Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 22

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kimchi.sg (talk | contribs) at 03:39, 22 February 2007 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4.2.2.2). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< February 21 February 23 >

Purge server cache


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

The result was Delete, per WP:SNOW. Page userfied. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 08:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Bruno Zorn

Artist/Music teacher with no third party sources to verify supposed notability. SERSeanCrane 22:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 08:58Z

Aquaria

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

Non-notable band with non-notable members. Article does not mention any reason why this band is notable, except the fact it exists. — Kieff | Talk 00:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 08:59Z

Tyler MacNiven

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

Reality tv cruft - not notable! MacRusgail 00:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - even setting aside the notability that I believe is inherent in winning The Amazing Race, MacNiven is notable for his college admission campaign, for which a number of sources are given in the article. "Cruft" is not a reason for deletion. Otto4711 00:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I do not see how either of these are notable. Must we list the winner of every national lottery, or a person who has run a minor political campaign? --MacRusgail 00:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC) p.s. plenty of things have been deleted for being cruft of one kind or another. Please check the records.[reply]
      • MacRusgail, if the subject passes WP:N (and in the case of a human subject, WP:BIO suffices) then yes, we must not delete the article. The primary criterion being the existence of "multiple, independent, nontrivial sources". In this case, it is clearly a keep. (edit: also please reread WP:ILIKEIT for why 'cruft' is not a reason for deletion. —siroχo 00:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One could argue that his admission campaign, his filmmaking career, and his TAR performance each make him notable by themselves. Combined, this one is a no-brainer. In the interest of disclosure, I am the main author of this article. --Maxamegalon2000 00:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep His funny little college campain and very minor (uncredited) appearence in a move are NOT notable and do nothing to help keep the article. Winning The Amazing Race is the only notable thing he has done and the only reason i'm voting to keep. TJ Spyke 01:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, let's not forget the other film he produced, directed, and appeared in. --Maxamegalon2000 01:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which appears to be a non-notable documentary. I wouldn't be surprised if that ends up being nominated for deletion (regardless of the outcome of this AFD). TJ Spyke 01:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 08:59Z

Sarah Reinertsen

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

Reality tv cruft - not notable! MacRusgail 00:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many things make you notable (though I tend to agree with you on the Pokemon), but we need sources and references, especially when we are talking about living persons Alf photoman 23:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. If no merge, Delete. Not notable. TV guide and MySpace are not encyclopaedic. - WeniWidiWiki 01:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup per Siroxo, Maxamegalon2000, and others. Meets notability criteria, and plenty of sources available. Needs cleanup is not a reason for deletion. schi talk 02:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article as it stood was pathetic, but has improved beyond all recognition since I put a merge tag on the article, and also since the AfD debate began. There is sufficient assertion/achievement for me to believe it worth preserving. The article still needs to be sourced, though, and there appear to be plenty of weblinks to choose from amongst all the GHits. Ohconfucius 03:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep *Merge into the main article please. MarlaB 09:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Have to change my vote. If these had been listed one at a time I probabaly would have bit. See my comments at Leonid the Magnificent.MarlaB 10:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is being nominated for deletion under false pretenses, multiple non-trivial sources exist which demonstrate notability. (jarbarf) 00:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Bad nomination. Delete all AfD cruft instead. - Denny 05:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 09:00Z

Ron Young

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

Reality tv cruft - not notable! MacRusgail 00:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 09:01Z

