Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 11

< December 10	December 12 >

Guide to deletion

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 Redirect to Oldest people, insufficient reliable sources to establish notability for a seperate article but ok for in list. Davewild (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josefa Salas Mateo[edit]

Stub article on very old person, with an assertion of notability (having been world's oldest person for a while), but no sign of any substantial coverage in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Mateo is already listed in Oldest people and in Oldest validated person by year of birth; this is quite sufficient unless substantial coverage is available in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:BIO, and my google searches found none. I suggest deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 23:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The guiness book of record claim is very strong. It would be a reliable source. If anyone can reproduce that, I think notability is sufficiently established. If not, and no other reliable soures turn up, delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no reason to doubt that the Guinness Book of Records claim is genuine, and it can be easily verified in any library. However, such entries are not substantial, and do not satisfy WP:BIO's requirement of substantial coverage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The guiness book of records being reliable, but trivial coverage, and several so-so sources on the internet from not so established sources giving some coverage is just on the better side of notable for me. weakest keep Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which of these "so-so sources" come anywhere near meeting WP:RS? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like Martijn Hoekstra, this factoid is good enough for me. Neal (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Oldest people. With no more than trivial coverage in secondary sources, a separate article is not necessary. Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could live with that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I too could live with that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Since we're talking about "I could live with that," I guess it's about weighing 2 arguments, people who are for deletion: "I could not live with the fact that this factoid has it's own article," and, people who are against deletion: "I could not live with the fact that this factoid is on a table and doesn't have it's own article." Well for me - I could sleep well at night regardless of whether an article exists or not. But I guess the damage done to me over the existence of an article is smaller than my will to delete an article that does exist. Otherwise, I don't think it's about "I too could live with that." If this article really is a factoid and fails all other policies, it doesn't need an AfD. Neal (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Just getting old does not satisfy WP:BIO. The references, which are mere directory listings, are not the substantial coverage required to show notability per WP:N. Inclusion in a list is sufficient. All the succession boxes and are excessive. Edison (talk) 17:32, 12 December 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 and salt per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Willis[edit]

The article claims that this teacher at Brentwood School is considered to be one of history's greatest political thinkers alongside Hobbes, Locke and Burke. However, the article cites no sources verifying this claim and I have been unable to find any. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 ♠ Talk 23:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless we can find verifiable sources. The only hope I see is in his books. I see no more than local notability. There are lots of Michael Willis's out there, more than I was willing to sift through. If you think the subject is amazing now, look at what I cleaned out. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 00:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The two books of his that I was able to find on Amazon have ranks of #2,388,063 and #4,197,986. Unable to find any independent coverage. Maralia (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax unless someone can find the necessary sources to justify rewriting the history of political thought to ensure that Willis is accorded the status claimed for him in this article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has been deleted 8 times before, all variations on a theme.-- Special:Undelete/Michael_Willis. Might need a dose of salt. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 01:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as per Dlohcierekim. --Crusio (talk) 09:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article makes him sound more notable than he actually is, and the only "source" in the article is just a confirmation that there is indeed a book by Willis, with no claim of notability for either the book or its author. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 10:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SLUSH (=WP:SNOW+WP:SALT) Pete.Hurd (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:29, 12 December 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 06:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Parsons[edit]

Fails to verify. There is a Parson Russell Terrier, but Google (inc Books, Scholar and News) fails to find any verification of a Mini Parson sub-breed or Mini Parson Society. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 ♠ Talk 23:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, could be included in main article, no citations, etc. Friejose (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there doesn't seem to be any reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 14 December 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. This is either non-notable or plagiarism. Singu larity 04:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Heller[edit]

Notability and Copyright violation of http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-heller Ra2007 (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. jj137 ♠ Talk 23:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious plagiarism. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:36, 12 December 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. Singu larity 04:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Primout[edit]

Article on a very old French woman, for whom the only avaialble ref in a remotely reliable source is one line in a list. I tried a Google search, but found no reliable sources; and even though she died in 2005, Google news gave me no hits at all. So far as I can see, most of the contents of the article are original research by members of the Worlds Oldest People yahoogroup; if timmed back to verifiable material, this article would amount to no more than year of death and age at death. She is already listed in National longevity recordholders, Oldest people, List of the oldest people, which is quite sufficient when so little verifiable material is available. Unless substantial coverage can be found in reliable sources, this article should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for researchers to publish their original research. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 ♠ Talk 23:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, plus, even if true, there have to be limits as to how many people get Wikipedia articles just because they got to be "really old" but did nothing else. Things are a bit too inclusionary on that front right now. --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just getting old does not satisfy WP:BIO. The references, which are mere directory listings, are not the substantial coverage required to show notability per WP:N. Inclusion in a list is sufficient. Edison (talk) 17:33, 12 December 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 Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 23:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot An Squeal (album)[edit]

Hoax/Vandalism; Real album name is Shoot to Kill. PirateMink 23:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. a hoax. deliberate copy from Shoot to Kill (album) leaves no room for good faith, which makes this vandalism. Therefore tagged for sppedy deletion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:11, 11 December 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. Singu larity 00:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Step in the Right Direction (EP)[edit]

The band itself was not found to be notable per WP:MUSIC. If the band is not notable I don't see anything to establish the importance of this particular EP. This probably should have been included on that AfD back in January. shoeofdeath (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchsmart (talk • contribs) 23:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources to establish notability of the album -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - intensifiers like "famous" and "stardom" don't establish notability without reliable sources to back them up. --Russ (talk) 12:53, 16 December 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 non-admin closed. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turicato[edit]

Doesnt cite any sources. It is rittled with grammer errors and doesnt demonstrate importance. Chasecarter (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Geographical regions are inherently notable. Caknuck (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe i can make it look a lot better, but i will need help with sources Sudoku424 (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - i added a bit and one source, but this will be a project for a couple of people Sudoku424 (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All locations are encyclopedic as per WP:OUTCOMES. A rewrite is probably warrented, but AfD is not cleanup. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Source verifies existence which is enough for such a geographical location. Davewild (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Government districts like this are inherently notable. Source does confirm its existence. --Oakshade (talk) 19:06, 12 December 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. Singu larity 04:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BASH (game)[edit]

WP:MADEUP or WP:OR, In either case no sign of notability per WP:N, no sources that go anywhere that verify the content. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did play something very similar when I was a kid, but it was probably titled something else. Then again there are a ton of paper & pencil games. The "sources" are indeed useless for WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 22:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No real sources, no references, no explanation of notability. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:NFT, no assertion of notability. Caknuck (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one of the more interesting intros I've ever read, but WP:V will be a problem. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Impossible to verify. Orphic (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Made up. Marlith ^T/C 01:55, 16 December 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 06:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not for loss[edit]

Possible non-notable neologism Ra2007 (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources aren't even in agreement that this exists or what it means. In any case there is no legal definition and a "not-for-loss" firm could abandon that principle at any time. --Dhartung | Talk 22:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung and nom, and as violating WP:COAT, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NEO. I've contributed to hundreds of legal articles here at WP, and practiced law for 15 years, and have never heard of the term. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if this were an established term, one would expect that there would be papers published about this model of business. A google scholar search turns up only one possible source that might be about this concept, and even then it might not be about what this article is explaining. Unable to find anything else, so thus delete. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 14 December 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 06:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Etienne[edit]

Yet another unsuccessful former parliamentary candidate and local councillor. There are thousands of such candidates in elections around the globe. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed Paliamentary candidate, only other claim to notability is being a politician at the municipal level. Fails WP:V. Caknuck (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, also a probable WP:VANITY page (user's only contrib) - Dumelow (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Dumelow. Not notable, and probably vanity page. jj137 ♠ Talk 23:57, 11 December 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, WP:HOAX, non-admin closure. jj137 ♠ Talk 00:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Erik of Belgium[edit]

Hoax; www.monarchie.be makes no mention of a Prince Erik and the page is essentially lifted from Prince Amedeo. PirateMink 22:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax Shiva Evolved (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G1, patent nonsense. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Hoax attributing non-existent child to existing parents (and non-existent sibling to existing children). --Paularblaster (talk) 23:33, 11 December 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. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thottbot[edit]

Fails WP:NOTE and WP:SOURCE, and is somewhat WP:SPAM. This World of Warcraft article is also a stub. Fangz of Blood 21:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Fangz of Blood 21:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless it can assert a level of notability per reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks not notable at first, but a Google scholar search suggests otherwise: [1] finding several articles by established scholars. User:Krator (t c) 11:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT: Please refrain from WP:GHITS. Fangz of Blood 15:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Krator, who isn't trying to say that the subject brings up a whole lot of hits on Google, but rather that the subject has been cited in scholarly, peer-reviewed articles (and indeed, some of these ought to be referenced in the article). Watchsmart (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Don't see how this can be deleted on notability concerns, as it is or was the definitive database for all things World of Warcraft. For years, players are/were regularly referred to the site when asking questions in-game about specific quests or items. The article certainly may need more references or sources, but as far as being non-notable? No. --Slordak (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has no evidence of having received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject: the definition of notability for Wikipedia. Is it notable within the World of Warcraft? Certainly possible. Is it notable outside said fictional world? The article has no evidence, failing WP:N. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: So that is a delete then pd_THOR? Fangz of Blood 18:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Krator's provided solid scholarly references to the article subject, and the whole primary source/secondary source thing is a contentious area of otherwise settled verifiability policy. Orphic (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's not clear to me whether the scholarly articles found by Krator contain anything more than very brief mention of Thottbot. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:07, 16 December 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. IrishGuy ^talk 21:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean E. McGrath[edit]

Vanity page, borderline CSD A7. Claims to have created an "award winning" series, but I doubt its valid: no ghits, no references other than his personal myspace page. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would have put it up for CSD A7, or barring that, prod. --Alan Au (talk) 21:32, 11 December 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. John254 01:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Kill The Potemkin[edit]

non-notable book - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the fence here. The book doesn't get a lot of returns for searches, but then it was published in 1987, and it's unlikely there would be a lot of reviews available online for it. But... it hit the New York Times bestseller list for paperbacks at #13[2] and was on the list for several weeks[3] at least. It's not exactly easy to get on the NYT best-seller list, so sales must have been quite strong. Weak keep based on that, with hopes that someone would be able to turn up more than I. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was reviewed in at least a few papers: [4]. Zagalejo^^^ 22:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears to have made enough of a splash to be considered notable, considering the treatment in received in press as shown by Zagalejo. Xymmax (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems fair. What about the author though? Worthy of a bio? Shiva Evolved (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe author wrote another piece of submarine-themed fiction called "Typhoon" in 1991. This work and the author are mentioned in the "Typhoon submarine" entry. --Fornobject (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:45, 12 December 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. Singu larity 00:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

José Cabrera Costas[edit]

The article's subject, a college student, claims notability for reactivating a student political organization. Sources for biography include Myspace and Facebook, and websites of schools he attended. Sources for notability are limited to the website (which he claims to manage) of the organization (which he presides). The article also has elements of crystalballery. Suggest deletion of non-notable bio with no reliable, secondary sources. Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 20:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related article because of the reasons outlined above, as this other subject is the vice-president of the organization:

Delete both I don't think bios of the heads of the branches of College Republicans or Young Democrats could be notable, and those are at a much higher level than this person and his group. Substantial literature would be necessary. Shiva Evolved (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Non-notable according to WP:BIO. --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per WP:BLP's very strict requirements for WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. No Google New hits. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:16, 16 December 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. Singu larity 00:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy McArdle Free School[edit]

A small primary school that uses a church for it's classes. Fails WP:NOTE and WP:ORG. brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability, no reliable sources cited. Caknuck (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable. Fromseatoshiningsea (talk) 00:07, 16 December 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 06:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Lee Hayden[edit]

Not a notable individual. I can surmise three facts about her life from the article: that she once worked for the Peace Corps and Red Cross, that she moved to Rome in 2001, and that she was a friend and associate of Michel Thomas. None of these things are notable, and the last point is already referenced in the Michel Thomas Method article. Watchsmart (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO1E and nom's arguements. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability. Anarchia (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I see little here that couldn't be incorporated into the Michel Thomas or Michel Thomas Method article. No mention of separate work or specific ways in which she affected Thomas's program other than teaching and promoting it. Amaryllis25^{"Talk to me"} 16:14, 12 December 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 — Caknuck (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Dwight[edit]

Originally speedy tagged, removed by editor, so listing here. Bio/Vanity page, social networking links, and link to high school and college. -Dureo (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. The page author removed the CSD tag. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability at all. Anarchia (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, obvious vanitisement. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete without a doubt, in fact, if it wasn't for AFD I would be tagging it right now! Reason:'little or no context' The Helpful One ^(Talk)^{(Contributions)} 21:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with irony - this may be the least impressive vanity page I have ever seen Ψν^Psi_nu 23:23, 11 December 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, G3. Article created by an editor whose only other edits were harassing and is an apparent sockpuppet of an indefinitely-blocked user. A quick google search showed no hits, so the article is deemed to be disruptive. —C.Fred (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Black and White[edit]

About an NN local newspaper. No sources, very spammy in tone. No ghits except the offical website for this newspaper Mr Senseless (talk) 19:23, 11 December 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 06:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-flite Blade CP[edit]

written like an ad, not notable, unreferenced Arthurrh (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparent advertising; doesn't appear to have substantial reliable sources to indicate notability, either. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, product blurb right out of a trade catalogue. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:10, 11 December 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 per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian kingdom of albion[edit]

No sources in article to verify existance, 0 non-wiki ghits for country or "lord protector". Probable hoax, contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as either misguided or WP:MADEUP. Not obviously bad faith, so no speedy G3 candidate. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Either a hoax or a non-notable micronation. No verifiable evidence for it either way. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has been speedied before, in fact, by nom. It's quite simple. A kingdom without a territory is nonexistent and therefore a hoax. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 19:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smite mightily... er, Delete as non-notable or bogus, one of the two. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:MADEUP. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a weak attempt at a micronation that was apparently made up today. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:58, 11 December 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 User:Anthony.bradbury, non-admin closure. Have a happy holiday. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terromo[edit]

A fantasy Hoax. (also see below and article talk page) Nehwyn (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any sources to suggest this is not a WP:HOAX. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Talk page suggests author has secondary motive for keeping the page (for the next 24hrs only). Found no secondary references to this subject. Padillah (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's mysterious. I just wish there were some way for the article to disappear for the next 24h and then resume the deletion process. :) --Nehwyn (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could always CSD it. I don't see a reason to keep it now. I thought it was just my lackluster research methods but if the author doesn't even have a reason for it then let's make it go "bye-bye" Padillah (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we tried that once already and was denied. --Nehwyn (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On further thought, the fact that the history section stated that the Earth itself raised mountains around the village as a protecting gift places this in the realm of fantasy. And an unsourced fantasy falls within the realm of WP:MADEUP in Wikipedia. The author's insistence that the article be deleted only after 24h is a strong suspect of some secondary gain from it; I've therefore taken the liberty of reducing the article to a short statement for now. Should anyone have sources for the rest, feel free to reinsert statements once you source them. --Nehwyn (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just wondering, but why is this nominated for both speedy deletion and AfD at the same time?

Covering the bases, looks like. Delete as unsourced and unverifiable. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:06, 11 December 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. Singu larity 04:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metzelaar[edit]

An article about a dutch surname. This articles talkpage claims most of the article is original research. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article author clearly states this is his own research. --Nehwyn (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as mentioned, the author states this is original research on the talk page. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reason to have this (cf. "uncommon name"). Punkmorten (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, speculation, synthesis, etcetera. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article does not even refer to it being a surname, only to an unconventional spelling of the Dutch word for Bricklayer. Fails notability, original research, etc. Arnoutf (talk) 23:14, 11 December 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 06:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dignity 2[edit]

Unable to find any reliable sources to verify the existence of this re-release. A Google search for "Dignity 2" "Hilary Duff" returns only 184 hits in total, many irrelevant. Those which do mention 'Dignity 2' all appear to be forum posts and fansite speculation. Delete per WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL. May even be a hoax. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; the article easily fails WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. The number of sources which claim that the album is to be released tend to argue that it is not a hoax, though. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 ♠ Talk 23:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only because of a lack of veriabilty. Otherwise, sources indicate it is not a hoax. Chris.B (talk) 16:34, 13 December 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.

