} its enough to warn readers that the informations in the article are not certain--Twilight 11:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The reasons a subject might fail WP:V are irrelevant. That it does is relevant. If all you have for factual information are forum posts and whispered back alley conversations, the subject isn't encyclopedic; it isn't as if prizes are being given out to the First Creators of Articles. Come on back when the game satisfies the requirements of WP:V. RGTraynor 19:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete As was pointed out, parts of this article have been denied by developers. The fact that unknown parts of what the article presents as facts have been confirmed while other unknown parts of it have been denied makes it just too speculative. When exact confirmation and details are available, this article will have merit, but until then I really don't see how it belongs on Wikipedia when part of the article is known to be false. I'd vote for a rewording, but it's impossible to identify the inaccurate parts yet. 85.81.127.21 11:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There has been no official statement by Arenanet denying parts of that article. Only informal posts on fansite forums. It is even possibile that those forum post are inaccurate and actually all the informations provided by The inquirer are true. I repeat, we are not bound to provide official informations only, and if there is a leak like this, wikipedia must report it, IMHO. --Twilight 12:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• These "informal" posts have been by a community manager and have long been established as a legitimate channel for official information. Certainly more legitimate than an "anonymous source" in a questionable article. You used these "informal" posts yourself to justify your Keep, so I believe that makes it hypocritical to question the validity of the same posts to challenge a Delete. Wikipedia must certainly not "report" anything. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news portal or general information dump. Even when discarding the posts made by developers, this is nothing but an unsubstantiated rumour, and creating a Wikipedia article based solely on rumour or speculation is a big no-no. Mikkelm 12:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is no rumor, this is a source written by a professional journalist, who puts his reputation and the reputation of his magazine in his article. Denying relevance of alternative sources of information, you are basically giving Arenanet the monopoly of news about its products. Arenanet can decide what can be published on wikipedia and what cannot, simply informally denying or not confirming them. This is censorship. --Twilight 16:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There are several things wrong with using this article as a source. It starts out by saying that "NCSoft has announced the development and release dates for regular annual expansion of Guild Wars universe", when NCSoft has in fact made no such announcement. The entire premise of the article is false. Beyond that, the grammar of the article lends no credibility to the author's supposed journalistic professionalism. I am all for trusting trustworthy sources, but The Inquirer's track record inspires little confidence that they belong in this group, and I do not believe that a blanket claim like "trustworthy source" can be applied here. This has nothing to do with censorship. It's simply not encyclopaedic. 85.81.127.21 17:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, certainly problems with WP:ATT, and without that no article Alf^Photoman 14:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete game expansion not notable in its own right, even if it does exist in the form stated. Percy Snoodle 16:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is an entire category of articles about game expansions -.- --Twilight 16:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with the provision that this content be merged if the expansion is named different. While it's certainly possible that this could be false, if it were false information, that itself might be worth including in the future article. In fact, given the denial mentioned above, that alone makes it worth including in my book. If there's an article for Guild Wars expansions in general though, I could support a merge there. FrozenPurpleCube 17:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Expansion pack for a computer game which has not even be released yet. Not notable in any way. -- Necrothesp 19:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, as per Twilight's Strong Keep. -- Ianiceboy 00:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete It may be true, but I think it'd be nice to at least wait until ArenaNet makes an official announcement on it or else this could end up being just another false alarm like the Guild Wars: Utopia article was... --Rambutaan 04:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Guild Wars. Hardly any information for a stand alone article at this time. Announcements from the game maker are not necessarily the most important announcements, but as of this moment the sole source is an online gossip 'zine. If these details were announced in the GDC, there should be wider coverage from other reliable sources. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 07:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Im fine with the redirect: at least informations will be reported, and when new sources will be available, we will be easily able to rexpand it into a stand-alone article. --Twilight 08:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination Withdrawn as per the redirect. Mikkelm 12:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as page is now a redirect, which is appropriate. Koweja 03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why nobody closes this nomination? the AfD message is awful on a redirect page. --Twilight 13:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 00:52Z