Kandice Pelletier

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

Reality tv cruft - not notable! MacRusgail 00:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She is not just a local beauty pageant titleholder but a state titleholder who has competed at the national Miss America pageant. There are numerous sources documenting her - some even before she won her state title - [8] [9] [10] [11] . What more do you need? -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 19:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I mentioned it up above but just so this stands out: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassandra Whitehead for an AFD nom on a reality tv contestant who didn't even win a state title but was kept at AFD. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 19:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep where in the criterion for notability does it say someone has to be internationally famous for them to be notable? let's follow the criteria as written, per WP Bio winning a notable contest, being a ranking contestant in a notable national contest and appearing on television all could make her notable in and of themselves, taken together she is clearly notable. These types of articles I do think point to a problem with over-inclusiveness in WP:BIO, something I'd certainly be up for helping with, but I still think they should be followed until superceeded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wintermut3 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep and recommend speedy close the nominator has listed multiple AfD saying "Reality TV cruft not notable!" Poor reasoning and I would suspect bad faith nominations. Wooyi 22:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and speedy close per Wooyi. I'm hearing axe-grinding! —xanderer 23:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think wikipedia benefits from inclusion rather than exclusion. The more information included the better (within reason, of course). You just can't pretend to know what a wikipedia user will find useful. I can envision someone writing a column about the Reality TV craze 10 years from now finding this information very useful. Plus her entry will already be half-done when she marries an aging governor in fifteen years. xanderer 23:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 09:01Z

Alison Irwin

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

Reality tv cruft - not notable! MacRusgail 00:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 09:01Z

Fred Holliday

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

Reality tv cruft - not notable! MacRusgail 00:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 09:01Z

Kendra Bentley

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

Reality tv cruft - not notable! Plus does anyone have such a name, outside novels?! MacRusgail 00:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Please see Freddy Holliday vfd. These two could be merged to, for example Kendra Bentley and Freddy Holliday but they are definitely N. —siroχo 01:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep; seems to be marginally notable, and not liking the name is not a valid reason to delete the article – Qxz 04:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as the winner of The Amazing Race. Otto4711 04:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as satisfying Wikipedia:Notability; a quick search turns up nontrivial, independent sources in the top three hits. Kyra~(talk) 08:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is about the winner who won with that Frd Holliday person, its notability is strong, I wouldn't say its just a cruft with respect to the nominator.TellyaddictEditor review! 11:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the subject has no enduring interest and will be forgotten about within a couple of years (unless she does something else notable, and we have no reason to believe she will). Stamp it out now. Noroton 14:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable. --evrik (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any winner of The Amazing Race is at least as notable as a main character of a season of a TV show, since that's effectively what they are, and all the finalists are as notable as a major character would be if this were fiction. MacRusgail, like some other people, I'm uncomfortable with this entire series of nominations... I hate to accuse any serious editor of any kind of bad faith in things like this, but this feels like an attempt at making a WP:POINT, especially given the canvassing for votes you've done. On the other hand, I notice that you have in some of these discussions brought up the question of these people's international fame, and I wonder if you just are of the belief that national notability does not confer notability for the Wikipedia (which I'd strongly disagree with). Or, similarly, perhaps it's a case of WP:IDONTKNOWIT, since you're not from the U.S. -- I'm sure plenty of people here might be inclined to nominate Jade Goody, for example, but I'm guessing you have a better concept of her notability as opposed to that of the reality contestants you've nominated. I picked this one of the many nominated articles to say this just because, while I'm all in favor of saying funny things in AfD discussions, in this case the comment about the name just reinforced my feeling that you were making these nominations as some sort of crusade. Pinball22 17:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Pinball22—it's inappropriate to disparage people's names. Harry Lipschitz 23:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for temporal lack of notability. - WeniWidiWiki 01:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The winner of a large season-long TV show is notable due to the celebrity staus such a victory provides. Quoth WP:BIO: "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." This person appeared multiple times (in every episode I would guess, considering that he won) on a well-known TV production (The Amazing Race), and the contestants are the main people in the show.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 09:01Z

Tyler Denk

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

Reality tv cruft - not notable! Plus does anyone have such a name, outside novels?! MacRusgail 00:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- *Merge and Redirect to the appropriate Television show article. Same with the rest of the noms. FrozenPurpleCube 01:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 09:02Z

James Branaman

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

Reality tv cruft - not notable! MacRusgail 00:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is precedent for keeping articles on the winners of Survivor (TV series) regardless of whether they do anything else of note after their win. Hell, there's even precedent for keeping the runner up and some Survivor fans advocate keeping everyone in the top four. I don't watch Survivor but it seems to me that if winning a contest of sitting on an island for a month without pissing off enough people to vote you out is notable, then winning a 40,000+ mile race around the world is notable too. (and yes I know I'm simplifying Survivor). Otto4711 16:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 09:03Z