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Laura Drewett (short film). Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "speedy delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 06:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology Wars Rp[edit]

Disputed prod. Non-notable, unverified and in all probability made-up role play game which, if I am reading it correctly is expecting players to conduct the game on the talk page of the article. Extraordinary! nancy ^(talk) 18:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like something made up at school, clearly a violation of WP:NOT. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Certainly fails WP:MADEUP. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur, its a classic WP:MADEUP violation. Guys, since you all had to get WP accounts to play, why don't you stick around and edit some?? :) Xymmax (talk) 22:30, 11 December 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. There is reasonable consensus. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ike Awgu[edit]

Non-notable minor local politician. The page also suffers from frequent vandalism and doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Also, it appears that Ike Awgu edited the page himself. Poeloq (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article was in a vandalized state. Users ~~Ikeawgu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)~~, Ikeawgu2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Rock8591 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should all be blocked for sockpuppetry/vandalism/attacks. Deli nk (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Awgu may not be notable as a politician (that might be, in fact, why he left politics) but he is certainly notable as a journalist, and the article focuses on that. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 19:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the only edits by User:Ikeawgu consisted of undoing vandalism on this page. No COI there. User:Ikeawgu2 is already blocked for impersonating Awgu. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 19:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, it looks like I didn't properly sort out the edits of Ikeawgu and Ikeawgu2. Deli nk (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. It appears that most of the article is a copyvio of this page. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is hard to say whether it is the Wikipedia article or the ourcampaigns.com page that is a copyvio. The ourcampaigns.com page is marked as having been last edited on Oct. 23rd, 2006, and has the exact same text as an edit of the Wikipedia article that is dated September 27th, 2006. The problem is that we do not have access to edit histories for pages outside Wikimedia: only the editors themselves have access to that, and many of them don't even bother keeping one. The article has never been flagged as copyvio, even by bots, even for its first AfD discussion. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 21:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. The orriginal text of the article does not appear to have changed significantly. In light of this, keep per above. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per all of above. Also, a page being subject to "frequent vandalism" is not a criteria for deletion. This page previously passed AfD easily. The only difference between that AfD and this one was the level of vandalism at time of AfD, which we should respond to through cleanup, not AfDing while an inaccurate snapshot of the entry is up. Orphic (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and semi-protect for 2 months. Deletion for non-notability was already covered in the previous AFD (and the situation didn't really change), and vandalism is dealt with by blocking users and protecting pages. If you want, you can put a note on the talk page that the subject of the article was removing vandalism from the page. --Sigma 7 (talk) 18:05, 15 December 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 Kenpo. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kempo[edit]

This article, which purports to be a disambiguation page, consists exclusively of a list of martial arts schools or organizations which use the word "kempo" or "kenpo" as part of their name. This is not appropriate material for a disambiguation page per MOS:DAB. There is only one meaning of the term "kempo", and it is described at the article using the term's correct spelling, at kenpō. The articles linked at this disambiguation page are not articles which may be confused with kenpō or kempo, but rather are about schools that practice kenpō (regardless of how they choose to spell it). Kempo should properly redirect to the correct spelling at kenpō, and descendant schools should be discussed at that article, or at worst, linked to in the "see also" section. Bradford44 (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. Bradford44 (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Merge then Redirect - The nominator is right; anyone searching for that term will most likely be looking for a general description using a variant spelling,so redirecting it to Kenpō is appropriate. Also, if any of the articles in the current disambiguation page are not included in the section Kenpō#Notable_schools_of_kenp.C5.8D of the main article, merge the wiki-links in. ◄Zahakiel ► 18:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agree. Both 'kenpo' and 'kempo' have similar search counts in google. An naive user might search wiki with either term. Kenpō is correct but they should also find a list of variant topics. jmcw (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry, but the "correct spelling" comment suggests non-neutrality IMO. It seems to me that each respective martial art can choose their respective correct spelling just as well as their collection of techniques and protocols. Besides, doesn't this spelling include a character that is not in the English alphabet? This is the English language Wikipedia after all. Tparameter (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's "correct" because the WP:MOS-JP says to "spell," or more accurately, transliterate, the term according to the system of Revised Hepburn romanization. So it's the "correct spelling" because a manual of style says to spell it that way, not as a result of any opinion I may have, or because there is a universally "correct" way to write Japanese using the Latin alphabet. Regarding your second question, perhaps you should review the WP:MOS-JP generally on the use of macrons in Wikipedia. When a foreign term (such as kenpō) is part of the official name of an organization, group, school, etc..., that organization's spelling is respected insofar as the name of the organization is concerned. For example, you might have an article whose lead starts with, "Kiyojute Ryu Kempo is a modern martial arts school that teaches kenpō." Otherwise, we follow the conventions articulated at WP:MOS-JP for transliteration of Japanese. Bradford44 (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We're talking about apples and oranges here. You're assuming that these people are making a mistake in translation. I'm saying that they may be - but, it may also be the case that the name of their style is "kempo", period. The techniques changed, the protocols changed, the ranking changed, the style changed, and the name changed. Again, it seems to me that if someone's style of martial art diverges from it's origin, which is often the case, it may well be that the name does as well. So, "correct" or "incorrect" spelling may not be the best characterization, in that case. You can translate Japanese using various manuals of style, but Big Joe's Kempo, hypothetically, may not be Japanese in the first place.Tparameter (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then redirect per Zahakiel. Also, as a comment, Kenpo already redirects to Kenpō. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: is this page, Jiu-Jitsu, analogous regarding this issue? Tparameter (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)#[reply]
- Not quite, the romanisation is jujutsu but Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu; was derived before the is was common and is now a seperate style but it is often referred to in the media as Jiu-Jitsu hence why a disambig not just a redirect. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 12:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kenpo. JJL (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kenpo 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Kenpo -- Whpq (talk) 18:03, 14 December 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. Addhoc (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Croc 3[edit]

Unsourced crystal-ballery on unreleased game. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ra2007 (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here is a giveaway: Nothing is known about it right now. The article was probably intended as nothing more than a placeholder. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 17:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I nominated this for sd when it was just a one line blurb. It has been expanded, but it still looks to me like a game which will never be made. I mean, all the article says is that in the credits of Croc 2 it says that Croc will return? And that game was released eight years or so ago? We need much more than that. Sometimes an upcoming video game is deserving of an article (Halo, Madden), but we need proof that the game is actually being produced. faithless (^speak) 19:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A3. The article implicitly states that there is no content about the subject of the article, and after the cruft about the other two games is removed it will lack content completely. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no claim of notability. Author has helpfully explained that the "11th Chlorophyll Music Composing Competition" is "organised by the Music Club of Gajah Berang Secondary School Malacca." NawlinWiki (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Displacement[edit]

Nonnotable band, claims to have won a competition but doesn't say why that competition is significant. Cites no sources. Prod tag removed by author, who did not add any sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:47, 12 December 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. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hormonal meat[edit]

The references for this article don't refer to 'Hormonal meat' - they are google searches for a whole long list of terms using OR separators between each. If you look up "hormonal meat" its 511 hits, and none seem to qualify as a reliable source for this term actually being used. Should be deleted, or possibly merged with a GMO-related article. Avruch ^Talk 16:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that more standard references have been added - but they still don't appear to actually mention the words 'Hormonal meat.' Avruch ^Talk 17:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable term. Ra2007 (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider moving to a title which actually is more widely used such as "Hormones in meat" which gets 184 results in Google news search [5] compared to 7 for "hormonal meat" [6], several of which refer to the "hormonal meat" of the "meatmarket" in pubs, not the sort which is sold in stores and restaurants. The articles about growth hormones in meat show worldwide coverage over many years of the concerns on the part of responsible scientists that early puberty may be a result. Edison (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not written that well, that's for sure. But it seems to have coverage per Edison. Weak keep.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. What does GMO have to do with hormonal meat? The fact that you think they are related says enough about your ignorance on the subject. Please do not nominate for deletion articles you do not understand. Rather, ask for expansion. Thank you. Lakinekaki (talk) 09:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that genetically modified and hormonally stimulated are not the same thing. Thanks for pointing out my 'ignorance'. Do you have a... policy reason for keeping the article, since the term 'hormonal meat' doesn't appear to be used (and thus constitutes an OR synthesis)? Avruch ^Talk —Preceding comment was added at 14:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you realise that they are different things, then why did you make the suggestion to merge? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said GMO-related because the issues are similar. I wasn't suggesting that they were scientifically the same thing. Avruch ^Talk 20:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give me the right tools and I'll make them the same thing. Please be civil in the meantime. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being civil does not mean just using polite words, it also means behaving politely. Proposing for deletion an article (without trying to improve it) that someone contributed and spent some time writing is more uncivil than using word 'ignorance' that by the way is not a rude word.

Ignorance - The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

Lakinekaki (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. None of the reasons given for deletion concern the subject of the article, only the title. Changing the title is an editing issue, not an issue for discussion at AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article is an OR synthesis, and it frames the subject. If the subject, framed by the title, constitutes original research then the content of the article belongs somewhere else, perhaps in an article about natural foods, naturalist activism, free range initiatives/ organizations, hormones, or meat. The article as it was written added no realiable, notable, verifiable etc. information to the encyclopedia, which is why I proposed deleting it. Since Uncle G has completely and admirable rewritten it it is in much better shape now. Avruch ^Talk 20:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with an appropriate renaming, perhaps Beef hormone dispute or something similar. As currently written, this is worthy of note, but "hormonal meat" is a meaningless term. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename seems the subject matter meets WP:N requirements as there are plenty of articles that discuss the Beef Hormone (debate, controversy, issue).[7] - Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Notable, and sourced -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per above. Orphic (talk) 09:27, 15 December 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 has been edited to remove the dictionary definition part of the article, removing the rationale stated for deletion. Davewild (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intermittency[edit]

This appears to be a dictionary entry for the word 'intermittency'. See WP:NOT. Avruch ^Talk 16:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wp is not a dictionary. Ra2007 (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or rather transwiki to Wiktionary, which is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you think this can fit in the wiktionary, go ahead. Lakinekaki (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This goes way beyond a dictionary definition. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More like a dictionary entry, with multiple definitions. It tells you that intermittence, intermittency... Means stopping! And also can refer to a urinary issue, and in something called dynamical systems. Maybe it should say:

Intermittence:

intermittency

Behavior of stopping and starting, see: Male urinary activity, behavior in dynamic systems.

And then it can be transwikied? Avruch ^Talk 23:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You seem to be proposing removing the encyclopedic content in order to reduce the article to a dictionary definition, and then deleting it. That's not the way to build an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If an article contains a dictionary definition as well as encyclopedic information then the thing to do is to edit out the dictionary definition, which I have done, rather than nominate the whole article for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems valid and useful and much more than a simple dictdef. --Lockley (talk) 18:36, 17 December 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. A cleanup effort should be tried and the results will be informative in any future AfD. — Scientizzle 23:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7th Muslim Brigade[edit]

A couple of problems with this article:

It claims to be about the "7th Muslim Brigade", a former unit of the Bosnian Army (ABiH) that has now been disolved, while it is really about the Bosnian Mujahideen (which, oddly, the intro says it's not).
WP:OR as the article is based on interpretation of primary sources not references of secondary sources
WP:POV and WP:COATRACK as the article is used as a partisan commentary on the nature of the Bosnian War
WP:SPS as one of the main sources is a self-published article by a little-known person on a Bosniak nationalist/Islamist website.

I wish I could say that the article should be kept and rewritten to actually cover the 7th Muslim Brigade. However, until such an article is written, I strike that this article be deleted. [A more detailed description of my issues with the article are available on the Talk page] Osli73 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep and cleanup~~ notable topic, despite the problematic treatment here. Severe problems with POV - this article could have been lifted verbatim off a Bosniak-nationalist website, as it treats contentious partisan claims as fact and veers into coatrack territory when discussing the other two sides. Sourcing to ICTY is problematic in some cases, as the citations often do not verify the text. However, ultimately the 7th Brigade deserves to have an article, and there is some good information here. Many of the "factual" statements could be rephrased as Bosniak POV and balanced with competing claims from other sources. <eleland/talkedits> 17:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to Delete and replace now that i've taken a closer look through it. There is actually no information here about 7th Brigade beyond "Brigade in ARBiH, fought during the 1992-95 Bosnian War, over 1,000 local soldiers, part of the 3rd corps of the Bosnian Army." Literally everything else is about foreign volunteers, Serb/Croat propaganda related to foreign volunteers, Serb/Croat propaganda not related to foreign volunteers... it's an awful mess. <eleland/talkedits> 18:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COATRACK or possibly move content to an article about Islamic volunteers in the Bosnian War, which is what most of the content is about, although problematic in terms of POV. --Dhartung | Talk 23:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Osli73 (the user who nominated the article) is user with the long block log, who vandalised Wikipedia so many times. He wrote Bosnian Mujahideen article because he didn't like 7th Muslim Brigade which covers the topic (the second one is with the offical name, the first one is with the name fabricated by Osli73). His Bosnian Mujahideen article is now mediated as you can see here Talk:Bosnian Mujahideen, and probably it will be redirected to 7th Muslim Brigade. Regarding the sources, they are relaible per WP:RS (International court verdicts), so Osli73 is wrong when he tried to deceive other user once more. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of secondary sources about mujahideen in the Bosnian war. Your article currently states that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleland (talk • contribs) 18:11, 12 December 2007

Besides the POV writing, the twin problem here is that (1) this article is quite clear in that it is "not" about the Bosnian Mujahideen but then goes on to only (2) talk about the Bosnian Mujahideen. I would have no problem with this article if it were truly about the 7th Muslim Brigade. However, the problem is that it mainly deals with the Mujahideen and Serbian and Croatian propaganda related to that. That's why I suggest deleting it for now. If someone wants to write a proper article about the 7th, I'm all for it.Osli73 (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The brigade was a Bosniak Mujahideen brigade (a self-titled "Muslim Liberation Brigade") of the Bosnian Army and should therefore be included in the Bosnian Mujahideen article (if certain editors will allow). --Hereward77 (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up. The 7th Muslim Brigade obviously existed and there is something to be written about it through legitimate sources - I don't see what the problem is here. The excess information people are complaining about can simply be moved over to "the role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war" - problem solved. Live Forever (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This article needs some serious attention, large sections needs to be weeded out, but deletion is not the answer. The Islamic volunteers were recruited into the ABiH, and were given BiH citizenships. Since they became BiH citizens, perhaps it has been possible to retrospecitvely claim that they were not 'foreigners'. --Soman (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. Grandy Grandy (talk) 20:04, 15 December 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebirthing skillet

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 redirected by Ra2007 (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 23:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebirthing skillet[edit]

Unencyclopedia. Notability concerns. Ra2007 (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Better article already at Rebirthing (song). Amaryllis25^{"Talk to me"} 16:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rebirthing (song) since they are the same thing. Nothing to merge as the other article is in much better shape. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rebirthing (song) per above. (I just did this.). Who can close this Afd? Ra2007 (talk) 17:35, 11 December 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. DGG points out some additional sources, though they don't appear to have been added to the article, and some (blogs of any kind) may be questionably reliable. Still, his arguments are sufficient to prevent a consensus to delete from forming.

NERAC[edit]

I can't find evidence that this company meets WP:ORG. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_______________________________

After review of the WP:ORG, I do not see a reason to remove this article.

"A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources."

Nerac has been cited by many secondary sources, including, but not limited to:

Chicago Tribune, Hartford Courant, Cincinnati Business Courier, The Times Picayune, and the LA Times

Click here: [8] to view more citations.