Action Girlz Racing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Game not yet released and "very little is known" according to article itself Guroadrunner 10:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unWP:Attributable at this point in time. Recreate if and only if sourced and verifiable information can be provided regarding the release and contents of the game. -- saberwyn 11:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, a good search gets a few results from relatively reliable gaming sources; however, Gamespy says release has been canceled. I have no concept of game notability but it strikes me that canceled games probably aren't notable. gren グレン 12:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Only the PSP version was cancelled, IGN says that it was released in Europe for PS2 & Windows, with a Wii version on the way. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:ATT Alf^Photoman 15:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - an unreleased game which may never see the light of day. -- Whpq 17:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - now that proper sources have been found. -- Whpq 11:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, too little (read: nothing) about a not yet released game equals deletion.DreamingLady 21:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, little info about a canceled game. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 00:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 03:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable and non-existent. Koweja 03:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No information for a game that's not likely to ever have more information about it. The Kinslayer 09:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: A simple google search turns up plenty of info. [9] [10] [11] Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've cleaned it up a bit. There is now a proper infobox and info on the releases (it's out in Europe for PS2 and Windows). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the cleanup by Dread Lord CyberSkull. The comments to "delete" no longer seem applicable: the article has been sourced (meets WP:A), the game has been released in Europe (it just hasn't arrived in the US yet), it hasn't been cancelled (just one version of three), and it certainly exists. -- Black Falcon 07:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep It is a real game. It was released in Europe about 2 years ago, and is coming out for the Wii this year. It's just that games released only in Europe (or only in Australia) don't get much press in North America. TJ Spyke 00:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under criterion A7 by BigHaz with reason (db-bio). Kyra_~(talk) 11:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ilham Hussain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non Notable Oblivious 11:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Speedy delete, I won't do it right now... but any other admin can see that it makes no real assertion of notability. gren グレン 12:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion of notability. Vicjm 15:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. About as non-assertive of notability as it's possible to get. RGTraynor 19:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People aren't usually just notable for being somebody else's spouse. -- Necrothesp 19:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete under criterion A7; the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. So tagged. Kyra_~(talk) 10:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 00:53Z

Owen Ingraham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unverifiable biography, possibly hoax. No sources for claims to notability are given, and among the 25 Google hits for Owen Ingraham[12] are none that appear to be about the subject of this article. Article speedied twice, prod removed, so now an AfD to decide this once and for all. Basically, fails WP:V. Fram 11:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, if somehow possible Speedy Alf^Photoman 15:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No attribution for his "breakthrough discoveries on a topic that had puzzled psychologists for years." Plus, a Google search of [Owen Ingraham "acute manic depression"] gets no hits, even though that is his supposed area of expertise and fame. Vicjm 15:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A youngish academic with no real assertion of notability and no references to back up the claims that are there. -- Necrothesp 19:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 00:54Z

Response to Maududi's commentary of verse 42:23 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The best I can tell is that this is a very narrow piece of original research. While maybe neutral commentary on a verse would be a good thing, an article that's a response to a someone's interpretation of a verse that has no article is problematic. gren グレン 12:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOT a forum for debate, and the use of first-person instantly makes this a violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. 23skidoo 14:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per 23skidoo. -- BPMullins | Talk 16:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as wikipedia isn't a wbe forum. POV essay. -- Whpq 17:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Probably original research, and far too rambling and unfocused to make a decent article. -- Necrothesp 19:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete if possible. Feels like it is hedging on WP:POINT. --Dennisthe2 20:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  08:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV essay.Proabivouac 09:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have not seen the topic but its title is not encyclopedia and we cannot create such articles. --- ALM 10:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Webkami 15:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. ITAQALLAH 01:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cs 23:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 00:54Z