Leonid the Magnificent

Leonid the Magnificent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reality tv cruft. Not notable, and loser. The fact s/he has been turned down so often should be taken into account MacRusgail 00:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not forgetting Vlad the Impaler Suriel1981 15:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 09:04Z

Rappin' Granny

Rappin' Granny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reality tv cruft. She lost, not notable. MacRusgail 00:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would list them in opposite order, but yes, that seems to be my position, though I would be reluctant to refer to appearing on but not winning a television talent contest as "failure". In fact, I would rephrase "failure on talent contest and bit parts" as "finalist on nationwide televised talent contest and television character actress." --Maxamegalon2000 02:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Her roles appear to be extremely minor, e.g. one of five "tea ladies" on the Lady Killers remake, and listed 28th on the cast listing of the film on the IMDB list [12]. Occasional roles on Everybody hates Chris neglible too. --MacRusgail 02:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, You have no way to assert that she will not be remembered in six months. You have no way of knowing what tv shows or movies she will be cast in. Decisions to remove people from wikipedia should not be based on conjecture. DanielZimmerman 15:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 09:05Z

Salisbury Road (Haringey)

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

Non-notable minor residential side street of no encyclopedic value. Saikokira 00:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Leyton. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 09:06Z

Oliver Close

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

Non-notable housing estate. There are some brief references to it on housing-related websites, but nothing specifically about Oliver Close Saikokira 00:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Two things interest me, a) the number of blocks of flats, which is reasonable, and b) the claims about its crime rate/poverty. If its crime rate/poverty is so bad, then it is notable, IMO. But I have googled the item, and found it hard to dredge through the articles concerning places of the same name. --MacRusgail 01:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with main article Leyton. MarlaB 10:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 09:06Z

Gosport Road estate

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

Non-notable housing estate in east London Saikokira 01:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Proto ► 13:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Roadshow

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

Fails WP:WEB. Non-notable e-zine/newsletter for magicians. Saikokira 01:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm Siroxo is right about the interwiki links and I will remove them after commenting below. - Mgm|(talk) 12:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seeing as I started Magic WikiProject I feel I have to comment on this. I found no evidence the editor (Rick Carruth) is known for anything besides the magazine, and without some notability for the editor, I can't see why an ezine with a limited readership should be kept. - Mgm|(talk) 12:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abracadabra per WP:SOAP. Ohconfucius 04:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tenative keep Can someone ensure that this is ran through Lexus-Nexus before any admin closes/deletes *OR* keeps? I've heard of this but can't confirm it's notability--but I think it's been around a long time. Magicians are a small community so it could easily be notable in their own media/journalism circles, which would satisfy 'multiple non-trivial sources' for their industry. - Denny 06:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all ViridaeTalk 03:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Books by Nick Shane

How to get a girlfriend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Dating tips for men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
How to attract women (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Promotional for books by Nick Shane; article about the author has been deleted several months ago as self-promotion. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 01:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete ViridaeTalk 03:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Holmes

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

Prod was removed without any comment by anon. Non notable, unsourced, content looks like a resume, googled first link was MySpace. John Lake 01:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean this edit by the major contributor[13], I reverted it for vandalism.--John Lake 03:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The copyvio issues are improved. But I think I was mistaken in thinking the JC Holmes ghits are his — I was confused by their being on parasitology by someone named J. Holmes. The Warren Wilson Holmes lists his initials as J.A. The first hits to J.A. Holmes are six and eight hits down, with 44 and 42 cites. Still respectable but not as good. I guess Jeff Holmes isn't even the most notable parasitologist named J. Holmes? —David Eppstein 04:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've touched up the article to avoid the copyvio issues David Eppstein correctly pointed out, and note that there is a Holmes JC from the "Department of Biology, The Rice Institute, Houston, Texas, USA" according to PubMed [14]; that could provide further proof this gent is notable, or mean we can discount the gscholar results. I am hesitant to conclude that his current position means he is not notable, as it is possible that he took this position in spite of academic advantage available at another institution. John Vandenberg 03:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was not my meaning.I meant that a 4yr schools faculty are not necessarily required to publish much, and, unlike a research university, his research quality cannot be assumed from the nature of the institution. I've known many 4yr college people who have published quite a lot. But in his case he doesnt seem to have done so. DGG 05:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I didnt mean to imply that you meant otherwise :-). It was just that when I searched for him as "Holmes JC", he seemed above par for 4yr college people so I had starting assuming there was more to the story; as David Eppstein has now pointed out, he is "Holmes JA", and when using that search criteria, he doesnt appear worth the effort. John Vandenberg 06:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to insulin. I read the AFD discussion before looking at the article, and decided that it would depend if what was there was a stub or not. As it's a four line stub, I'll redirect it (without removing the history) - any information not already in insulin can be merged in by anyone. Proto ► 13:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actrapid