Delete, that link is to the company's site, and no links to the newspaper articles are found there. I looked in Google news, all I found was a racing team named the same. AnteaterZot (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A Google News search turns up a number of returns for the company, but most of them are press releases or trivial mentions of people involved with the company. I don't see an indication that it's been covered in any substantial manner to provide reliable sources indicating its notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep[9] A article about the companies databases. , A blog posting, but a blog by a respected 3rd party librarian about Nerac [10] ; from BusinessWire, but factual: [11], Nerac.com Named One of Connecticut's Fastest Growing Technology Companies in Deloitte & Touche 'Fast 50' Program.,Nerac Makes Top Ten List of STM Aggregators--that last report is from Outsell, which is the leading market research company for information providers and publishing--I think that is reliable, even though Businesswire is basically a compendium of press releases. I added that one to the article. DGG (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's and anon poster's citations, WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is one of those behind-the-scenes engineering firms that does a lot of stuff and is notable. Just because the public doesn't usually interact with it (service firm, public stock, etc), doesn't mean it should get deleted. Guroadrunner (talk) 11:49, 21 December 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 parent company. Article clearly needs expansion; anyone wishing to do so may do so at any time. Until then, objections having been raised, the phone will be redirected to the parent company. Xoloz (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Ericsson K608i[edit]

Non-notable cellular phone. Wikipedia is not a cell phone directory; Wikipedia is not a Sony Ericsson catalog. This phone is not notable and has too few substantial third-party references to support a meaningful Wikipedia article. Mikeblas (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete - all the phone articles should be bundled together in my opinion. No need for an indivdual page. Will see what I can do this evening in my userspace. Poeloq (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of every electronic doodad currently on the market. This article lacks multiple independent and reliable source with substantial coverage, and so fails WP:N, the notability requirement. Celphones are certainly highly notable collectively, and an article on the history of the celphone should include mention of notable developments and innovative ones which have such coverage, from bagphones to flip phones to camphones etc. But we have too many article created from manufacturer's websites. By that standard every product ever offered for sale would be entitled to an article if it appeared in the manufacturer's catalog. Edison (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate independent references available; appears notable. Spacepotato (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above --ZeWrestler ^Talk 20:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Find notability/delete - it's a phone. it buzzes. but that doesn't mean it's notable. Guroadrunner (talk) 11:50, 21 December 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. Wizardman 19:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Opry[edit]

153 Ghits -- "Man for the season" GQ gives 5 Ghits. I'm not sure that referencing will actually help this article, but I'm willing to be proved wrong. uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now edited it, the external links should now show that mostly all my data on the article is true. U just need to check it all again. Plz dont close it:=) its all true, I work in this area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loves178 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- links to short bios on Calvin Klein and New York Magazine sites have been added since nomination.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

are u still gonna delete it?? do I need too show you more references..?

if u look on New York Magazine , his profile and not just short bio- there are 18 pictures, under them it stand names of the magazines that I mention, so there are some of my references. models.com also is a great reference"! u would know if u worked in this industry..

also COACD, that is a (real) casting directors diary. even if its a blog its a realiable source! all pictues on the blog are the casting directors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loves178 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as speedily as possible - what a joke!! Fromseatoshiningsea (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why is it a joke??? its all true and for a guy as famous as he is we need info about him here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/ ([]]) 15:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If u want to delete- do it, I dont care anymore coz u dont understand! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loves178 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 20 December 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 and salt. Singu larity 04:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhiannon (singer)[edit]

The musician does not appear to meet the notability criteria, and the article lacks reliable independent sources. Prod removed by creator. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only "notability" is "won a contest to be in a tribute album for ~~an obscure rock~~ band" --Orange Mike | Talk 16:47, 11 December 2007(UTC)

dear orange mike, "OBSCURE ROCK BAND ?" where were you in the 70s??? then again, perhaps you listen to elevator music, at any rate, the article will be submitted over and over again every time it is deleted, i will make sure it gets re-submitted until it stands un-bothered by those who are un-educated about rock music — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrailorParkDiva (talk • contribs) — TrailorParkDiva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- comment - I was listening to Zappa, of course; but you're right to say that Nazareth isn't that obscure, so I've stricken that part out, with apologies to Nazareth and their fans. Your re-submission threats, though, are as unavailing as your inability to spell Trailer. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC) (almost bought a double-wide in the 70s)[reply]
- Comment Be assured that our administrators are as tireless in their determination as you, and if the article is deleted, further attempts will only mean blocks and bans for sockpuppetry and violation of our policies. Be civil, assume good faith, and don't make threats -- it certainly isn't garnering you any sympathy. --Dhartung | Talk 23:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real claims of notability. It crossed my mind to suggest a redirect to Rihanna but it's not a likely search term. MLA (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"FAILS?" that's an educated assuption! i will continue to resubmit the article everytime it is deleted from different IPs — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrailorParkDiva (talk • contribs) — TrailorParkDiva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - fails music guidelines, notability guidelines, and most importantly, there is a lack of reliable sourcing which could verify any claims. — Rudget _speak.work 17:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"FAILS?" read wikipedia's rules for notable singers and become more educated about the topic of which you speak, you must listen to polka music or something — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrailorParkDiva (talk • contribs) — TrailorParkDiva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hmm..although I understand your concerns, I can assure you I have good understanding of pages that fail Wiki-policies. — Rudget^Talk 18:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've helped you sign your posts, and removed the copy of WP:MUSIC that you added; it makes it hard to read the page, and we've all read WP:MUSIC. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I can't speak for Rudget, but like any rock fan worth their salt, I have an appreciation for ALL forms of music - including polka. I may not LIKE it all, but I can appreciate it. Personal attacks will not help your case. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've enjoyed a good polka, from time to time. I even have a few on my iPod, courtesy of the Andrews Sisters. They, by the way, definitely meet the notability criteria, despite singing polkas. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Nazareth are notable. Someone appearing on a Nazareth tribute album isn't enough.--Michig (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and salt, considering the threats above); WP:MUSIC suggests two albums on notable labels, substantial touring, and good reliable sources. The artist in question has none of the above. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on responses from the article's creator, especially their verbalized intent to keep posting article if it does delete, I'm assuming bad faith. Article subject does not meet the constraints of WP:MUSIC or WP:N. links for party in question do not meet the constraints of WP:V or WP:RS. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt and do all the normal sockpuppet stuff. It's unfortunate that people think we're their own personal webhost and have to keep whatever they add. --Dhartung | Talk 23:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with salt Not notable. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, I regret to say. I'm far from convinced that WP:Music as it exists today is reflective of consensus or good policy, but article author clearly isn't going to be doing the band or inclusionists any favors. Orphic (talk) 09:32, 15 December 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. Singu larity 00:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abraxas Corporation[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. Does not establish notability of the corporation. It also appears that an article witht the same title was previously speedily deleted. See here. Delete TheRingess (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails corporation guidelines, and doesn't assert importance - and/or through reliable sources. — Rudget _speak.work 17:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 686 Yahoo hits--but not a reliable source among them. Somehow I'd think a company that makes a "critical infrastructure" app would get more coverage. Blueboy 96 22:44, 11 December 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 keep Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elspeth Rostow[edit]

Reads like an ad, and doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO LeSnail (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per http://www.statesman.com/search/content/region/legislature/stories/12/10/1210rostow.html. Definitely notable, article just needs sourcing and cleanup.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a valid attempt to honor a noteworthy person. Padillah (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to be notable per links provided, but I'd suggest a further "stubbing" to remove any unnecessary POV statements or other. — Rudget _speak.work 17:32, 11 December 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. Speedily deleted by Tyrenius as a copyright violation. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Dorn[edit]

reads like a resume, fails WP:BIO and WP:V Mr Senseless (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Tagged for copyvio Mr Senseless (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and is copyright violation. LeSnail (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per external coverage: [12], [13].--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 17:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - as copyright violation. — Rudget _speak.work 17:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CR violation. Ra2007 (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 11 December 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 per WP:CSD#G11, Blatant advertising, and the link provided by Irish Guy in the debate below, here. Viral marketing is not a good use of Wikipedia. Hiding T 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cade's war[edit]

Unreleased comic book with no reliable sources to verify notability. I was unable to find anything usable for the comic on Google. Article's author evidently has a WP:COI, given that he also created the speedily deleted article on Planet X Fiction which indicated that "Brad Johnson, creator of 1-18-08news.com and web entrepreneur, is the chairman of Planet X Fiction. Brad is currently developing the first Planet X Fiction project called “Cade’s War” that is going through a secretive viral marketing process." I suspect that the purpose of this article is to support that viral marketing process and that it is intended to promote this publication. This article has already been deleted once through speedy and swiftly restored. I believe the article should be deleted unless notability can be established with reliable sourcing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Anarchia (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious spam. Admitted here. It appears that more spam is forthcoming. IrishGuy ^talk 03:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 10:29, 13 December 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. Singu larity 04:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real Madrid Summer 2006[edit]

There should not be articles devoted to a team's pre-season. By all means integrate it into the Real Madrid season 2006-07 article, but there is no need to have it as a separate article. – Pee Jay 15:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+1 -Lemmy- (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a list of friendly games is not a notable piece of information. I don't think a few friendlies are worth including even in an article about an exceptionally notable club's season. MLA (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cruft. Punkmorten (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable (as per MLA). Jhony | Talk 17:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. jj137 ♠ Talk 20:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no sort of integration, it's definitely not a notable subject. --Angelo (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable BanRay 23:40, 13 December 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. Singu larity 04:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmopolitan Revival[edit]

Another bizarre article from multiple sockpuppeteer User:Webb Traverse. Prod removed by suspected sock of same, so AFD by procedure. Original reason for prod was "Term and article seem to be original research. This term is not used anywhere in the refs and gets few Google hits, none of which are useful." I tend to agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even assuming good faith, it's a non notable neologism. --Dweller (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Textbook neologism; a bunch of stuff happened, and now someone is trying to unify it under a label here. None of the sources in any way support this term.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Term appears to be made up by User:Webb Traverse. None of the sources cited in the article use this term. Original research attempt to coin a phrase. Wickethewok (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without even looking at the article itself, would it be eligible for Speedy G5 Banned User? --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 22:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to self No, he created the article before he got banned. Still, Delete. All ghits that do not lead to Wikipedia articles lead to definitions of the term that have nothing to do with what Webb Traverse wrote. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 23:20, 11 December 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 redirected to Mother Tucker. DS (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thaddeus Griffin[edit]

He appeared in one episode, that's it. And unlike Peter's biological father, this article is full of unwanted lists that aren't encyclopedic. The article for Peter's real father is way more encyclopedic than Thaddeus' article. It has been confirmed in the DVD Commentary of Peter's Two Dads that Peter's father will appear again, but I see no sources here. The only sources there are there are to another Wiki, that doesn't require as many sources as Wikipedia, therefor can't be trusted. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, also another reason is that it could have been a random guy that's a master of disguise that acted like Peter's clone. There is no proof that they're relatives. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, basically a one-episode gag character who shows up to twirl his mustache. Rest of article is original research and excessive plot detail. There is a discussion on how to treat this character on Talk:Peter Griffin — while there is no consensus on where to file him, an article is obviously not merited. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything already said above. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Character who appeared in one episode for 10 seconds. Besides that, nearly all of the article is original research. Saget53 (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Mother Tucker, the one episode in which the character appeared. DHowell (talk) 01:07, 15 December 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. John254 01:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Cross High School (River Grove)[edit]

A high school that doesn't exist anymore and therefor surely has lost all of the little notability it once might have had. Poeloq (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak De;ete~~ - there are some sources which prove the existence, ~~but without the sourcing of the supposed notability, I'm afraid it's a delete from me.~~ — Rudget _speak.work 17:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - After reviewing the comment below and the updated page, I believe a keep is in order. — Rudget^Talk 18:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequate reliable and verifiable sources exist about the school and its closure and alumni to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Only old soldiers fade away; notability is permanent. Alansohn (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge/redir, per below disclosing (heh) the bias that I attended 12 years of Catholic school in Chicago, I note Quigley_South as an example of a strong article about a defunct Catholic high school in Chicago. The fact that it was closed down due to lack of funding makes it more notable, not less (in this case). --- tqbf 21:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's plenty of material available in the Chicago Tribune archives. Nothing loses notability. Zagalejo^^^ 22:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - with regret, I'm not sure there will be enough for an article here. This article should be appropriately merged with the school it was merged into: Guerin College Preparatory High School. Keep per the hard workin' Zagalejo LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems hard to object to this. Thanks for doing more research than me. --- tqbf 03:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, wait a minute, now. I'm getting about 280 hits for "Holy Cross High School" + "River Grove" at the Tribune archives. And that's just one paper, using one search string. I'm sure someone could expand this article with a little effort. Of course, a merge isn't necessarily a bad idea for the time being, but this does have the potential to be a decent, independent article. Zagalejo^^^ 04:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did that search, and while there were a lot of articles, they were mostly about athletics (particularly one running back at Northern Illinois University), or the closing of the school. Many of the rest were alumni-type sites. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm just not seeing the resources to construct a much bigger article than there is. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the historical PDF archives, too? (Via Proquest?) I have access to them, and I think at least some of those articles provide encylcopedic information. (For example, there's one from the 1960s saying that enrollment was up to 1,556 students). Zagalejo^^^ 05:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do. Which article are you referring to? I agree with LonelyBeacon; nothing I come up with is notable enough to keep Holy Cross from being a subsection or theme of Gurin. (LonelyBeacon, if you have a library card, you probably have ProQuest online for Chicago papers). --- tqbf 05:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Enrollment up at Holy Cross". September 19, 1965. Not long, but we could milk a sentence or two out of that.

There are other articles that seem worthwhile, though. "Holy Cross School to Construct Facility" (May 1, 1969) has a decent amount of info. There are a couple articles describing how their graduation ceremony was almost cancelled one year because of "high jinks and rowdiness" ("Seniors have their fun; it costs them graduation fete". May 29, 1974, and "Holy Cross seniors will have their commencement excerises", May 30, 1974). Ron Santo set up a baseball school there ("In the wake of the news", May 21, 1966), and the Cubs actually held workouts there at one point ("Cubs continue workouts; Sox return to town", April 5, 1972). The clergy faculty made the news for being some of the first priests in their order to wear regular suits and ties, instead of standard priest garb; it was part of an "experiment in religious clothing" ("Clergy Kick Old Habit, Wear Black Suits, Ties", September 21, 1967). I haven't looked through everything yet, but I'm sure if we combed through the Tribune and other local papers, we could find a good deal of content. At least enough to rival the Quigley South article. Zagalejo^^^ 06:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are hard core. --- tqbf 07:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point made. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability is not temporary and a look here shows plenty of good material that underpins notability and would allow expansion. TerriersFan (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say this, put many of the initial articles were obituaries of former students/staff. Among the rest were an article about noise abatement from O'Hare, a fundraiser, etc. The name may pop up a lot, but there just wasn't much actually about the school. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable alumni, once notable, remains notable. DGG (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability isn't hereditary or easily transferred; the slight notability of these alumni/ae is unrelated to the school. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to Alansohn's reasoning, there's a practical reason for the article: The alumni still exist. Noroton (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one :-) TerriersFan (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—I never much cared for the argument that a school loses its notability after it ceases to exist. This seems sufficiently notable to retain.—RJH (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability doesnt die. Schools close, people die, countries are merged - Victuallers (talk) 10:30, 14 December 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 consensus is the article fails notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Club[edit]

This appears to be an advert for a non-notable commercial venture. Please note that all three references currently provided refer to the (definitely notable) myfootballclub scheme, and not to 'The People's Club'. Chrislintott (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Certainly there are reliable sources... but it's whether the website has any long-term notability that is questionable. I agree that the tone of the article is poor.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N, since there is no evidence of news coverage of this particular organization. Seems to piggy-back on similar, notable schemes as stated above. --Friejose (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Friejose, sources point to articles discussing MyFootballClub, not The People's Club. sparkl_!sm ^talk 19:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Probable conflict of interest here as well. NN venture with an Alexa rank almost 700,000 lower than that of myfootballclub. I did a Google News search and could only find one non-trivial mention, in the Oxford Mail. [14] Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:28, 11 December 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. Singu larity 04:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rayuan Pulau Kelapa[edit]

The article started as a song text. After discussion as to the legality of this, it was altered and became a discussion of the song and its significance. As I speak Indonesian and know something about Indonesian culture, I added my two cents. However, somebody has now clapped so many tags on the article that they take up as much space as the text itself.