Upcoming Human League album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There is no confirmation on this album, no title, no release date, no record label, no tracklist, no producer informaion. The article has no details and the infobox contains non-free images in the chronology section. No reason for this page's existence until there is at least some kind of announcement made or a working title. - eo 13:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unsourced crystal balling. Why do people insist on creating these sorts of articles when there isn't even a title announced? 23skidoo 14:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because they think there's some sort of cosmic karmic prize awarded to The First Person Who Writes An Article About This Supremely Important Subject. Oh, and delete per nom. RGTraynor 19:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I want that award! I'm starting the article on Britney Spears' 23rd studio album. - eo 19:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Your award is right behind that cow barn. Can't miss it. (grins) RGTraynor 20:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unsourced and almost completely content free. -- Whpq 17:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable possible future event. -- Necrothesp 19:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At least they specified it was an album by Human League, which is an improvement over the last one of these I ran across. FreplySpang 20:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No cover, no track list, no solid release date. Pure crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 20:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Recording new material is Philip Oakey's aspiration for the group this year and is not a certainty. Almost certainly nothing released before 2008 and may not even be in the form of a traditional studio album at all. Article is inaccurate and unhelpful speculation. Delete asp.Andi064 19:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but not before I can create Upcoming subsequent Human League album. ObtuseAngle 19:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 01:02Z

Lyndon Ashmore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable per WP:BIO ScienceApologist 13:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unsourced, fails WP:V, WP:N and probable conflict with WP:BLP Alf^Photoman 15:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "a british person that lives in the United Arab Emirates". Yup. Good. -- Necrothesp 19:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The subject of the article does not meet the notability criteria for people. Furthermore, the information within the article is not attributed to a reliable source, and as such, it fails the policy relating to the biographies of living persons. Kyra_~(talk) 10:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Soapmaking. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 01:06Z

Make your own soap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of material. Last June, someone tagged this to be transwikied to Wikibooks, but the article has remained as status quo. If no one wants to transwiki or do anything with this, then it should simply be deleted.--Aude (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-encyclopedic. There's already a Wikibooks page about this topic. ObtuseAngle 16:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delte as a how-to guide. -- Whpq 17:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as how-to guide Parts of the article might be appropriate for merger into Soap, but the overall theme of the article is a how-to guide on making soap which violates the WP:NOT policy against how-to guides and instruction manuals. I'd say delete and, if necessary, merge things like an explanation of how soap works into Soap or Soapmaking or another appropriate article. Dugwiki 18:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, largely copied from soapmaking. Also, the latter article could use cleanup. --Ginkgo100^talk 19:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)d[reply]
• Stick it on Wikihow. We're not a guide of howtos. --Dennisthe2 20:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Fight Club. On second thought, delete per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 22:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to the article being what Wikipedia is not, specifically, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Kyra_~(talk) 08:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hold On! I saw we take this information and move it somewhere better before deleting it from the main Wikipedia, therefore, I am saying temporary keep. Guroadrunner 21:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One way to "hold on" would be to copy the article to your user space as a draft. That way the actual text of the article is preserved for you or other people to tinker with, but it won't appear in the article space itself. Dugwiki 21:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked out WikiHow yet? --Dennisthe2 22:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Zsinj^Talk 03:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiatus Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable road. This is akin to any other road in any random place on Earth. A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 14:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reads like its out of a Council Department document! --PrincessBrat 19:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Just left a message on the user's page because I am not sure they are completely familiar with how Wikipedia works, we should leave this open until at least that person can have a say. And perhaps learn more about the Wiki in the process.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 04:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did create this page but when i created it it was merely a sentence long it was sysplace who completely rewrote feel free to delete it if you think that is appropriate i am ndifferent on the matter. (sorry about the bad grammer i wrote tis in a rush) --Death Star III 00:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doyenne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is just the definition of a word. I see no potential here for expansion into an actual article Xyzzyplugh 14:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - dictionary definition that has already been transwikied. -- Whpq 17:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom.-- Carabinieri 22:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Dictionary definition with little to no possibility of expansion --DSRH | talk 16:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to List of GameCube games. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 01:09Z