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

This article contains only a brief definition of the term in question, is unsourced, and could be considered only useful as an advertisement for a particular brand name of insulin, which may or may not still be in use. However, User:DragonflySixtyseven says the drug was apparently widely used in its day, and people apparently search for it on Google, so I would be willing to consider that it just needs to be rewritten. Carolfrog 01:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Awyong J. M. Salleh 03:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mnemonic (Music)

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

contested speedy for NN, unreferenced music group delete Cornell Rockey 01:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. --Coredesat 02:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip grant

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

Nonsense/vanity page/no refs killing sparrows 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 09:07Z

Project Galileo

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

This is an article about a UK school's astronomy project. No assertion is made as to why this project is notable (despite the article having existed for over a year). The article is not supported by any references.

It should be noted however that the article was previously nominated for deletion here and the result was keep. Nonetheless I feel it fails WP:N and WP:V. WjBscribe 02:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, the project in itself is by far vaster than your average high school project, my problem is that I see no external reference and therefore notability is rightly questioned. I would proceed with an unreferenced tag and if no sources are added than and then proceed to deletion. Alf photoman 16:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added sources, and rewritten the text to turn some unattributed PR copy into a quote. I note there will be a rather complicated disam page to write, as there are some much larger projects known by this name and similar names. DGG 19:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep —xanderer United States 23:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unlike most such projects, the scope of this one suggests notability. I'm not happy about the quality of the references, but expect that they can be found, so I'd like to give this one the benefit of the doubt for now. Tag for References/Cleanup. WMMartin 13:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per revisions/notability. - Denny 06:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 09:08Z

Churchill County High School

Churchill County High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This just another unnotable public high school --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 02:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was this is silly. The process has been irreparably tainted. However I do think this guy was significant in his field. I recommend giving the article a bit of time to mature and revisiting this issue later if we must. Friday (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Shannon

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

Non-notable bio. Wikipedia is not a memorial. While Mr. Shannon may have been known within a small community for his newsletter/website, there are no actual independent, reliable sources about him as a subject, as required by WP:BIO-- just articles about Compaq/HP that he had written. --LeflymanTalk 02:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that Leflyman has vandalized the original page; and furthermore vandalized the new Shannon Knows DEC page listing by replacing the content with a redirect to the Terry Shannon page marked for deletion...Talk about self-serving!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Discpad (talk •contribs) 18:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment While it's obviously not a good idea to start messing with pages related to ones you've AfD'd, the nom was probably too kind with the Shannon Knows DEC page, which being simply a collection of links was a candidate for speedy deletion under A3 rather than redirection. This would all be a lot easier if someone could just source this article. Shannon appears to return a few Ghits, trouble is I can't find anything major that satisfies WP:BIO. If he's that notable, it shouldn't be that difficult, surely. EliminatorJR 19:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


[17]. Furthermore, Leflyman states false information because Terry Shannon was profiled in NetworkWorld Magazine— Preceding unsigned comment added by Discpad (talk • contribs) 09:58, 22 February 2007