Probably this editor knows more about the subject than I do, and therefore is aware of improvements which could be made. As I myself see no room for improvement on this sort of subject at all (a brief discussion, to my mind, is all that is required, and a brief discussion this is) I am at a loss, and I think it would be more elegant and indeed more generous to remove the article altogether than to let it exist, no doubt for years and years, encumbered with these labels. They do not contribute to the article's quality: to my mind, it is not a bad text, and indeed is informative, but then I have cooperated on it myself.

I would like to apologize very sincerely to the original poster of the article, whose intentions, I am convinced, were honest and constructive. It is a pity events have taken this turn. Bessel Dekker (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - The tags only call attention to a need for minor improvements; they are no reason to delete the article. Wikification and categorization were trivial, and I deleted those tags. --teb728 t c 18:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I see no reason to delete this article, nor is any supplied why to delete this article, apart from the esthetics of pageissue tags. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a shot at cleanup. 122.167.100.132 (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Article has been cleaned up, subject is notable. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be a notable song, but the article needs referenced (so tagged). -- Whpq (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Back to square one. This was the tag I objected to in the first place, and I am sure that it will sit there for years and years to come. What is the point? Meanwhile, my sincere thanks to previous contributors (above) for their help. Bessel Dekker (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "keep" was based on the fact that this search suprisingly turned up results with the first one looking like it might be substatial, but alas the link seems to be dead. I expect that there may be non-english sources. However, that is solely my opinion, and other edittor may feel differently. -- Whpq (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object to the "keep", on the contrary. However, I am rather discouraged by the tagging-untagging-retagging process (of the same template), and that is what I meant by "back to square one". After all, it is not as if this article has any controversial content. The subject is at a certain remove from Anglo-Saxon (or: western) culture, true. For all that, it seems to me rather futile to hunt out sources for statements any Indonesian would be familiar with. Well, most of them. Bessel Dekker (talk) 00:52, 16 December 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. Any merging can take place later; will redirect to Seven Samurai. Mango juice^talk 17:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shimada Kambei[edit]

This is a character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered in the its two main articles (List of Samurai 7 characters and Seven Samurai), and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Samurai 7 characters. Curious Blue (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Samurai 7 characters is not the right destination -- if anything, it should be the original, not derivative, work. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nom. Eusebeus (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one-time movie characters can be sufficiently described within the movie article. Shiva Evolved (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out that this isn't a one-time movie character, as he also appears in the anime adaptation. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand - what I meant was, the character does not go beyond the movie/story in characteristics - not like John McClane or James Bond. Shiva Evolved (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've held off commenting in the hope someone from the Japan project would comment on whether notability sources are available in Japanese, given they're more likely there than in English. Absent that, let's see what we can untangle given there's no notability at the moment. Per WP:FICT, the second thing to do (after searching for references) is merge, not delete -- but this is tricky, because this is a character who appears in two fictional works with separate articles. None of the above proposals is satisfactory. Fortunately, the article is structured with the appearences clearly marked. So: merge the second sentence of the lead, and the Film Version and Kambei's Sword sections into Seven Samurai, and the Anime Version section into Samurai 7. Because the latter is the derivative version, the redirect left behind should point to Seven Samurai. —Quasirandom (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Quasirandom. Edward321 (talk) 04:04, 16 December 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 06:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vapia[edit]

Fictional planet. Unreferenced. No claim to notability given. Nehwyn (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Completely in-universe fan-facts. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Armageddon it ain't. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 17:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like the page only existed for an hour or so before it was tagged. I actually agree with the nominator's comments on the current condition of the article, but maybe Prod it next time first? If the article remains in its current state, delete. Xymmax (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My apologies, I missed that there was a prod that was removed. Xymmax (talk) 22:51, 11 December 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. Tyrenius (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masha Archer[edit]

Incomplete AfD nomination. The nominator left the following message on the talk page: This Article should be nominated for speedy deletion.this does not fit WP style nor is the artist prominent or known in the jewelry world. Archiemartin23:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC). Procedural nomination - no opinion is being expressed by me. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 13:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- appears notable. 22 press mentions found with Google News' archive search. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 14:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 14:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps satisfies acceptability, given that many of the mentions are just commercial notes. Shiva Evolved (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems genuinely notable for her jewelry designs. Anarchia (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN; Saks PR will achieve many mentions in local papers; this does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - articles about her are not press releases, but include pieces written by newspaper staff writers so meets requirements for multiple independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs new "phraseology"; reads very much like a promotion. Fromseatoshiningsea (talk) 00:13, 16 December 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 withdrawn nomination (see nominator comment at the bottom). — Rudget _{Contributions} 17:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stockland Rockhampton[edit]

Shopping centre. Unsourced; no claim to notability given. Fails WP:N. Nehwyn (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. IMO this one does pass the test of notability (okay, it's not the West Edmonton Mall), but I would delete the list of tenants. Too many redlinks. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 17:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain where are the multiple independent sources that would allow this article to pass notability? --Nehwyn (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need for multiple, but you can look at this[15], and several hotels that boast about their proximity to the mall, which, incidentally, is located quite close to downtown. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hotels I would disregard, but the one source you brought up is interesting. I don't think it's enough to justify a separate article, but we may take out the long list of outlets and just focus on the shopping centre itself, and integrate the result in the relevant list of shopping centres. --Nehwyn (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Retailing, an industry publication, extensively covers this shopping centre and its redevelopments and acquisitions over the years. Dun & Bradstreet reports explicitly cover and detail it. That's two. There are others - it won a major international design award in 1996 and a regional one in 2004 (for which it was a runner-up in 1999). I must add I knew nothing about this centre until today, everything I've added is basically from published sources via Factiva. Orderinchaos 04:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only claim to notability seems to be its size - not encyclopedic notability. It seems highly unlikely that anyone is going to come to wikipedia to learn about this. Anarchia (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe not in North America, but we could ask Australian editors. Would you delete the article on Centre Laval? --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is the biggest shopping centre in Rockhampton, Queensland. However, there are two mentions in Google News Archives one of which is a trivial mention [16]. It doesn't warrant an individual article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In need of a shopping centre rescue squad (refer to Thewinchester's and my edits to Stockland Glendale in recent days) but is notable from what I can see. The lack of news mentions would probably relate to it having held a previous name (I'm personally not a fan of shopping centres renaming themselves every few years after their current owners) Orderinchaos 03:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Have rewritten article somewhat - not my best effort but it at least looks like a shopping centre instead of an ad now. Orderinchaos 03:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - winning 2 awards and being runner up lend to WP:N and its well sourced to boot. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to the nominator the article was woeful and lacked most of its current content before this morning, containing simply some glib statements and a long, long list of stores pasted from the corporate website. Sadly this happens a lot with shopping centre articles, usually takes an AfD for someone like me or Thewinchester or one of the others to notice them and fix them up. Orderinchaos 14:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination - I think the deletion process has brought forth sufficient evidence for the subject of this article to be considered notable. Good job everyone. --Nehwyn (talk) 08:50, 12 December 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.

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Naresh Sonee. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Singu larity 05:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brogan-Fletcher Enterprise[edit]

Unverifiable, no relevant G-hits, apparent hoax article. Accurizer (talk) 12:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to exist. Hal peridol (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Either hoax or non-notable company. Fails WP:CORP anyway. --Nehwyn (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article just screams "Scam!" If its claims weren't such nonsense, it would be a plausible one. Of course, nothing checks out on this. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cites no sources, reeks of hoaxery. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if hoaxes were ducks, this one would quack like one. I now confused myself. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Search for "Borgan-Fletcher Enterprise" on Yahoo--one hit, Wikipedia. Apparently created by an SPA as well, judging by the edit history. How'd this last a year on here? Blueboy 96 21:33, 11 December 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 List of American supercentenarians#Clara_Huhn, insufficient reliable sources for anything more than a mention on a list. Davewild (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clara Huhn[edit]

Stub article on a very old person, notability not established per WP:BIO. The only references to her are in list articles, and I have found nothing more substantial in reliable sources in a google search, while google news finds nothing at all. I had merged the stub to List of American supercentenarians#Clara_Huhn, but the merger was reverted twice, once without comment and once with the note that "Oldest in a state seems notable" (that seems to me to be a rather marginal assertion of notability, but in any case non-trivial sources are still needed per WP:BIO).
Huhn is listed in List of the oldest people and in U.S. state longevity recordholders, which seems enough when there is so little to say about her; otherwise I suggest restoring the redirect to List of American supercentenarians#Clara_Huhn. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The interesting material about this woman seems already to be in other articles, and ther eseems no point in her having an article of her own. Anarchia (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is evident and sourced. Article's stub status is not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Sorry, but that's simply wrong. WP:BIO#Basic_criteria requires at a minimum substantial coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The sources provided are entries in lists, and offer no substantial coverage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just getting old does not satisfy WP:BIO. One reference is just a directory listing, and the other is not the substantial coverage required to show notability per WP:N. Inclusion in a list is sufficient. Edison (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as stub to List of American supercentenarians. Fromseatoshiningsea (talk) 00:16, 16 December 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 Redirected to Plurality voting system. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 23:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple majority voting[edit]

Nonsense. Original research. May's theorem doesn't say that the plurality method was the unique form of voting that satisfies certain conditions. May's theorem rather says that when there are only two options then the plurality method is the unique form of voting with certain conditions. Thus May's theorem is not about a concrete voting method; it is about a concept of majority.

POV. This article contains too many weasel words ("straightforward form of voting", "intuitively the most obvious example of democratic procedures"). Many parts of this article are complete nonsense. For example:

Manipulability by voters is as such unobservable, but doesn't constitute a problem with simple majority voting, since in a two option case, it is impossible to manipulate the result by voting strategically. May states that, since group choice must depend only upon individual preferences concerning the alternatives in a set, a pattern of group choice may be built up if we know the group preference for each pair of alternatives. However, manipulability in a more options case is not as simple as it sounds.

So the author claims that, as the plurality method is strategy-proof in the two-option case, manipulation of the plurality method is also difficult in the multi-option case. This is complete nonsense as almost every voting method is identical to the plurality method in the two-option case. Therefore, the claim that May's theorem supports the plurality method is nonsense (original research at best). Yellowbeard (talk) 11:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. If an article is non-neutral or contains original research, then you should edit it, sources in hand, to make it verifiable, neutral, and free from original research. Deletion is only the option when no sources exist for doing this. Given that a quick Google Books search turns up over 100 books that discuss simple majority voting, including game theoretic analyses of it, it is clear that this article can be cleaned up. Both the sources and the talk page comment from 2004 state that this is simply another name for the plurality voting system. So how to clean the article up, per our deletion policy, seems pretty clear. AFD is not cleanup. Uncle G (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Uncle G, you wrote: "Given that a quick Google Books search turns up over 100 books that discuss simple majority voting, including game theoretic analyses of it, it is clear that this article can be cleaned up." As we already have articles on May's theorem and on the plurality voting system, there is no need to clean up this article. I don't question the notability of May's theorem or the plurality voting system. However, the sole purpose of this article is to spread the claim that May's theorem said that the plurality voting system was the best single-winner voting system. This claim is original research. If we remove this claim from the "simple majority voting" article then this article doesn't contain anything that isn't already included in the articles on May's theorem and the plurality voting system. So the contents of this article should be deleted and then this article should be changed into a redirect to the "plurality voting system" article. Yellowbeard (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deletion is not required. You have all of the tools necessary to do the things that you say you want to do. Once again: AFD is not cleanup. Please read our deletion policy, as I've already asked you to do. Furthermore: Merger and redirection do not involve AFD, deletion, or the use of administrator tools, at any stage. Uncle G (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay. I have replaced the "simple majority voting" article by a redirect to the "plurality voting system" article as nothing in this article could be kept. Yellowbeard (talk) 14:58, 11 December 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, default to keep. Wizardman 19:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Watkins[edit]

Sub-stub article on a very old person, more of a factoid than a stub. A PROD was quite reasonably contested in the hope of more sources, but I can find no refs to her in reliable sources on the first three pages of a goog;e search, and a Google News search draws a complete blank. So the only refs to her are in lists, which are too trivial to satisfy WP:BIO. She is already listed in Oldest people, so unless substantive refs are found in reliable sources, I suggest deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She was the oldest person in the world at one point, and that in itself should be enough for a Wikipedia article. Also, I must comment that - to say this in a way that doesn't personally attack anyone because I don't want to get involved in personal disputes on Wikipedia - it's interesting that you're nominating supercentenarian articles for deletion given User:Bart Versieck nominated an Irish politician stub for deletion and tagged articles about Irish politicians as unreferenced when they had a few references. You clearly have an interest in the field of Irish politicians, and Bart Versieck and the banned Ryoung122 clearly have an interest in supercentenarians.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But a quick read of WP:BIO indicates that all top-level politicians are notable, not to mention that evidence was provided of a laundry list of articles that Robert Young created and suggested everyone go out and delete (or similar). Cheers, CP 15:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - HisSpaceResearch also neglects to mention that Young's target list was circulated after I had begun tagging unreferenced or non-notable articles on very old people, of which there are a depressingly large number, many of them based on original research. Why am I scrutinising these categories? Because some quick checks revealed a very high proportion of NN articles. Now, would you like to explain why you think an article should be kept despite not meeting the basic test of substantial coverage in reliable sources? What do you think is the point of a standalone article which amounts to only two lines of text, half of which is not referenced to reliable sources? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 15:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is WP:WAX (part of WP:ATA which is an essay and not a guideline, so I'm free to ignore it) but Marie-Rose Mueller survived an AfD and she, not even being the oldest person in one U.S. state let alone world's oldest person, should be a lot less notable than someone who was once the world's oldest person.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment Yes, but Mueller had sources to back her up, Watkins does it. It's not about what "rank" makes you notable, it's about having sources available to satisfy the referencing and sourcing requirements. Cheers, CP 21:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google searches are not a test of notability, especially for someone who died before the Internet was created. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Oh and Canadian Paul, the fact that Mueller died in 2007 made sources available online - if she'd died in 1987 and had lived the same life there would be no article on her here for sure.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Which is exactly their point. They want notability on the Internet. Not sure about off-line sources. Neal (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

So although there is no evidence that any coverage exists or could be found, this is a keep in the hope that something will be found and that it will be substantial, and that it will extend beyond mentions in local newspapers? That's an awful lot of ifs. Rather than keeping a permastub in the vague Micawber-ish hope that something may turn up, why not just agree that the article can be created if and when suitable reliable sources are found to allow something to be said beyond "born X, died Y"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because biographical factoids are good enough to not have me vote delete in my opinion. Neal (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Factoids belong in lists, not in standalone article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently we find it is in both. What a reverse compromise. Neal (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Just getting old does not satisfy WP:BIO. The references, which are mere directory listings, are not the substantial coverage required to show notability per WP:N. Inclusion in a list is sufficient. Edison (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. As per users "HisSpaceResearch", "Colonel Warden" and "NealIRC". Extremely sexy (talk) 13:24, 18 December 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, consensus is the article fails the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meliz Serman[edit]

Possibly non-notable, or not notable enough for a biography. Reality TV contestants, especially those who do not win, are non-notable (per consensus on Big Brother contestants). h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N, since there is no evidence of news coverage. --Nehwyn (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - was famous - not notable Victuallers (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - Have edited her page to update what she has done since Maria as she is not just a reality tv contestant —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalthazarBunny (talk • contribs) 00:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there - if you think she's notable, can you provide any reliable source confirming that she meets the criteria outlined in WP:BIO? --Nehwyn (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are no reliable sources to establish notability. Only references are to teh reality show appearance. -- Whpq (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed reality show contestant with no notability. Nuttah (talk) 16:12, 16 December 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, consensus is not notable enough. Davewild (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simona Armstrong[edit]

Possibly non-notable, or not notable enough for a biography. Reality TV contestants, especially those who do not win, are non-notable (per consensus on Big Brother contestants). h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Do not delete - Simona has been on the tv since 'Maria' and will be in 'Love Soup' next year —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalthazarBunny (talk • contribs) 00:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant acting credits, and no reliable sources to establish notability with only mentions from reality show appearance -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - profile has fallen since TV appearance Aye Carumba Fajita Pizza (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable reality show contestant with nothing else that meets WP:BIO. Nuttah (talk) 16:15, 16 December 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. Davewild (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Blackman[edit]

Possibly non-notable, or not notable enough for a biography. Reality TV contestants, especially those who do not win, are non-notable (per consensus on Big Brother contestants). h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm going to look into this but seeing as she has an established career as a musical performer she might be notable. I'll see if I can find any reviews of her performance and add and cite them on her page. --GracieLizzie (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it better now? --GracieLizzie (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete She is proving herself to be a very good Musical Theatre actress and has had several professional roles in the last year —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalthazarBunny (talk • contribs) 00:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reality show contestant who has had an actual subsequent career which hs attracted press mentions as documented with review sources in the article -- Whpq (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Note should be placed on article disambiguating from Honor Blackman, to whom she is presumably no relation. Also spelling and grammar need improvement if article stays. Fromseatoshiningsea (talk) 00:19, 16 December 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, consensus is there are no reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Sicurello[edit]

Possibly non-notable, or not notable enough for a biography. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and all similar articles. Reality contestants are generally not notable. The article is mostly about minor things she has done, or major things she hopes to do. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 ♠ Talk 20:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete I have edited it with recent things she has done. She is about to begin her career in Musical Theatre —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalthazarBunny (talk • contribs) 00:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability beyond mentions for relaity show appearance -- Whpq (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable relity show contestant who has achieved nothing of note yet. Nuttah (talk) 16:18, 16 December 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. Pigman☿ 00:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Central Ring Road[edit]

This article is about a proposed road in the city of Bangalore, India. It is not yet known whether this road will finally be built. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article may deserve a place in Wiki in future, not now. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 10:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 10:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The crystal-ball rule applies to unsourced information and original research about future events. It does not apply here. One can find articles about this proposed road (stating how much is planned to be spent on it, what it is planned to be constructed from, how long it is planned to be, and so forth) in The Hindu, in The Hindu, in the Times of India, and by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike PR office, for example.