Chronological list of GameCube games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Here's the thing, if this list was done and perfect, I'd see no reason to delete it. However, it is only about 20 to 40% complete, and the only user who seems active it working on it is User:Bovineboy2008. Now, I don't want to just destory all of the hard work he's done, but I also don't want him to waste anymore time on a list that we may not even want. As it stands, it's just an inferior shoot-off of List of GameCube games which, at this pace, won't be done until the end of the year. Also, I don't like encouraging more than one list for a console, as it's hard enough to keep just one up to date. So I think we should go ahead and either kill it or save it, but not let it dangle in this semi-finished state. SeizureDog 15:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 21:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 21:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - The list seems redundant at best. Though I must say, incompleteness (unless it can never be complete) isn't a good reason to delete something as the nature of the wiki encourages incomplete entries to be completed later when other editors come upon an article.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 15:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - I think that we should get more people to work on it, or else it won't be done until next Christmas. If we can't get more people to work on it, then delete it or use it to help with the other list if it needs help. --Austinsimcox 15:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The length of time it will take to complete this is irrelevant there is no deadline. The list is useful and should be allowed to be completed. Shimaspawn 16:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep So, it is only being worked on by one user, and he'll take a while to complete it? So what? That's not grounds for deletion. The organizational information it offers is reasonable, see also prior discussion on the Playstation lists. If you're really troubled by it being a separate list, talk to the user about merging the information to the List of Gamecube games or working on it in his/her userspace. FrozenPurpleCube 17:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Incompleteness is a reason for cleanup, but not usually a reason for deletion. So unless there's another problem with the article, I'd say keep and hopefully interested editors will get it updated. Dugwiki 18:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Incompleteness isn't a reason to delete, but the list is somewhat redundant, and List of GameCube games contains far more information. I'm undecided as to whether the chronological format is of use; I think there's an argument to be made. But I think this list should be expanded with some of the other's information (developer, publisher) in order to make it more useful, or else the dates should be merged to the other list (which contains years, but not exact dates, of release currently). Hm... wonder whether there's a way to make a table sortable by selected header... Shimeru 19:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Too much redundancy with List of GameCube games, so merge the release date data. Wikitables sortable by column has already been done successfully, example: List of Wii games. --SubSeven 21:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per SubSeven. The redundancy could be easily avoided by merging the articles together and supplying a sortable wikitable. Arkyan 21:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was wondering if we had code for stuff like this. Are we capable of making tables where we can do things like "Sort by title/year/company" etc? Or what exactly do you mean.--SeizureDog 14:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, we have code that does that and makes it quite easy to incorporate. The example listed above by SubSeven is a good example of how it works. Arkyan 19:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops, missed that. Links next to sigs=easy to miss. In that case, merge ftw.--SeizureDog 20:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Can also support above merge The above merge using a sortable table sounds pretty reasonable. I'd support that or keeping, either one. Dugwiki 22:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to sortable table. Dr bab 13:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 03:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to a sortable table, since incompleteness is not a deletion criterion; it clearly has narrow enough scope to be maintainable. — brighterorange (talk) 05:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is no deadline to complete articles. That being said, I believe a merge to List of GameCube games and converting that into a sortable table (if I remember correctly, class="sortable prettytable") is appropriate. Two additional suggestions: replace "Year" in List of GameCube games with "Date" (in the format [[YYYY-MM-DD]] and eliminate sorting by letter (essentially a prerequisite for a sortable table). -- Black Falcon 07:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, since closing admins are not slaves, I recommend closing as keep and suggesting a merge (if that is indeed the consensus) on one or more talk pages. -- Black Falcon 07:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I see no pressing reason to delete, given that articles such as Chronology of PlayStation 2 games hasn't been nominated either. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be fine with nominating that as well...