Comment: This is the second (or third or however) repeat "Oppose" comment from Discpad/Dan --LeflymanTalk 17:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting a little out of hand. When I say notable I mean it in the Wikipedia sense. Please see WP:BIO and provide sources that meet WP:RS. We can't have an article sourced entirely from the subjects own writing and the memories of his friends.--Daniel J. Leivick 16:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As per WP:BIO The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.— 62.49.123.206 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose Shannon was not personally known to me, but his journalism was an important part of the industry I worked in for many years. If you can't find any hits on google this this says more about the duration and scope of the Web than about Shannon's significance at that time and in that industry (I was there, then, and I trust my own memories even though I can't substantiate them with web pages). --Zooko O'Whielacronx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.97.232.97 (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC). — 209.97.232.97 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Oppose As per WP:BIO, The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. Shannon was considered an authorative expert on HP and the high performance computing field, spoke at many conferences, and has been quoted as an authority in the articles of other established journalists on many occasions. See Techweb, OSNews, ITNews, HP Decus NZ. Pinkboy 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As per WP:BIO's central notability criteria requiring multiple (meaning more than one) newspaper (or similar) articles primarily concerned with the person. Additionally, when reading news about information provided by Mr. Shannon, it was clear that he had an amazing insight and credibility. Deleting this entry is senseless. Yonzie.
  • Oppose Shannon was regularly quoted in The Register [18], published a book that went to 5 editions, was used for quotes in HP's press releases [19][20], was a director of major HP User Group Encompass [21] and seems to have been active a great deal in pre-web days (for which there are obviously no links). Also thanked in the credits for a comprehensive history of the DEC Alpha. --Amaccormack 17:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:BIO is met in this case. The original nom could be applied to many other notable individuals; for example, Albert Einstein was only notable in the field of science. Shannon was known more in the print media than on the Internet; remember, the 'net isn't the only source of information. I also concur with the other oppose comments. --Joe Sewell 17:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup with additonal references. The individual is a technology author, and has at least one reliable source (Network World article), so it likely to be able to meet WP:RS, and WP:V -- Whpq 17:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As per WP:BIO, Shannon may not have been Bill Gates, but he was, at the time, a widely read, highly influential journalist and author. Granted, most of his contributions to technology journalism occurred when our over-zealous AfD experts were in diapers -- but his inclusion in Wikipedia is well within the established guidelines for notability. His publications are mostly pre-Web -- but the same could be said of Shakespeare. (Edited later to add): And just to give an idea of the perspective of Lefly, the main instigator of this deletion campaign, take a look at his own articles: numerous paeans to obscure rock bands no one's ever heard of, flop TV shows from 15 years ago, and totally inconsequential arts nonprofits. Compared to those subjects, Terry Shannon merits an encyclopedia of his own, never mind one page! User:info@kafalas.com
Lets try and discuss the merits of this article rather then attacking everyone who disagrees with you, it will not get you very far in an AfD. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As per WP:BIO, Let me add that Terry made a "difference" with a large number of us in the computing world, especially when DEC's star was shinning. That makes him notable to me. And to many others who may or may not read this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.36.62.139 (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose The WP:BIO guidelines are met by his "Introduction to Vax/Vms" book, required reading for all VAX administrators and is not only currently listed on Amazon.com but it is also required reading in several CompSci courses for 2007 [22] and [23]. Additionally, in the WP:BIO guidelines it is clearly stated that there is no firm policy regarding this topic. The intent of the notability guidelines is to keep vanity pages from filling Wiki. It is clear that his contributions to the fields of computing, reporting, and publishing over more than two decades rise above the level of a vanity page. User:TOJMatt 17:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To those who are new here - Welcome. To those who have supplied sources - Thanks. To those who are new to the wikipedia deletion process, please be aware that a nomination for deletion is not a call to arms to delete an article but instaed is the beginning of a process intended to improve wikipedia's handling of a page of claims about a subject. The result varies among: redirect to another article, merge content into another article, improve the article, or sometimes to delete the article if no other choice makes sense. This process is working well here. Thanks again to everyone for helping. WAS 4.250 18:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion I see that the guidlines themselves are the subject of dissent so some care should be used in trying to apply them in sitautions like this. I note under special cases The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. In my own experience as a DEC customer dating from the 60s I have to say that was the case for Terry. He was a very important piece of the DEC user culture for many years, giving us all a look inside DEC that was otherwise not available to most of us and that allowing us to make better decisions. As to citations and the like, we should keep in mind that much of what he did was under a pseudonym. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.116.166.40 (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose deletion I agree this article requires a complete rewrite. However, Terry Shannon was not "non notable". He was a legend in the DEC VAX/VMS world, and was generally seen as the industry source for insider knowledge of DEC, then Compaq, and later HP.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.69.224 (talk • contribs).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 09:08Z