Renaming this to Transport in Bangalore and making it a summary style breakout of Bangalore#Transport, so that it can cover all of the roads and the entire transport development plan, seems wise, but no deletion or administrator intervention is required in order to make that happen, just a will on the parts of editors to write. Uncle G (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:CRYSTAL rule does apply here. This is what the guideline says: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. As per this, there are not many takers for this project. Moreover, the present Karnataka Government which proposed this road, is no longer in power, so this project might not even see the light of the day. The road is not even built, then how does one establish notability of it. It would deserve an article on its own, if and only if it is sufficiently notable. By the way, the road that is being talked of is not known as Central Ring Road, it is actually known as Core Ring Road. Here we have an article which talks of a proposed road which is not even the correct name of the road, we do not even know whether it is notable enough, do we really need to have such an article? -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 12:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not apply. That you are right here discussing this proposal based upon what a source says about it should be a big clue to this. And that this is another source, in addition to the four that I cited, should be a big clue as to whether the subject satisfies the PNC. As for the name: You have a rename button. Use it. Administrator intervention is not required for you to rename articles. I even gave you a good idea for a name, above. You also have an edit button, that enables you to edit the article and include in it all of the verifiable knowledge about transport development in Bangalore that you are turning up. Uncle G (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, let me re-iterate. A future event is considered notable only if it is almost certain to take place. All citations provided talk of proposals and the construction of this road has not yet even been started. Do we want to become crystal-gazers and come up with an article on this subject when there are no signs that such a road will eventually be built. We have seen umpteen projects like this in Bangalore, that have stayed only on paper, ELRTS, Monorail etc. Let the construction of this road begin and let that prove notable, only then would an article make any sense. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 04:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major transportation and city-plannign projects like this are notable from the time they are seriously discussed. It is not talking about an event, but the planning, which in itself is notable, and adequately sourced. DGG (talk) 11:51, 14 December 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, nonnotable (and currently nonexistent) movie; also WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Werewolf college party 4[edit]

Doesn't seem to fit any Speedy Deletion category, so I'm nominating it. Obvious hoax. What else can I say? faithless (^speak) 09:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as poor hoax attempt. --DAJF (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering Werewolf College Party 1-3 don't exist, it'd be okay to speedy this hoax in my opinion. Alberon (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per not a crystalball. If it isn't a hoax, we have Parts 1, 2 and 3 to look forward to over the next year. Capitalistroadster (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alberon TaintedZebra (talk) 11:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the alleged movie has not received significant (or in fact any) coverage in reliable sources. Notability is also not speculative. Time enough to recreate this article when the movie is made, released and tops the box office. Euryalus (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per everyone.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above snowstorm. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:38, 11 December 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 Gold as an investment. Done. Neıl ☎ 15:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Types of gold investors[edit]

Unencyclopedic. RucasHost (talk) 09:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with "Gold as an investment". TaintedZebra (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per TaintedZebra, useful to include but not as seperate article - Dumelow (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per both, but not to top of the article where the empty section is now. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 16 December 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. I delete the original article at [[Amit Patel]] and moved [[Amit Patel (doctor)]] to [[Amit Patel]]. There was no content to merge to Solar Realms Elite that wasn't already in that article. Sancho 23:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Patel[edit]

Insufficient notability. Sourced only from personal webpage and blog. — ERcheck (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge the first Amit Patel into Solar Realms Elite. Delete the rest as they have no assertion of notability. -Drdisque (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

move Amit Patel (doctor) to Amit Patel per changes. -Drdisque (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Drdisque seems to have it backwards. The most notable Amit Patel is probably the stem-cell surgeon, who's gotten coverage on several occasions, including for saving Don Ho's life back in 2005 [17][18]. Other potentially notable ones include the actor [19], maybe a shopkeeper in Mumbai who shot a man for sexually harassing his wife [20][21][22][23], and the managing director at Sintex Industries too [24]. The video game developer appears to fall below all of them in terms of coverage in WP:RS; he might be worth a dab hatnote, at most. cab (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I started an article on the doctor at Amit Patel (doctor). That should probably be moved to the title Amit Patel unless there's something else to disambiguate. cab (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, move Amit Patel (doctor) to Amit Patel, other Amits not notable. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment an Amit Patel was also related to the Don't be evil motto of Google. This might just be the same Amit Patel as the article's about. After all, Stanford and Google are related. (See the link to Don't be evil) User:Krator (t c) 21:43, 19 December 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: details of the merge of this content with another article can be discussed at the article's talk page. Sancho 23:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dax (Star Trek)[edit]

Lacks notability and fails WP:FICT. Trills are already covered in Trill (Star Trek) and the three actually notable Dax hosts from DS9 are already covered in their respective articles Curzon Dax, Jadzia Dax and Ezri Dax. Almost entirely unsourced and probable WP:OR in several sections, along with some trivia. Maybe transwiki to Memory Alpha instead of using Memory Alpha as a "source." Collectonian (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - but I fear this again will go nowhere. Ejfetters (talk) 08:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete the information is covered elsewhere for this fictional character. Though I can see an argument that Dax itself is somewhat an independent entity to Curzon, Jadiza and Ezri, but probably not enough to deserve a seperate page. Alberon (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Star Trek. • Gene93k (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters. --Philip Stevens (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per real world notability - The book The lives of Dax -- Agathoclea (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lives of Dax is a derived work of fiction, an anthology of short stories. Notability comes from reliably sourced comment and analysis of the character from a real world perspective. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Real world perspective" is a requirement for Wikipedia articles, not their sources. A derived novel can contain comment and analysis of a character which is just as valid and reliable as a critical review or analysis. DHowell (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the intro and a selected summary of important hosts into List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters. The rest of the article is excessive plot summary. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - So that the article will redirect there. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Major character in Star Trek. Rray (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge SharkD (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The Dax character as presented in the series is not a major character, though two incarnations are. The most notable and original is Jadzia Dax, and it is to that article it should probably be moved. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Join~~...er...Merge to List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters. Jadzia is by far the most notable, but the two other incarnations are reasonably notable too. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Dabify as several characters are called "Dax" in Star Trek 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As an entity, Dax is independently notable from its hosts (as established by the TV series as well as the book The Lives of Dax) who are treated by the Trek franchise as completely separate characters. This is not any different than there being an article on The Doctor, plus articles on each on his 10 incarnations. 23skidoo (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per signifcant coverage in Star Trek: The Human Frontier, The Lives of Dax and a plethora of independently written and published novels featuring various incarnations of the symbiote character. DHowell (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can be easily merged to Jadzia Dax and Ezri Dax Ejfetters (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe notability is satisfied. The history of this character is so complex that a separate article is helpful and encyclopedic. Presentation would get messy if it was merged into List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters; multiple levels of headings already display poorly in some other lists. (It might be helpful to add a disambiguation template, at least temporarily, as this would assist with DAB using WP:POPUPS.) However, if the decision is Merge, then it should be to the DS9 list. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 23skidoo and DHowell. Dax is notable. Oh, and WP:FICT is garbage. --Pixelface (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above per the recommendation at WP:FICT, even if poor Pixelface disagrees with it. Real-world significance is lacking, a point reinforced by the fancrufty references cited by DHowell above. Eusebeus (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the Newspeak to a minimum. --Pixelface (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable character in an important SF show, with outside-of-universe notability shown. One link has flash or some other busy program on it. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 21 December 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. east.718 at 02:48, December 22, 2007

Kor (Star Trek)[edit]

Fails WP:FICT. Non-notable character who appears in only a few episodes out of the hundreds of Star Trek episodes. His appearances could easily be covered in the episode summaries for those few episodes (one TOS, one animated, 3 DS9). Discussion was attempted about merging into List_of_Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine_characters, but it went no where. An extremely minor character and considering he only appeared in 3 episodes and lack of notability within the series, I don't think merging would be good either. Collectonian (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - good luck with this. Ejfetters (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep May have appeared in only five episodes, but still a notable character to Trek fans. Alberon (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Star Trek. • Gene93k (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Pointing out that someone who appeared in three different Trek series shouldn't be merged into the third one he appeared in is hardly "went nowhere". An "extremely minor" character wouldn't have had episodes in three different series focusing around him. --uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 13:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - extremely minor characters have been in several episodes before, can you honestly say that Vash, who was in 2 TNG episodes and 1 DS9 isn't extremely minor? I can think of more examples if you'd like me to. Ejfetters (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Kor is a significant secondary character. Published sources for real world analysis are available for him. The article is not in that bad a shape in its current form. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable character. Number of episodes the character appeared in isn't necessarily an indicator. Khan Noonien Singh only appeared in one episode and one movie, for example. Rray (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorry my fellow fans, but this targ don't hunt. While I disagree with the "extremely minor" tag, this character lacks notability even within the universe (more a fan favorite than a character contributing to development and plot; even historical importance is more "within series" than "within universe"). Mention on the appropriate lists of characters, and include a link to the Memory Alpha wiki. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough for The Washington Times to write an article about him: "Kor has place in memories, may return". DHowell (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please post the entire article for reference? Thank you. Ejfetters (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, he can't, because it would be a copyright violation. He provided the reference, that's sufficient.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Excuse me, the only reason I asked for the complete article was so I could incorporate the obvious real-world information into the article. You can provide a link to copyrighted work without copy/paste which would be a CV. Without being able to use the article how would we improve on it. You yourself posted complete articles in the Lwaxana Troi discussion which can now be worked into the article. If we can't get the information to add to the article then delete - if we can have the information so we can edit the article with the notable real-world information then keep. I just don't see your argument, you want to cite real world information, but not have the article incorporate the information? Ejfetters (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Any usable citation will have to refer to the paper edition of the 3 Sep 1995 Washington Times with a page number. It can be verified with a visit to the research dept. at a library (possibly in a microfiche collection). The pay link preview says the relevant information is out there. A Google Books search points to other real world comment about the Kor character. My keep vote above is based on the belief that editors still know how to hit the books. • Gene93k (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From what I am reading of this reference, it is about the actor, not the character (despite the title of the article). That would not constitute a valid source to determine notability. To establish notability, the subject of the article must be the primary subject of the reference, and that does not appear to be the case here. My interpretation of WP:N is that in order to establish notability, the article must focus on the subject of the article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His appearances across Trek series demonstrate his notability. The character is also featured in several novels, which adds to the notability established by his TV appearances. - JasonAQuest (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. What's the harm? I happened on the article following a link from John Colicos, browsing through the actor's career. Having it as a separate node was helpful -- I'm hardly going to search through 100s of individual episodes on such an idle quest. Isn't this what hyper-text is all about? Eleuther (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly don't delete. If Keep fails, then merge and redirect to List of Star Trek characters: G-M#K. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is a notable character. 68.152.95.130 (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable per JasonAQuest. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The only two sources provided are sources that are not independent of the subject (a book by a person who worked on the Star Trek series, and the official Star Trek website.) A topic must not only be notable to "trek fans", but must also be notable enough for multiple reliable publishers to write something significant about the topic. The Washington Times article mentioned above comes close, but we need one more. Sancho 23:27, 21 December 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 transwiki, then delete. Singu larity 05:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hair Color Tips and Tricks[edit]

This is a guide on how to care for one's hair. It's not a copyvio, based on the OTRS tag on the talk page, but it does violate WP:NOT in that it is a how-to guide. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, and it's certainly not a hair salon. Perhaps a transwiki to Wikibooks could work, but it should be deleted from here in any respect. Core desat 06:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It definitely violates Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Perhaos there should be a "wiki how to..." site to though lol. Anarchia (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It probably won't surprise you too much to find out that there is such a site. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Stupid of me not to realise it would exist! Thanks for that - I will check it out. Anarchia (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely violates WP:NOT per nom TaintedZebra (talk) 11:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - Hair Care is a very important subject.........but not here, k? ViperSnake151 12:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki if necessary, but delete from Wikipedia per WP:NOT alone.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTOGUIDE. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Indeed, Wikipedia is not a how-to or instruction guide. I agree that if it can be transwikied, then do so, but it doesn't belong here. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wikibooks, then delete. Wikipedia is not a how to manual.Earthdirt (talk) 19:02, 14 December 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. No independent verification of the magazine's notability. If it were notable, the publisher shouldn't really have much difficulty in providing evidence. DrKiernan (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Zine Magazine[edit]

Spam by Ydboz (talk · contribs). I wasn't able to find reputable sources to establish notability. This page has been created and speedily deleted three times (with which I was uninvolved), but this time (the fourth creation of the page) speedy deletion was declined by an admin. —Caesura ^(t) 06:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find references supporting notability either. -Verdatum (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe that I put up the speedy delete tag for two of those deletions. There is no assertion of notability and no independent sources cited. will381796 (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I declined the speedy because it seems it might be notable, with 45,000 circulation, and the spam could be removed. But if not,this Afd will permit further removals via speedy. DGG (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with that circulation number is that it is unsourced. Also, relatively speaking, 45,000 is a pretty small circulation number. Does WP have a guideline for newspapers/magazines stating that above a certain number of cirulations it becomes notable? will381796 (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there's no notability guideline for newspapers, but there is a proposal (which I was unaware of until just now): Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Print media. This doesn't give any quantitative circulation criterion, but it does suggest that a newspaper may be considered notable if it has a "substantial" circulation. It's not clear what that means quantitatively, but there is some discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability (media)/Archive 1#Print media. But even if we were to accept that a newspaper with 45,000 circulation is inherently notable (which I don't), we would still need that figure to be verifiable. At present, no one other than the magazine itself is claiming that it has a substantial base of subscribers. Moreover, even if the topic is decided to be notable, it still needs to meet our verifiability policy, and it's not clear that this topic is at all verifiable in independent, reliable, secondary sources. —Caesura ^(t) 12:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the relevant circulation figure is dependent upon the nature of the paper--this isnt a general newspaper, but a very specific trade magazine--usually 45,000 is pretty good there. I've asked the journal for documentationDGG (talk) 11:03, 14 December 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 06:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dickson[edit]

Delete, this was no consensus 2 years ago, but we have matured our criteria like WP:BIO, which this subject fails, and this article has languished sans sources for these intervening two years demonstrating that not much notable is happening with him. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, by current standards subject is in no way notable. -Drdisque (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strong delete. Unreferenced, clearly fails WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the people above. With no sources, and the fact that the article has been untouched for 2 years, WP:BIO isn't being passed here. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. —Katr67 (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm curious what happened to the page history of this article. Katr67 (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Unreferenced = does not meet WP:VERIFY; Notability not established. — ERcheck (talk) 04:17, 16 December 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 all for a variety of reasons, including tha notability of both the fictional companies and the works in which they are featured, and the fact that it is not an indiscriminate collection of links. Note that while consensus can change, it may not have been reasonable to expect a consensus this strong to change so quickly. Some clean-up could be used on all of these articles. Pastordavid (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional companies[edit]

Another extremely loose connection of minor topics, most of which do not have their own articles and aren't notable on their own. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The article hasn't been improved since the previous AFD, cites no reliable sources, and will never be complete.