--SeizureDog 13:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Coredesat 06:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yisroel Dovid Weiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - The attendance of Neturei Karta at the conference may be notable, not every participant is notable. Avi 06:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep First I'd just like to say: Wow, Avi, you put so much work into it sourcing and are now nominating it/. you are a better person than I am. That said, weak keep Weiss is the head spokesperson it seems for his part of Neuterei Karta and has been the subject of a variety of articles such as the NYT piece which is cited in the article (the piece I think focused on Weiss. I'll look it up later to make sure)). JoshuaZ 07:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thank you . I am putting work in, for as long as it is in wiki, it is a Bio, and must have extra care taken per WP:BLP, but really do not think HE is notable. The article is 95% about the visit, not the person, so that is a failure of notability for the person, in my opinion. -- Avi 07:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep obvious notability given wide media coverage, look at all those sources for crying out loud.  ⇒ bsnowball  10:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment And they are all about the VISIT, not the MAN. See my initial comment above. While the attendance may be notable, that does not mean the individual participants are. Also, as a matter of procedure, this is not a "Speedy" keep, per se. You may mean "Strong" keep. -- Avi 12:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Avi 12:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete The attendance at the conference are notable, but the individuals are not. Most of the "citations" which are positive toward Mr. Weiss are rife with misrepresentations. From his title as Rabbi, which is not supported by any indicia of scholarship or ordination, to the extent of his support, Mr. Weiss and six or seven of his cronies have sucked many into their delusional world where they are believed to somehow espouse the true "Jewish voice." To the extent that this article is not written like others concerning eccentrics like the Joshua Norton, the self-styled emperor of the United States, or David Koresh, a self-proclaimed Messiah, this article is, to be perfectly frank, silly, irrelevant, and concerns a non-notable individual who was remarkably successful in convincing non Jews that he is somehow notable in the Jewish world. Bravo. Good Show. 67.81.158.13 15:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC) — 67.81.158.13 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is not a "Speedy"; there are no procedural issues here. Perhaps you meant "Strong". -- Avi 18:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete This is purely a fact based issue. Mr. Weiss is not notable. He is not a Rabbi. He claims to represent an already splintered group of Neturei Karta followers. He actually claims to have HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of SUPPORTERS, even though he has about seven. His ideas are just a ruse to justify the donations he recieved from Arafat and continues to recieve from other avowed terrorists. He claims to lecture in a school which does not exist. Frankly, every thing stated in this article is untrue, save the fact he was condemned by the entire Jewish world--whether religious or non-religious, Zionist, or non-Zionist. It is made by an imposter who has not made a single notable achievement in his entire life except fool a non Jews like bsnowball who knows absolutely nothing about what he really is about and likes him only for political reasons (even though he has never and will never achieve anything of significance because he is completely out of his mind!). How this could have been going on for so long is beyond me. I strongly advocate this stain on Wikipedia's standards and firmly hope it is removed speedily. DavidCharlesII 15:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)— DavidCharlesII (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • David, we know you don't like the man and don't like what he stands for. Neither do I. That doesn't alter whether or not we should have an article on him. JoshuaZ 15:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sorry, but this has nothing to do with whether I like him or not. There is nothing notable about Mr. Weiss. He is assumed to be notable simply because he is a media hound and lied to appear notable. That's not notable. The only ones who are disputing his notability are those who don't know better, or, as in the past, have very strong anti-Israel political issues. DavidCharlesII 15:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please assume good faith and be civil. Whether he is a media hound and whether he has lied aren't relevant. Please actually read WP:BIO- what matters is the existence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources. And we seem to have that. JoshuaZ 16:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Wow. This is really funny. You have Rabbi 67 and Rabbi David Charles attempting to add facts into this article to at least salvage it, and others who know nothing about the issues change it because it does not feel right--all while maintaining that the lies Mr. Weiss made are somehow sourced because they are in op-eds, while other op-eds are not "reliable." Hillarious. Mr. Weiss is a non-event, a nobody. No one ever heard of him. Everything about him in this article is untrue except for the fact that he was in Tehran and is banned from everything Jewish. I mean, come on, when do we start adding town idiots and town drunks to Wikipedia? Are they important, too? Rabbi 67 and David Charles deserve commendation for what they have tried to do. I think this is a better route. Take this piece of nonsense out of wikipedia. Unless, of course, you write an article about a flat Earth, making it sound like its true--based on sources from the 14th century. Its funny, but come on, its not an encyclopedia. — SuperCharedi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Strong Delete Weiss is not noteworthy.DanielFriedberg 15:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC) — DanielFriedberg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep The subject appears to meet notability guidelines. Leebo⁸⁶ 15:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does the MAN meet the standards, or does the MEETING meet the standards -- they are two different things! -- Avi 15:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the man meets the standards, as far as I can tell. Please don't shout at me or assume I'm not reading. Leebo⁸⁶ 15:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No offense meant, just trying to clarify what I beleive is a misconception. Care to explain why you believe the man is notable? -- Avi 15:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • From a strictly neutral basis, he has been the subject of several non-trivial publications by reliable sources. Now, whether or not the article appropriately reflects his notability is something different and I'm not sure what the answer for that is. Leebo⁸⁶ 15:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Better yet, I am curious as to the worthiness of the sources which give the appearance of Mr. Weiss's notablity. Seeing as no one ever heard of him in the Jewish world, it is harldy likely that he is notable, aside from the lies he tells the press, which were discussed both here and on the discussion boards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCharlesII (talk • contribs)