Modus Operandi (film)

Modus Operandi (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film, could not find on imdb SERSeanCrane 02:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 09:09Z

Adam Pettet

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

Lack of notability, references or updates Ozgod 03:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 09:10Z

Adam Siegel

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

Lack of notability, references and updates. Ozgod 03:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it is either keep or not. Notable today is notable tomorrow, even if only a handful of people remember Alf photoman 16:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What if you want to find out which bands he's been in. You'd search by his name, right? - Mgm|(talk) 12:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I added a few simple references myself after a few seconds on Google, and I'm sure more can be had. Kafziel Talk 14:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Shaheen

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

Lack of notability, references and updates. Ozgod 03:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete ViridaeTalk 03:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4.2.2.2

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

An article on an IP address that happens to be the current home of a DNS server operated by a notable company. Notability is not associative and I'm doubly sure that's the case here - there is nothing special about this server itself; all this article says is that this DNS server acts like any other out there. Awyong J. M. Salleh 03:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

C:\>ping 4.2.2.2

Pinging 4.2.2.2 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 4.2.2.2:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),
    • My point is: Other countries/networks/regions will have their own super-fast DNS servers that the local network gurus swear by. If we're going to have an article on all of these, we're going to end up with thousands, if not tens of thousands, of articles which say nothing much more than "1.2.3.4 is a fast DNS server". Being a fast server is not an assertion of notability, even if your only job is to serve DNS to millions of people. Awyong J. M. Salleh 13:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That handout demonstrates nothing. 4.2.2.2 is used as an example therein, nothing more. Another example in that handout is 64.64.120.40. They are both only examples. You'll find that the difficulty that you have experienced in sourcing the statement that 4.2.2.2 is primarily used to check Internet connections is directly caused by the fact that that statement is false. ☺ Uncle G 17:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two borderline-trivial mentions do not establish whether this IP address is in common use among IT professionals. Besides, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide -- RoninBK T C 11:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no non-trivial articles about this IP address. There are probably many other IP addresses with more google juice than this one. Some of the facts asserted in the article seem to be WP:OR, speculation, and personal opinion that isn't supported by the cited references. Also, being used as a test by a non-notable virus can not make the IP notable. If some non-trivial evidence can be found that 4.2.2.2 is common amongst computer support professionals, maybe it could be a sub-section of the ping article. If there is an article about the trivial virus, then maybe 4.2.2.2 should be a sub-section therein. --JJLatWiki 17:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivia -- Whpq 17:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The article should by all means be deleted, but I have to say that last week I would have KILLED to know about this server. It would be nice if this information could stay in Wikipedia somewhere. I looked into adding it to the DNS article, but there really isn't a place for it, there. --Mdwyer 18:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR and nn vanity. D Mac Con Uladh 21:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a single DNS is not notable absent much better sourcing.-- danntm T C 22:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey cool, I use that IP--I mean, delete. I've used that one before on a computer, friends gave me it for it's speed. Notable for me, not for Wikipedia. Delete. - Denny 06:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because otherwise I would have had no idea what 4.2.2.2 was for. I googled it and this was the only useful link. 25th February 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.196.92.110 (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • The first page of results is filled with irrelevant mentions of 4.2.2.2 as section number in reports, etc. Try 4.2.2.2 dns for a more relevant search. (Yes, that means even if this article is deleted you can always find the same info elsewhere.) Awyong J. M. Salleh 17:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to ping. If more "notable" ping targets come up then there could eventually be an article on them, but for now just add a section to Ping. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 09:14Z
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_22&oldid=109986851"