Also included in this nomination are:

List of fictional radio stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fictional television stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fictional stores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Core desat 06:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons as the previous AfDs for the topic -- Masterzora (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what is your rational for revisting these AfDs? Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave it in the nomination. In five months there has been little in the way of improvement (if possible), and the article violates policy. --Coredesat 06:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps. It seems to me that renominating articles as a group like this is doomed to failure. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the contrary, three related articles with the same problem were sent to AFD and were all deleted (see the list). Of course fictional companies are going to appear in fiction, however, there is no point in listing every single occurrence of this, and (as I stated) doing so violates policy. --Core desat 08:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY are a major problem here, which can't be imrpoved because it's already the basis for the whole article. The last few months of no improvement just enhance this interpretation. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - these are all indiscriminate collections of loosely associated topics. Most works of fiction make some mention or other of some fictional business and in the overwhelming majority of cases that fictional business has little significance to the work of fiction and absolutely no real-world significance. On those rare occasions when a fictional business has any real-world notability that requires coverage outside the article for its fictional source then it should have a separate article and be located in the appropriate category. "It mentions a fictional business" is not a theme of a work of fiction. The lists do not meet the guidelines of WP:LIST as they do not serve any navigational function (most of the links are to the fiction in which the business is found, not to articles about the businesses, which don't by and large exist), nor do they serve as a resource for topic development since there is no notability for the vast majority of the listed businesses. While the lists are informational in nature, the information they are gathering is indiscriminate and thus the guideline for lists is trumped by the policy WP:NOT. See similar deletions for a list of fictional restaurants and a list of fictional online services. Otto4711 (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Frivolous third time nomimination, non trivial list which is an interesting resource. Hektor (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the nomination "frivolous" is an egregious failure to assume good faith and fails to recognize that consensus can change. WP:INTERESTING is not a compelling argument. Otto4711 (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus can change" does not mean consensus has changed. Consensus acheived by refusing to accept any interpretation of policy that conflicts with your own point of view is not "consensus" at all. DHowell (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All per the comments above re WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. See List of fictional television stations and count the usages of the word "probably" to gauge the degree of WP:OR here. --Jack Merridew 14:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That an article may contain original research is not a reason to delete the article, but a reason to delete the original research. Go ahead and remove the "probably" statements if you dispute them. DHowell (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was only a secondary issue; see my first sentence for my primary reasoning. --Jack Merridew 16:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I reeely didn't want to say keep. But in reading the article, it is a notable collection of information. It needs to be seriously cleaned up, but Afd is not cleanup. Most of the entries listed are completely nonnotable. Once cleanup takes place, it may very well be that a category is sufficient, but without such a cleanup, it is not self-evident. -Verdatum (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear The list of companies needs a lot more work as it is currently quite illiterate - doesn't have The White Company, for example. But, as you say, that's no reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should go because of the indiscriminate nature of the collection. It is a selective collection based on what a few editors find personally interesting. There are thousands of times as many fictional companies as the ones listed here, so it is unmaintainable. No independent and reliable source is presented to show that this particular sample of fictional companies is more notable than all the omitted ones. Also the article fails WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. The best arguement presented for its retention is that it is interesting, which bumps into the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Edison (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Strangely enough, this list actually is not "interesting", although that's not a reason for deletion either. It does serve the function of providing information about particular names being associated with a particular source. My support is weakening, however, because this is pushing the limits of usefulness, simply because it's too large a list. I'm confused by the nomination-- we've got archived debates for fictional companies in television, in cinema, in video games; one of the debates redirects to a debate over "Buy n Large". Moreover, I'm fairly certain that there have been prior nominations and debates for "fictional stores", if not for fictional radio stations and fictional TV stations. The nomination, like the lists, may suffer from the problem of trying to accomplish too many things at the same time. Mandsford (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep just because it says Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information douse not mean that you can openly discriminate against information, these list do not have a Lists of Frequently Asked Questions, Plot summaries, Lyrics databases, Statistics, or News reports so they do not fall under WP:NOT#INFO. I am sick of people using this as an excuse to delaet everything, because of people like you an Emmey award winning tv series goes from having a large detailed article, episode guide, and character guide, with a page for each episode and character to short article, a bare bones list with no information besides the name the episode, and a sentence for each character. Just because a few people thought that an award winning show with millions of viewers was not notable, had OR because there were to lazy to watch it or look at the sources, or my favorite, there is to much information in the artical. please do not deleat this like so much other good information on this wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.40.207 (talk • contribs)

Not a reason to keep this list. --Core desat 22:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how many articles have to be deleted under WP:NOT#IINFO that do not fit into the delineated items before people will begin to recognize that the delineated list is not exhaustive. The items listed at NOT#IINFO are items for which consensus has been reached. It is not a list of the only collections of information that are indiscriminate. Otto4711 (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, how many? Please name at least one article (and up to as many as you are willing to document) which was deleted for the sole reason of violating WP:NOT#IINFO, which did not fit under one of the enumerated items. That means no other policy or guideline reason was given for deletion, not WP:NOT#DIR, not WP:N, not WP:V, not WP:NOR. DHowell (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's OK, I have far better things to do with my time than go back through old AFDs for something that makes no difference. WHether it's one article or a thousand it doesn't change the point that the list at IINFO is not exhaustive or exclusionary. Otto4711 (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Well I've cleaned up non-notable sources from this list. Effectively this worked out to clearing out all listings that did not have their own article, and red links that appeared to not warrant their own article. (Provided it isn't reverted) You may wish to review the changes. -Verdatum (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The companies list looks better, but the problems with the other three still stand. However, all need criteria for inclusion. --Core desat 22:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Indeed, the other pages still need cleaning. I don't know how time constrained this AFD makes things. I was kind of hoping I could get some general concensus of approval on the main page before I spent the time cleaning up the others. I don't want to do hours of cleanup just to result in a delete because the majority of opinions given came from before my efforts. -Verdatum (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followup I've cleaned up the Radio and Television articles. The stores article makes no assertions of notability, and I believe some stores are already listed in the companies list. So I'd say at least delete that one and allow new entires to be added to the companies list. No need for a size fork now that it's been cleaned up. -Verdatum (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are indiscrimiate lists and they're not notable. The "AfD is not cleanup" argument doesn't work because they've all been through AfD previously (with the exception of the stores) and have had ample time to be fixed. They have not been. Delete these ridiculous articles. I (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Perhaps you are not familiar with WP:NOTCLEANUP. There is no deadline on cleanup. AFD is the question of whether or not an article of that title should exist, and whether there is anything so egregious in the article that it should either be removed entirely, or there is effectively no salvagable content in the article, making it better to start from scratch. Deleting a messy article deletes it's history, which makes it harder to see the evolution of the article, and thus harder to determine where it went bad (WP:LOSE). -Verdatum (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That counterargument doesn't work. These articles have been subject to scrutiny on several occasions, were kept, then promptly abandoned again; if it takes an AFD to get people to clean them up, then the AFD is justified, although I personally think they still violate WP:NOT either way. The reason articles keep coming to AFD after previous "keep" results is that they are abandoned after they are kept, and are never cleaned up. Some articles will never be cleaned up (and will always violate policy, in the case of the co-nominated lists), and as such deletion is justified. --Core desat 23:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but I don't understand the basis for this argument. As the essay I linked says, "Articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet" If it bothers you that an article has not been cleaned up, what prevents you from cleaning it up? If you could show me a policy, or even an essay that says, "There is no deadline for cleanup, unless an article has been through AFD two or more times." I would be most greatful. -Verdatum (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Having reviewed WP:NOT#INFO, I disagree that this policy is in violation, because I do not see these lists as indiscriminate. However WP:NOT#DIRECTORY appears to be. It is a shame because I really do see value to these lists as research tools, as long as they are properly referenced. However, I'm not seeing a loophole on this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all . It is not indiscriminate--it contains a list of only those in notable works. Indiscriminate would be a random assortment of all possible fictional companies, which is not the case. The contents of a list article are not required to be notable on their own--there is no such guideline or practice. The sources are the works of fiction referenced, which are generally now considered suitable sources for the content of the works. (and most of these will additionally be given in the reviews, etc.) Those were the reasons given--none of them hold. Very clear keep in the previous afds, and apparently the idea is to continue nominating until deleted. The closing was keep, not keep and clean up--the article was found acceptable. We no not discard articles because they are not being improved, or were would not have very much content left. It seems odd for people to nominate an article for deletion for not being improved when they havent tried to improve it. The effort in nominating and renominated this and similar articles this should have gone to improving it. (and similarly for the co-nominated articles). The real reason might be that some few people dont think the contents of fiction to be desirable content--but this is a general encyclopedia, and this is a useful list. Useful is a criterion for list articles. DGG (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I effectively agree, I see no policy that states that "useful is a criterion for list articles". The problem seems to be that these articles had no explicit selection criteria. Because the domain of "in fiction" is unbounded, it cannot and should not be a "complete list". It should instead be a selected list. Without an explicit selection criteria, it has the potential to get as messy as it was before I cleaned it up. I arbitrarily picked the selection criteria of notable because it seems to be a good starting point. When I apply this criteria to the list of stores in fiction, the article shrinks down to something like one entry, so it seems like a fork from the list of companies done for size that is no longer appropriate in the least (again, assuming my changes hold, and they're really too new to be making such an assumption). -Verdatum (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep All Per WP:DEL, it is contrary to policy to renominate so soon in the hope of getting a different result. Bundling several unrelated nominations together is disruptive too. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon, but this is not a speedy keep candidate, and I would like you to assume good faith. --Core desat 11:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep is applicable per WP:SK 2. I am not the only editor in this discussion to find your nomination ill-founded. Please consider that you are proposing the deletion of multiple articles which were the work of many other editors and, in so-doing, want to second-guess a discussion which went into this matter at length just a few weeks ago. I'm not seeing anything new in your nomination which warrants this. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That criterion is not applicable either - last I checked there were substantial unrelated arguments in favor of deletion. --Core desat 14:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep and cleanup companies, Merge or Delete the rest. Most of the articles in the companies articles meet WP:FICTION easily, just remove and AFD the ones that don't, and I understand the importance of fictional companies in pop culture, like Acme. The other three fail WP:NOT#INFO and most of the articles listed are to rediect targets and such, therefore fails WP:FICTION, the ones that has their own indiviual articles should be merged or deleted if there aren't any. Secret ^account 14:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep — I am only voting to keep this article because of Wikipedia policy on renominations: "After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." Six months is reasonable, three and half months is not. If you hadn't been so zealous, I would have voted for deletion because it was gutted. What is left would be better handled as a category. But because of the unreasonably-short time period, I vote with Wikipedia policy to keep this list. — Val42 (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That argument doesn't work for the co-nominated articles. --Coredesat 22:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - keep — I checked the co-nominated articles. The radio and television articles do provide additional structure that a category wouldn't provide. The stores article provides many that wouldn't have their own article, and these items are related items. So for all of the co-nominated articles, I say keep as well. — Val42 (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all. Enough already. This is not an "indiscriminate collection of information" except in the minds of those wanting to delete this article, who pick the most vague wording of any policy in order to justify elevating personal opinion to the status of policy. Descriptive information about fictional elements sourced to fictional works do not violate any Wikipedia policy (especially not verifiability, original research, or WP:NPOV, the classic core "non-negotiable" policies—other policies and guidelines can be ignored when consensus deems them inapplicable). There is strong consensus among editors (as opposed to the systemically biased claimed "consensus" among those who participate in AfD or rewrite policy pages to shape Wikipedia into their own personal vision of what it should be) that these articles should exist. The most reliable source for any fictional item is the work of fiction itself, claims of no reliable sources are unfounded. No one believes this list should contain every fictional company or station that ever existed; limiting the lists to those which are significant elements of notable works of fiction would be a reasonable inclusion criteria. The entire notablity of fiction guideline is currently under dispute because it is attempting to push the minority views of those arguing to delete here, which do not in any way, shape, or form represent the consensus of Wikipedians who write articles on fictional topics. Further, any remaining perceived problems with the articles can be fixed, by trimming, merging, editing to provide more context, adding sources, etc. Stop deleting the work of hundreds of Wikipedia editors because they don't fit your particular vision of what Wikipedia should be. Wikipedia is a community project to build an encyclopedia, a "comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge"; driving away people because they write about things you are not interested in is detrimental to the most fundamental goals of this project. Aggressive deletion campaigns drive away many editors who are acting in good faith and they are a horrible way to achieve "consensus". DHowell (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Enough already" is in no way a compelling argument and it ignores the simple fact that consensus can change. I'm not sure where you get the notion that these aricles aren't intended as repositories for every fictional company ever mentioned, because that's certainly what they're being used for. Your drawing of a completely artificial distinction between "editors" and "people who participate in AFD" is a stunning failure to assume good faith, demonstrably false and a grievous insult. You should be ashamed. Clearly, since a number of similar articles have been deleted in the recent past there is no such clear-cut consensus, another out-and-out falsehood on your part and something else for you to be ashamed of. "Stop deleting the work of hundreds of Wikipedia editors" is nothing but a phony emotional appeal. Thousands of editors put effort into the articles that get deleted every day. While it is truly unfortunate that editors spend their time working on articles that do not meet the basic minimum standards for inclusion the simple fact of that effort does not in any way justify keeping otherwise unsuitable articles. Otto4711 (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful and entertaining article. The Transhumanist 22:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither "useful" nor "entertaining" addresses the policy-based objections to these articles. Otto4711 (talk) 04:12, 17 December 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 per improvements made by DoubleBlue which lets article meet criterion 1 of the WP:MUSIC guideline "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable". This addresses the opinions of non-notability of those who earlier argued for deletion . Davewild (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts of Modern Man[edit]

Delete only one album on a label, fails WP:MUSIC Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 12:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I could be convinced to say "keep" if better references (not just Myspace) could be found, especially to establish notability of the album. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, and it looks like the original article was written by the label itself. I didn't see reference to another album. If the article survives, the reference to an upcoming album in 2006 should be removed. Xymmax (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC) N.B. Nevermind, I just did it now.[reply]
Keep. Winnipeg Sun ChartAttack Vue BeatRoute ChartAttack CD review Exclaim CD review 2007 Saskatchewan Recording Industry Association compilation ChartAttack discussion of 2008 album GoMM at Canadiam Music Week review CBC Radio 3 recording session The Concordian Carillon CD review Gauntlet interview Gauntlet CD review + evidence of several national tours DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done, DoubleBlue! (No one else had done a Google search?) The university newspaper articles are usually, on their own, not enough to establish notability, but the reviews and articles in national music magazines such as Exclaim! and Chart, along with the Winnipeg Sun are more than enough for a keep. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per sources found by User:DoubleBlue -- Whpq (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources. Bearcat (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only one album. Notability not established. HelenWatt (talk) 04:22, 16 December 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; none of the concerns in the various rationales for deletion were satisfactorily refuted. east.718 at 20:25, December 21, 2007

List of fictional electronic games[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is a perpetually incomplete list of fictional video games that have appeared in various places; the idea of listing something so insignificant (and mostly without sources) violates WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is a loosely connected list of very minor topics, most of which don't even have their own articles (as they would not be notable outside whatever they appeared in). Core desat 06:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what is your rational for revisting this AfD? Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been a year and a half since the previous AFD, and the article violates policy. --Core desat 06:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:L. I dispute several parts of the nominator's rationale. First, these topics are not loosely connected. In fact, the items of this list are connected by the only thing there is to them: being fictional games.

Having an article is not a requirement for appearing on a list.
Being independently notable is not a requirement for appearing on a list.
Being (able to be) complete is not a requirement for any list.