  • David, he gets major press coverage. Whether he does that by lying to the press or not isn't that relevant. What matters is whether he passes WP:BIO. JoshuaZ 15:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But what makes him notable? Something HE did? Hardly. The meeting is may be significant in the eyes of some, but it does not make him noteworthy. Do you know everyone who fought in the Civil war? Let's get ALL the names now. SuperCharedi 16:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, the NYT article and other sources focus on Weiss. He therefore meets WP:BIO. JoshuaZ 16:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It does not focus on Weiss. We can have an article on him saying that there was an NYU article which quoted Weiss who explained why he and six others decided to meet someone who decided he will go to Tehran. Yay. That's not notable. 67.81.158.13 16:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It has a large amount of material on Weiss and quotes from him extensively. For example, it includes this paragraph "Rabbi Weiss, 54, grew up in the Orthodox neighborhood of Borough Park, Brooklyn, the son of Hungarians who fled Eastern Europe before Hitler’s troops closed its borders to Jews. He married 18 years ago and has six children. The family moved to Monsey seven years ago, solidifying Neturei Karta’s presence in the town." among others. JoshuaZ 16:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sounds incredibly trivial. His connection with the Tehran conference was what was important. While we are at it, you might have a point. An old lady was quoted today in NYT--Gertrude Rothman--she is 87, lives in the Bronx, likes to shop at the store across the block. She went there to buy salmon. she was wearing a pink blouse. Oh yeah, the subject of the article was about a robbery next door. 67.81.158.13 18:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Um, this is a) more info than that, b) the example paragraph is not the only one about him c) as already observed, there are other sources as well, such as the Fox News sources. JoshuaZ 19:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Whether through fame or infame he seems clearly to meet notability criteria. --BozMo talk 15:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable. - NYC JD (make a motion) 16:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If we have an NK page we should have moshe hirsch and yisroel weiss pages. --Shuli 16:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the point is not what he is noted for (and therefore notable) but THAT he is noted. After extensive sourcing of this article this should be clear to all Alf^Photoman 16:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I provided most of the sources, and yet I still, or more likely because of that, feel that he is not notable, (I nominated it ;) ) as all the sources are really about the event and not the man. -- Avi 17:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But both the NYT and the Fox News coverage focues on Weiss. JoshuaZ 17:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, sincerely I was hitting the sack in want of hitting the donkey. You more than anyone else should know that there is a certain amount of notability that we can attribute to the subject ... even if -- and here I agree with you -- the event was way more notable than the subject Alf^Photoman 17:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT Please check Avi's somewhat wild claims about the article & his input. The article does mention other facts, a conference in Durban 5 years ago etc. Also Ari has been adding to this disproportion by adding more stuff about the conference. Go figure.  ⇒ bsnowball  17:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sincerely request you review the policy of assuming good faith, bsnow. The reason for my hours of work on this article, is, as I clearly stated above, that it is a biography of a living person, so any remotely controversial statement (such as the agudah and Edah statements) MUST be sourced. I went through the opening of the article, sentence by sentence, and searched for reliable sources to support the text, with the intent of removing any statement that was unsupported, per WP:BLP. COme to think of it, you should review WP:BLP, WP:ATT, and {{WP:CIVIL]] while you are at it, I am afraid. I would say that if everyone here paid as much attention to wiki policies as they do to personal political preference (how's THAT for alliteration ), we would all be better off. I know better than to ask for an apology from you, but you really need to take a step back and make sure you are not letting persoanl points-of-view overwhelm your ability to edit wiki in accordance with its rules. -- Avi 18:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a balanced, well-sourced article which makes a solid case for Weiss' notability. And notability is the only issue which falls under our purview. I am militantly disinterested, as I hope the closing admin will be, in whether Weiss is "entitled" to be called a rabbi, the popularity (or lack thereof) of his organization or the degree to which he is obviously loathed by a faction here on Wikipedia. It does strike me as odd that so many folk know so much about someone they are claiming is non-notable, but ultimately, it's well to remember this: Wikipedia is not written to personally please you. RGTraynor 18:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor is it to personally please you. The lies throughout the papers which are not about him but his organization are not so notable as to justify an entry in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.158.13 (talk • contribs)
    • Well, frankly, were I an anonymous IP with no other edits on Wikipedia save for this discussion, I wouldn't myself presume to preach on what justifies an entry here or not. For my own part, I'm still bemused that so many people seem to know so much about a fellow they then go on to claim is non-notable. If that's really so, from what sources did you learn so much? RGTraynor 19:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I appreciate that you are bemused. I find it amusing that my history shows that I have made so few edits. I made hundreds. And I can preach on what makes fundamental sense. I would gladly prepare a beautiful article on Gertrude Rothman, a sweet, bubbly 87 year old lade who was quoted in the NYT. She likes fish, especially trout, believes that kids are not the way they used to be, and likes to shop in a stor across the street from her house. She lives in the Bronx. Even though she was quoted in the broader context of a burglarly next door, I think she is noteworthy. She was quoted in the Post, too, after all. Weiss is no less. Naturally, it is somewhat surprising that people know "so" much about him. Like the fact he was excomunnicated by every Jewish faction--Zionist or or anti-Zionist. Or that he lies about the extent of his support (a fact several anti semites refuse to allow in the article), claiming he has Hundreds of Thousands of followers, when, in fact, he has less than a dozen. But this is what happens when someone goes out in the open, pandering to the media, and calling himself Rabbi (demanding the title, actually, he did that on Radio), and proclaiming himself to be the true voice of Judaism. Before proclomations are made, one must find out who on Earth this eccentric is. If this article was written about an eccentric, Like Joshua Norton, for example, I would not have a problem with it. But to make him sound any more defies logic, common sense, and most significantly for wikipeida, the facts. The reality is that we don't write articles about mongrels on the street who are quoted on the news. We don't write articles about town drunks who people may know about. We certainly need not write an article about someone whose only significance is that he claims to lead a organization which he does not. Neturei Karta was split up between Rabbi Blau's followers. Weiss, at best, follows the view of one of those followers. Because he was excomunnicated by all, how could he be regarded as legit? How could this not be qualified in the article about him? Because all he is doing is talking about this follower's orgniazation, and its efforts in America to pander with the axis of Evil, we can quote it within the broader scope of what he's talking about. But there is no need to write about its insignificant, deranged messenger.67.81.158.13 19:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please stop ranting and explain how he doesn't meet this policy. JoshuaZ 19:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let's see. Mr. Weiss would probably fall under Creative professionals: scientists, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals.
          • This would mean he would have to be:
          • The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.
          • The person is regarded as an important figure or significant expert by peers.
          • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or idea.
          • The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of multiple independent works, reviews, or documentaries.
          • The person or their work has been widely cited by authors, or is the basis for respected curriculum.
          • The person's work is or has been displayed in notable museums or exhibitions, or as a recognised monument.
          • Mr. Weiss does not fall under this category. Furthermore, "Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable." Most of the coverage on him is trivial, incidental coverage. moreover, there is little content to add aside from his date of birth, the amount of children he has and what he claims. Everything is else is completely made up. The problem is that anti semites refuse to allow in the sources that prove this. Believe me, many have tried to clean up this cesspool of lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.158.13 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 6 March 2007
            • Quite. I'm waiting for that myself, amidst the blizzard of straw man arguments, loaded statements, insults and other irrelevancies. Frankly, there have been a number of hugely contested Judaism-related AfDs lately, and I can't be the only editor weary to death to the degree to which Wikipedia policies are plowed under the torrent of ideological squabbling boiling down to nothing more pertinent than "We hate this subject so it needs to be deleted." Great, so a bunch of you regard this guy as a nutcase and a traitor to Judaism and fervently wish the world ignored his existence; we get it. So stipulated; either source your assertions that he's a con man or move on. RGTraynor 20:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • • Talk about loaded statements, straw man arguments and insults!!! I apologize if my arguments are too much for you. He said on many occassions that he has hundreds of thousands of followers. He does not even have a hundred. He's a con man. 67.81.158.13 20:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • And his number of followers has nothing to do with whether he meets WP:BIO or not. What matters is sourcing, now can you explain why given the sourcing he does not meet WP:BIO? JoshuaZ 20:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • On form, I doubt he will; I'm getting the strong impression this is far less about verifiable fact than about propaganda. Beyond that, the article makes no mention of "hundreds of thousands," nor does the NK article (which has been written in a demonizing, jeering format which wouldn't be supported in the Nazi, KKK or Aryan Nations articles). RGTraynor 20:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC) *comment removed due to WP:BLP concerns*[reply]