This list is valid as a collection of plot elements from various very large and notable sources, and is relevant to the discussion of fiction in general. User:Krator (t c) 09:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:L is simply a guideline on how to write lists; it can't be used to justify keeping one as doing so would justify keeping all lists. The items on this list are woefully non-notable, and the list itself smacks of OR. --Core desat 22:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, original research, unencyclopediac. Ra2007 (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Krator. SharkD (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't agree with original research and at least some of the information is encyclopedic, but I think it clearly is at odds with WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . It is not indiscriminate--it contains a list of only those in notable works. Indiscriminate would be a random assortment of all possible fictional games, which is not the case. The judgement of insignificance is the personal opinion of the nominator--as there are sources, that view is not supported. The contents of a list article are not required to be notable on their own--there is no such guideline or practice. Very clear keep in the previous afs, and apparently the idea is to continue nominating until deleted. This is a general encyclopedia, and this is a useful list. Useful is a criterion for list articles. DGG (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good argument, I agree. User:Krator (t c) 11:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usefulness is not a criterion for lists (unless that has changed, but unless you can show me where it has, that argument is simply WP:USEFUL), and there has only been one previous AFD. This is an unencyclopedic directory of loosely-connected information. --Core desat 11:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see lists like t his as intended to pro=vide information for browsing wikipedia, being more informative than categories, and WP:USEFUL says specifically "An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject." ". Agreed, its only an essay. DGG (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - indiscriminate list seeking to capture every mention of every fictional game, game system, game company, game anything mentioned anywhere in a work of fiction ever. Directory of items which have absolutely no association with each other whatsoever. The passing mention of a non-existent video game does not create any association between the works of fiction which contain the passing mention. "It mentions a fictional video game" is not a theme or motif. For all intents and purposes this amounts to a List of joke video game names and consensus has been fairly strong and consistent that non-notable lists of jokes are not encyclopedic. See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Running gags in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Running gags in Seinfeld, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Running gags in Friends. Otto4711 (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some users are too damn serious. The article is doing no harm. Let the kids on Wikipedia have their topics. The Transhumanist 22:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOHARM; your argument is not based in policy. --Core desat 05:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711 and Ra2007 -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:40, 18 December 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. east.718 at 02:48, December 22, 2007

List of Monster Allergy characters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A plot summary/list of characters for an otherwise notable comic/TV show. Fails into WP:NOT#PLOT as an unsourceable plot summary. Links to possible notability in the first AfD are (after translation) about the series rather than the characters. The entire article appears unsourceable to reliable sources. Should be deleted then recreated as a redirect only to Monster Allergy. Not proposing a merger as all of the detail in the article that is referenceable is already covered in the plot section of the main article. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) - Peripitus (Talk) 06:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge but I admit my bias for allowing a main character list for any fictional work, independent of established notability. I simply don't like the alternatives to have an article for each character, or to have no information on the characters at all. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understandably. However lists of these type, unless the series is as widespread as as the simpsons, don't often have reliable sources and this one does not. Simply, the world seems uninterested in writing about Elena Potato and others, so the article is a mostly original research plot summary - clearly what wikipedia is not - Peripitus (Talk) 20:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per WP:WAF, a work of fiction is a valid primary source for its plot and characters; thus, chracter information is never unsourceable. (Notability information, of course, requires secondary sources.) —Quasirandom (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not fail WP:FICT, which states that lists like this can exist as sub-articles to the main article, in part of a series broken up per WP:SS. WP:PLOT does not say anything about unsourceable plot, it asks that articles be written in a manner in keeping with WP:WAF. If the series itself has third party sources discussing it, then coverage of the characters is within our scope, and the information can be sourced to primary source, with secondary sourcing covering publication details and the like, allowing a brief summary of each character written in an encyclopedic manner in the style of Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. AFD is not cleanup, and our editing policy states than an article might look like a first draft—or worse, a random collection of notes and factoids. Rather than being horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential, and have faith that the editing process will turn it into brilliant prose. Let's follow our policy and have faith that this will be cleaned up. Tag as appropriate and Keep. Hiding T 22:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: JasonBillie created the page in November, in this edit and then immediately removed the list from the parent article in this edit, which seems to be following the advice at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) rather than being against it. Agree with Hiding, tag as appropriate and Keep .--86.3.142.101 (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 15:34, 15 December 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. Neither page is that long, still under 32 kb when merged. No need to split off. DrKiernan (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marmalade Boy minor characters[edit]

Unsourced list of unnotable, minor characters; fails WP:FICT. Mostly restating of various plot points from the anime series. Most sections have more images than actual text. Collectonian (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Marmalade Boy characters since that page is mercifully short. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article was originally split off from that as it was perceived to be getting too long, but if a merge is agreed to I would be fine with that. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 06:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not compared to a lot of other character lists. Since all characters that are not notable on their own are supposed to be merged into lists, the "too long" ~~rule~~ guideline has to be broken. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 06:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of # of characters for a series, no, it's not on the long side. Largely everyone who shows up and plays some role is mentioned, I think. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 06:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to List of Marmalade Boy characters per nom, but without the images. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to List of Marmalade Boy characters; agree that splitting off for length isn't really needed, not for this class of list. Sgeureka's suggestion of removing the images isn't a bad one. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images have been pulled. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 19:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. An acceptable compromise, and it really doesn't seem like the result would be too long - especially if the editors carefully copyedited and positioned/shrunk the pictures. --Gwern (contribs) 20:45 15 December 2007 (GMT)

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. Singu larity 05:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitation-distributed-temporal-curvature[edit]

Somebody's thesis. Would speedy but there's no CSD for that. Drdisque (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. You could probably use db-copyvio as the article itself says its a copy from some web site. =Axlq (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

except for the fact it was posted by the author for the explicit purpose to fall under gravity, Recent alternative theories, &Delta

Delete and reference - add a reference on Gravity. Is is an alternate theory and should be listed there with the reference given in the article if article gets deleted. --Arcanios (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not require a reference in Gravity until/unless it becomes a notable alternate theory. Hal peridol (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable research. If/when this becomes notable, it can return in some fashion. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:50, 14 December 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. Singu larity 05:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Irish surnames starting with A[edit]

I just found this article List of Irish surnames starting with A and on review it appears to be a child (poorly built) of List of Irish surnames, which was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames 2. So I bring it to you to ask your opinion if the 25 (none for "X") child articles should ~~have the contents of the lists transwikied to Wiktionary, merged to wiktionary:Appendix:Irish surnames, and~~ be deleted? Jeepday (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding all related articles

Transwiki to wiktionary:Category:Surname appendices – so that they can be merged into wiktionary:Appendix:Irish surnames – and delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Jeepday's comment below. A closer look at the lists reveals that a good portion of the names are not Irish or are not generally considered Irish (Johnson, Walker, et cetera). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki & delete per Black Falcon. SkierRMH (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Transwiki may not be indicated. The creater User talk:BlakeCS is blocked for hoax creation. Straight delete may be more appropriate for these unreferenced articles. Jeepday (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jeepday. —Scouter Sig 06:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki A very heavily reduced version of this might be of use in Wiktionary (i.e. keep the clearly Gaelic derived names with sourcing). The list author seems to have trouble with differentiating Irish and Scottish names (there's an overlap, but names like Keith, Carmichael and Chalmers clearly belong on a Scottish list.) Amaryllis25^{"Talk to me"} 16:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The parent List of Irish surnames has been long deleted but its 25 sub-articles were missed. Saga City (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per Saga City. Also: how could this ever be properly referenced? LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References A search at Google books Finds 724 books fully viewable online that speak to Irish Surnames. So the answer is it could be easily referenced from the comfort of your keyboard. Jeepday (talk) 14:14, 12 December 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. krimpet ✽ 03:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super-hood[edit]

Never heard of this word before, likely a neologism Mr Senseless (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No real ghits and no entries on urbandictionary.com. Definately a neologism. Billscottbob (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made up. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sourcing, dicdef, no assertion of notability for the phrase.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 05:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significant use on the net and no references in the article. Alberon (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the notability guideline (term has not been the subject of coverage in relibale independnet sources) and fails [WP:NEO]] (unsourced, and article is nothing more than an attempted dictionary definition). Wikipedia is not for things just made up one day. Euryalus (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. WP:NOT#DICT is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of this article's unsuitability for Wikipedia.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pileon snowball delete fails WP:NOT#DICT, WP:NEO, WP:OR, borderline CSD A1. Probably more too. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:14, 11 December 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. Kurykh 20:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extol International[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Contested PROD. I have issues with notability, verifiability, as well as possible spam. Mr Senseless (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note This page was previously speedily deleted on July 15, 2007, for non-notability per WP:CORP. Ariel♥Gold 11:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like spam to me. The company has a profile on just about every site which gives tech companies a place to list themselves. What makes it difficult is that is look like there is a company by the same name out of New Jersey. Keep I am going to change my vote to keep, enough sources that make non trivial mention of Extol have been mentioned. I would like to make sure that these are actual articles and not PR pieces written to promote the company, but assuming good faith, I have to go with keep. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly fails WP:CORP. -Drdisque (talk) 08:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It definitely fails WP:CORP. I sympathize the author for trying to believe a company that may be considered large in his area would be notable, but it seems he is still new to Wikipedia. He needs to learn the ropes of WP before proceeding with authoring more articles and first learn the different article guidelines and standards we have. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 10:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no evidence that the company meets WP:CORP, and the author told me on my talk page that even within his area, no reliable sources exist. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what content there is into the Pottsville, Pennsylvania article. Jeffpw (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Wehberf (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)) If I find an article from a respect paper would that qualify it as notable? I read though the documents in WP:Corp and yet I am still fuzzy on what is notable and what isn't. Apologies for making everyone run around like this.[reply]
- Wehberf, thanks for your efforts. What you will need is coverage from reliable sources allowing us to verify the information. That would include coverage by financial media and industry media. It must be independent of the company. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Wehberf (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)) I am trying :) Would this qualify http://inquirer.philly.com/rss/business/newfifty.asp It's the largest Philadelphia Paper. It's #41 on the list of the fasting growing top 50 companies. Cool Beans--- I also found it listed on the fastest growing 500 in Inc Magazine. http://www.inc.com/inc5000/2007/company-profile.html?id=1999462[reply]

- They certainly do. Keep based on Wehberf's references. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Wehberf (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC))Thank you... I feel I did find the qualifications based on my understanding of the terms and conditions, do we have an agreement if the page can live? Again thank you everyone for your input.. I value keeping Wikipedia spam free as well and I do agree with the general mindset that the company should be noteable, that being stated, I did find references in mainstream media to support that the company is notable. Please advise if I can remove the rapid deletion request.[reply]

Delete. Fails notability guidelines for corporations and organizations. Media coverage is trivial and not independent of the topic. --slakr^\ talk / 15:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

((74.94.35.29 (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC))) Top 500 fasting growing firm in the United States as per Inc Magazine is trivial? I guess we all have our opinions... Personally I wish my firm was on that list.[reply]

It certainly does help. Has Inc Magazine ever actually written an article about this company? The point of the notability criteria is that the information in the article must be verifiable from independent sources. Just the name of the company on a list doesn't provide or verify any information about the company, but an article would. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Wehberf (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)) I did find another reference to them in a trade magazine on doing Krispy Kreme's EDI work - http://www.inboundlogistics.com/articles/toolkit/toolkit1106.shtml and I also found another profile of the firm on Forbes Magazine http://itresearch.forbes.com/detail/ORG/980279220_808.html and another profile of the firm on BusinessWeek http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=983770 As you can tell I am really trying to put effort into this one because honestly I do feel the company is notable. The company just bought a building downtown, hiring people right and left that otherwise would of left this area. It's notable to myself, the town I live in, Forbes Magazine, Business Week, the Philadelphia Inquirer and next time you order a Krispy Kreme donut remember that Extol built the back end process to make sure that donut was delivered for you to eat. If that isn't notable, I don't know what is.[reply]

Comment - If you can find more sources like this one, then I'd easily go for a keep. The other two are simply business directories. --slakr^\ talk / 18:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Crackers8199 (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)) A few points: #1 - In reference to there being "a company in New Jersey with the same name," it is a separate office and branch of the same company. #2 - If a major, global entity like Krispy Kreme using Extol's software to manage all aspects of their corporate finances doesn't make Extol a "notable" company, then in all honesty I'm not really sure what would qualify them as such. — Crackers8199 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

(Wehberf (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)) FYI -- to be fair I showed crackers via IM this thread.. he lives within the town so it's not an unbiased view, however it is valid.. especially with this full disclosure.[reply]

Comment At this point I see no reason to change my vote. Wehberf, there is no reason to canvass voters pages asking them to do so. We watch this page and are aware of changes made. One article about Kispy Kreme does mention Extoll, but the coverage qualifies as trivial, notability is not contegious, being used by a notable company does not make one notable, the only thing that does are sources. If there are more sources like the Krispy Kreme article we can build a case, but as it is all I see are biz directories. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Wehberf (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)) I understand your position Leivick, so I went on more of a mission to find press regarding this company. I found this article from E-Week that states that most the pasta grocery items people pick up are driven by Extol (I apologize in advance regarding the "you must click to skip ad" for E-weeks format. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1789447,00.asp . I could get one or two articles like this per hour if I keep poking around. However I really do feel that I did state my case well. If you need more examples I will continue to post examples.[reply]

((Wehberf (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC))) I wanted to know the status of this... it's keeping me up at night..[reply]

~~*Delete~~ - I am unconvinced by the sources. As an up and coming company, they may become notable but don't clear WP:CORP for me at this time -- Whpq (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - changing my opinion. The sources cited in the article remain unconvincing. However, we have an IT Jungle article, and Eweek article which are more substantial so scrapes by WP:CORP. Those news pieces need to be added as references into the article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Crackers8199 (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)) Here is another article, showing how their software has helped a $135M fruit growing company sync their data with WalMart (just as the above article posted by wehberf showed them helping the pasta company do the same) - http://www.itjungle.com/fhs/fhs042704-story02.html. Krispy Kreme, and helping smaller companies sync data with the world's largest retail chain...somehow that's not notable? I don't understand...really, I don't. I don't know what more they can do to become notable if the above doesn't get them there...[reply]

Comment (Wehberf (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)) it's worth noting that the evidence from Inc Magazine, Eweek, BusinessWeek, Forbes, Philadelphia Inquirer, Supply Chain magazine and the fact that Krispy Kreme as well as several other companies of notable size run their entire business on Extol's supply chain software was submitted mid-way though this conversation, so the initial deletes have been addressed as well. It appears to have passed all the WP:CORP as all the sources are third party from respected media outlets, Inc Magazine has rated it in the top 500 fastest growing companies in the United States, which by itself makes the company notable as per WP:CORP nevermind the fact that Forbes and BusinessWeek felt it worthwhile to profile the company, the only major outlet that has not profiled the company that has a significant presence in the business world is Wikipedia.[reply]
Keep Enough real sources to pass, but the article should be rewritten to highlight the true notability.DGG (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've never heard of them, but there are several cites to good sources, including electronic publications and the Philadelphia Inquirer. That's enough for notability. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 21 December 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, consensus is that notability is not established. Davewild (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baykus Felsefe[edit]

New journal - begun this year - nothing in English on the web to suggest notability, not on the Master list for the International Citation Index (although it may be in processing). Might be notable at some point - not yet. Anarchia (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. —Anarchia (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
note almost identical article has been nominated for PROD as Baykus
Delete The publisher's website is [25] -- not given in the article. I cannot read it--it is in Turkish--however it appears to give no mention of the Journal. Lacking further information, there's no choice but to delete it. I notified WikiProject Turkey to see if they can help. DGG (talk) 08:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable topic. No secondary sources provided.Osli73 (talk) 09:34, 12 December 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 looking in to the merge proposal the basic information about the english translations already exists in Tokyo Mew Mew with additional information in Tokyo Mew Mew (manga) which also has a merge proposal with Tokyo Mew Mew under discussion[26]. Additionally character information covers the translation versions differences both in the Tokyo Mew Mew article and the daughter articles. Gnan garra 07:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English adaptations of Tokyo Mew Mew[edit]