                      • And again, that's not relevant. Now does he meet WP:BIO or not? JoshuaZ 20:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to fit the notability guidelines, but just so - in short, close enough. --Dennisthe2 20:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Prominence in the news is prominence. The article makes no claims that he is more than he is, a person who made a perverse speech at a widely observed international gathering--a speech which attracted widespread notice. I do not attempt to tell whether the attempt to delete this article is due to the true but erroneous belief that this coverage did not occur, to the wish that it had not occurred, or to the view that WP should try to pretend such events are nonnotable in order to avoid encouraging them. It is sometimes hard to distingish between genuine ignorance and bias. .DGG 01:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree that this individual is notable under a fair reading of WP:BIO and notability is clearly backed by adequate attribution. Whether or not what he says is true or good or beautiful is completely irrelevant to his notability. End of story. --Shirahadasha 01:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is clearly notable. CJCurrie 01:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A thorough, well-researched and balanced article that uses reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. Alansohn 04:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to new article: People identified with Neturei Karta similar to Russian space dogs and Monkeys in space because this guy is not notable in and of himself. (The dogs and monkeys had as much to do with the Russian space program as Mr. Weiss has to do with his "adopted" cause. See also: Animals in space.) IZAK 13:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ignoring the fact that you are comparing this man to animals, it's not an adequate analogy. He has had coverage that focused on him alone. That qualifies him for passing WP:BIO. Leebo^t|c 13:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leebo you are obviously not following my point. I am comparing the content of articles. The fact that space dogs have had "coverage" focused on them does not make them "different" to other ordinary, non-notable, dogs. A dog is a dog is a dog. And a non-entity is a non-entity is a non-entity. One cannot lose site of reality due to misapplication of Wikipedia rules. IZAK 12:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • At what point do you draw the line between saying someone is notable on their own or just one of the participants in something notable? Is a professional athlete notable outside of their team? Many are not, but they still get individual coverage and thus pass WP:BIO. It can't be a subjective question. Leebo ^T/C 12:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, I'm sure it's possible for a dog to be notable enough to have its own article. However, the notability guidelines for a dog would surely not be identical to those of a man, so I don't think there's any use in comparing the two. If the subject has had articles that focused on him, then he passes the guidelines. Leebo ^T/C 12:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Avi. There is a world of difference between and article about a person and an article that mentions a person. While Weiss has been mentioned in the news there is not coverage of him as a person. A while ago there was an someone who tried to claim a person had media coverage from the line "the writer of this opinion piece is...". That simply doesn't cut it. As Weiss was not the main subject of any of the articles the author does not engage in the same level of fact checking. Jon513 14:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:BIO explicitly states: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." This is precisely what we've done in the article. Nowhere does that policy ask for articles solely about the person, so this line of argument is utterly irrelevant.  ⇒ bsnowball  16:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response The primary criterion for notability, per WP:BIO, is "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other." In WP:BIO TOPIC referes to the PERSON. In this article, all of the notability is in reference to the EVENT. As I said when I nominated this for deletion, the EVENT may well be, and in my opinion, IS notable. But NOT Mr. Weiss. None of these sources are about HIM outside of the EVENT. It really is not that difficult of a differentiation, in my opinion. What about it do you find incorrect? -- Avi 16:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The part where you link, inaccurately, the sum total of Weiss' notability with said event, and the inference that someone isn't notable outside the setting for his or her notoriety. Few people could pass WP:BIO under that premise. RGTraynor 17:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just because there exist articles that should not be in the encyclopedia is not a blanket license for other such articles. On the point whether Weiss is notable outside of the event, I guess we will agree to disagree and let the AfD run its course. Thanks for the reply. -- Avi 18:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • People become notable from what they do, and what events they participate in. He has become notable by participating in the conferences, and by delivering the speech he gave there. This makes him notable, and it is shutting one's eyes to reality that make it possible to think otherwise. He if had merely gone to the concert and said nothing, and if no articles had been written centered around his activities there, then there would be a case. (I think that even then there would have been coverage about him a an individual, because the very fact of someone from his community going there was N, and recognized so in news coverage even before the speech was given.--and that would have made him notable. But after the delivery of the speech, probably every newspaper in the world had an article focused on him--the items given are a very small selection. Articles focused on his individual contribution to the meeting, not just about the meeting. We do not make it less Notable by eliminating the article--what we do, is make ourself unreliable as a source for major newsworthy figures of our own time.
            • There is a possible argument that those newsworthy because of extensive tabloid coverage of trivial events do not merit an article. This was not a trivial event. DGG 23:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]