Excessive details almost entirely "sourced" from fan sites with a stated hatred of the English adaptation. List huge list of minute differences are not notable enough to stand alone. Full of WP:NPOV violations and WP:OR in deciding what the "correct" translations are, per fansubbers and fansites. A discussion of the English adaptation could, and should, be covered in the main article, just like any other anime series. Collectonian (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Collectonian (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is almost entirely original research and is uncited. I suppose if you consider linking to copyright vio web-sites as "references", then you might have a winner. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and for same reasons as International adaptations of Tokyo Mew Mew (which I nominated over here). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. The importance of comparison pages has been established elsewhere in the anime project. (Yeah, I know of "other crap exists," but if a Wiki project says a certain type of page should exist for certain articles, than it ought to exist.) I think secondary sources could be found to clear up the OR objection. Lack of citations now doesn't mean there aren't any. Buspar (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge key content into the Tokyo Mew Mew article. This content is required per the Manual of Style for anime- and manga-related articles. The Tokyo Mew Mew article currently has very little content regarding this aspect. — G.A.S 05:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, in theory, but I think this article is too unsalvageable for merging. A freshly written section would be a better choice for the main Mew Mew article, done as part of its over all clean up. Collectonian (talk) 05:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge per WP:FICT into Tokyo Mew Mew. The person who does the work, though, probably needs to be familiar with the issues and content. I don't envy the job. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:02, 20 December 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 userfy userfied to User:Hiding/Sean Simmans as per the discussion Gnan garra 07:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Simmans[edit]

Rizzo was just deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rizzo as non-notable. There's nothing here to indicate that the comic strip's author meets WP:BIO. (The strip's co-author was similarly found non-notable.) — Scientizzle 22:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below...the closing admin could consider this "sort of withdrawn" if he or she likes. — Scientizzle 16:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; subject has no claim to notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 10:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the understanding that Rizzo is syndicated. I'd like the chance to explore that, and if it is the case I think the deletion of Rizzo needs further examination. Hiding T 18:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hiding. Hobit (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage by reputable independent sources for anything in the article, including claims of working for a syndicate. --Dragonfiend (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A Google search for Rizzo "Sean Simmans" doesn't bear much fruit. There are no secondary sources available about Simmans or his strip. The Rizzo site lists four pieces of "press" and they all look terribly trivial. I can't find anything to back up the claim that the syndication of Rizzo in "over twenty newspapers across the United States"...There just isn't much to go on here for a proper encyclopedia article, and notability is not met in my opinion. — Scientizzle 21:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The strip is syndicated per [27]. I think that the article can therefore be kept per our editing policy, maintained in an acceptable state and allowed to eventually blossom. The same goes for the sadly deleted Rizzo article. Let's remember that our policies supercede our guidance, and that as long as articles are verifiable and of a neutral view, we're okay. Hiding T 15:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw that SLCW link at the Rizzo AfD. As a source, it could be properly used to state that "Simmans, a book/magazine-cover and webzine illustrator, resides in Canada. Rizzo has been published in the Salt Lake City Weekly." That's not a strong WP:BIO statement, IMO. I've found nothing else reliable and independent. And I haven't located the other 19(+?) newspapers in which Rizzo is alleged to be published. — Scientizzle 22:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But that's my point. We've probably got enough on Rizzo for this to be redirected there. The deletion happened the wrong way, this should have been deleted and Rizzo kept. We can assert that Rizzo is a syndicated strip, we can further assert a number of things from primary source on behalf of Rizzo, and that's excluding non-web based sources. If we avoid systemic bias and base this afd and others on what we can find on the web, then I think the best thing to do, in line with our editing policy, is to move to Rizzo (comics), clean up and keep, with an eye on merging to a list of strips syndicated in the 2000s. Although I think there is a flaw in Wikipedia when we can't work as an encyclopedia of comics and comic strips, something guided in the guideline on summary style and policy that Wikipedia is not paper. If an article can be written which meets our policies, why should simple guidance over-rule that? Hiding T 15:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rizzo can also be verified to run in the Sunday Logan Herald Journal, [28]. Hiding T 15:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The debate over Riseley's article is equally flawed, ignoring the fact that the subject has written for Buzz Magazine, the Los Angeles Times, The Press Democrat and The Salt Lake Tribune. Might have been a different outcome had the proper research demanded of nominators been undertaken. Hiding T 15:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you have a reasonable case for a deletion reveiw for Rizzo, and I would argue that perhaps the best solution would be to restore Rizzo and merge in these two bios. I could support that. — Scientizzle 16:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll just put it in the to do pile. I respect the fact that this isn't a bureaucracy. And policy is that we can recreate better articles, just not exact copies. I'll try and work this up over the holiday period. Hiding T 12:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the record, the plan would be to restore the other two articles, move them all to Rizzo (comics) and delete and restore to bring page history together, instate redirects at the author pages and have a short stub on Rizzo which covers the sources, adding a link to List of comic strips. Hiding T 12:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy=>User:Hiding/Sean Simmans, requesting merge=>Rizzo comic article—this would facilitate Hiding's work on the set of related articles. I am of the opinion that Sean Simmans' notability if inextricably tied to the Rizzo comic and, therefore, information about Mr. Simmans should reside in that article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:42, 21 December 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 with Cross elasticity of demand. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Independent in demand[edit]

Fails WP:DICT . Hammer1980·^talk 16:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cross elasticity of demand. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 21:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect, and merge to Cross elasticity of demand if there is anything of use here. The article is a short description of something else that is unlikely to require an article of any signitifance. The redirect seems sensible. Anarchia (talk) 05:29, 11 December 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. Kurykh 20:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Tombs[edit]

Non-notable fictional character with no coverage in any reliable source. Only Google hits bring up this article, and multiple hits on a Scottish architect who may be notable. --健次(derumi)^talk 16:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and WP:FICT. RMHED 18:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 19:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability for the character in the article or elsewhere that I can find. Anarchia (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I lack suitable knowledge to cast an informed vote, but should the decision be to delete, I recommend instead redirecting to Simon Templar as this is an alias frequently used by The Saint. 23skidoo (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree about the complexity (I’d only been aware of the Charteris character), so I suggest disambiguating. —FlashSheridan (talk) 18:47, 16 December 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 as not notable, even if it is real. Bearian (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punk Is a Rotting Corpse[edit]

Changed by an anon into an editorial that basically claimed that the mentioned tape does nto exist, but is a internet urban legend of sorts. I have reverted the editorial, but if this tape does indeed not exist, then there is no reason for the article to exist, unless maybe someone wants to rewrite as an encyclopedic article on the legend, instend of the non-existent tape. But for now, with no sourcing, and a outstanding claim that the subject is, at best, hoaxy, the current article should IMHO be deleted. TexasAndroid 15:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. This is not a hoax: the album in question is mentioned on Napalm Death's official site, however its notability is definitely questionable. And there is something to be said about the fact a nearly two-year-old article has never been either sourced or tagged for lack of sources. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: I am responsible for the revision of the article on this non-existent recording. I added the change to the article because the information is erroneous, completely lacking in factual basis, based on hearsay and detrimental to a complete and authentic history of the early years of the group Napalm Death... Please delete it as you have no verifiable evidence that the tape ever existed, whereas I have articles dating from 1981, recordings from 1982 onwards, and other information in my personal archive (including being the composer of the song 'Punk is a Rotting Corpse' and in possession of the original document detailing the lyrics and music) which would tend to prove the lack of existence of such a recording... I have made a complete and accurate list of demo recordings by the band between 1982 and 1986 as part of the Discography section of the Napalm Death entry... The reason it is mentioned on Napalm Death's official website is that none of the current members of the band (who provide information for the 'official' website) know any correct information about the early years of the group (including demo recordings), particularly as none of them had heard of the group before 1986... I can be contacted through my website at www.monium.org.uk if this needs verifying... - - Nicholas Bullen (founder member of Napalm Death and composer of the song 'Punk is a Rotting Corpse) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.171.115 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Comment A google search for the name of this EP does turn up a few different results, but nothing that is of major substance. ~~One reference that I can find, from Answers.com references a tracklist from this particular EP; it is hard to believe that such a thing would exist for a non-existent recording.~~ Seeing as there seems to be controversy over the existence of this one particular recording, it would infer some notability to this, and a modification that reflects such would be reasonable, if that would be sufficient reason to truly make the item notable.Aeternitas827 (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind that reference; I completely missed the portion where it stated the information was retrieved from Wikipedia. That would make it irrelevant. I'm not finding anything else that would substantiate that tracklist so it does become a moot point, at that, but I do say the controversy, if it can be better documented, would give some notability.Aeternitas827 (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- As far as I can see, there is NO controversy to address. People who believe this tape exists are taking hearsay and 'chinese whispers' at face value, and presenting unverified Internet-based data as valid information. As the composer of the song, I resent having incorrect, erroneous and misleading information about my creativity displayed anywhere, including Wikipedia. I can provide information about the real demo casette recordings by Napalm Death as can the other founder member and original drummer (Miles Ratledge) with whom I am in regular contact. If anything, this 'debate' is a prime example of the fallibility of the Wikipedia model where erroneous information can become truth through repetition. All I want to know is: WHAT do I have to do to have this incorrect, misleading and information removed from this website (so that it also consequently does not get distributed further through the Internet)? Further discussion of this issue occurs at this website address: [29] - - - Nicholas Bullen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.73.49 (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you need to do? At the moment, really nothing. The deletion debate is still outstanding. So far we have me and effectively you saying to delete it, and several people commenting but neutral on the issue. No one has really argued yet to keep it. So hopefully, when the extended time on this runs out, our two opinions to delete it will carry the day with the closing admin. We shall see. But for now, there really is nothing for you to do. We are letting the proper process play out. If by some strange chance the debate is closed as a keep, then there are other avenues to pursue, including filing a complaint with the Foundation that administers things. But I really do not think it will come to that. And if it does, I will gladly show you where to go to do such further steps. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless reliable, independent sources can be found. Sancho 23:36, 21 December 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. — Scientizzle 16:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socio-economic structure of the FARC-EP[edit]

Neutrality, lack of reliable sources and proper citations Zer0~Gravity ^{(Roger - Out)} 02:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was defectively listed at MfD by the confused nominator. The debate should be considered to have been begun when I correctly placed it in the proper log: 15:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC). Xoloz 15:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reeks of original research -Drdisque (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep until an argument for deletion is made that isn't entirely WP:PROBLEM. Please take note of the potential of an article on this topic, not the current state of this one. Skomorokh ^incite 09:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bearing WP:PROBLEM in mind, this article is too troubled even to make the proper case that such an article should exist. If there is an article here, this WP:OR collage isn't it. Xoloz (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't this an argument to stub and rewrite rather than delete? Hundreds of reliably souerced works, from news reports to features and books have been written about FARC; it seems implausible to propose that none of these contain non-trivial coverage of the organization's socio-economic structure. Skomorokh ^incite 16:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In this case, with an article this incoherent, I cannot know where to begin with a stub, and I cannot be sure that a separate article, rather than inclusion in FARC, is the proper course. This AfD will not preclude someone from later writing a reasonable article on the same topic. You, or anyone, are more than welcome to try stubbing this now, and if that stub makes sense to me as a separate article, I'll change my mind accordingly -- but I am not knowledgeable enough to know where to begin, having not read many of the hundreds of sources there must be on the FARC.

Of course, a redirect is a possibility, too; but, there's nothing to merge here, and I think the title is a very unlikely search term, given the likelihood that searchers interested in the topic will begin at FARC. Xoloz (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment who ever wrote it had intentions of publishing a non neutral article. It's rather promotional. I tried to work on the article and it was a bit overwhelming since I don't have access to the books listed as references and the article doesn't have inside citations to verify the information. The article is solely about what the FARC preaches for their "utopia" but not of what they actually do.. is not even clear if they are truly communists or serve their own interests... I mean these are considered a terrorist organization for some reason.. the FARC bases its financial income solely on criminal activities.. specially drug trafficking, treatment of children there was no mention of this in the article, violations to women and of course, human rights. Take a look here Ideology of Hezbollah this article has criticism sections. The article needs an expert on the subject otherwiese I'm in favor of deleting it. --Zer0~Gravity ^{(Roger - Out)} 22:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay. Any information necessary should be spun out to FARC and then it should be deleted. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete a political essay with no attempt at balance and with non-current sources. DGG (talk) 11:37, 14 December 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. — Scientizzle 16:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bagpipe World Cup[edit]

Page refers to an organisation with no visible presence other than the article and a couple of websites. No other references exist at all.

Delete. As the nomination states, a couple of websites is it. It looks like they may be planning something in 2010, but it looks like a notability problem right now. Xymmax 14:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Xymmax. It may be notbale at some point, and they are clearly aiming for notability, but it isn't yet. Nor is closely related to most of the external links on the article page. Extract from the home page states: "©2007 Bagpipe Word Cup Organization. All Rights Reserved.

BWCO is not affiliated with Silver Chanter MacCrimmon Memorial Invitational, Argyllshire Gathering at the Oban Games, Northern Meeting Piping Competitions, Glenfiddich Solo Piping Championship, or Scottish Piping Society of London. These aforementioned events are for Open Category qualifying purposes only".

Anarchia (talk) 05:40, 11 December 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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marvelkind[edit]

Delete non-notable band, per WP:BAND Mayalld (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Somebody forgot to put in the reflist template. I did that, and the references seem barely sufficient, along with the releases of multiple music items. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even though most of the references are not independant, some of them are from published magazine reviews. In addition to the article being well developed I think this article should be kept. Billscottbob (talk) 04:37, 11 December 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. — Scientizzle 16:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kota Harinarayana[edit]

Has been tagged with notability tag since April 2007. Not clearly notable under Wikipedia:Notability (academics). No sources referenced. Snocrates 03:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reads like a resume and created by a borderline SPA, but based on a Google search, it looks like he is quite notable. Plenty of sources can be found, tag it as needing clean up and refs. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (nominator) Just to reiterate/clarify, my concern was not the lack of google hits he generates but whether he meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics) or not. Snocrates 04:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he meets WP:N by having multiple reliabe sources from which to write an article. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[30] here is an example of source that points towards notability. It took about 10 seconds to find and it looks like there are plenty more. It looks like he actually is fairly prominent in the aero industry. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies notability criteria. Anarchia (talk) 06:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lot of reliable secondary sources talk about him and he is definitely notable - ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination for deletion on the basis of being unimproved & unreferenced are not the way to go about it. one is supposed to first try to improve the article--or check at least that there are no obvious sources. Deletion is the last resort only. DGG (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (nominator) : My apologies, it's one of my first actions on AfD. I'll become more familiar with the entire process. I'm willing to withdraw the nomination since I didn't do very good "due diligence" work pre-nomination. Snocrates 23:19, 12 December 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. east.718 at 06:58, December 20, 2007

Tha Death Row Dayz[edit]

An internet-only release from an apparently notable artist no longer signed to Death Row. Is such a compilation notable? Acroterion _(talk) 15:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The compilation gets enough ghits to assert notability, but the fact it is available only on the Internet makes me wonder... could it be something about the singer's contract with Death Row Records? --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 15:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Wikipedia is not a directory, and there doesn't seem to be much if any third-party non-trivial coverage of this.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, or at least merge to Tha Realist. Tuf-Kat (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:36, 11 December 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. Kubigula (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Fournier[edit]

The article does not assert notability β^_command 15:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Doesn't seem notable enough to merit a full biography, external links don't even work, and any third party coverage would still fail the WP:NOT#NEWS test presumably.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:
1. Google News archive^[31]
2. Washington Post^[32]
3. Lexington Herald-Leader^[33]
4. Re the Editor & Publisher links for this article: there's no requirement that links work, sources be free or readily available online when establishing notability.

--A. B. ^(talk) 21:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 03:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 03:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 03:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per A. B.. 'nuff said. -MrFizyx (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per the sources. DGG (talk) 11:53, 14 December 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.

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Brhmaand Pujan. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheng Long[edit]

Prod'ded by ZeroGiga (talk · contribs) and removed by myself, because I don't think an article like this is a clear deletion. However, it has had no references other than a reproduction of the original EGM article for quite some time now, and despite being a somewhat well-known hoax with real world notoriety, I'm not sure if there's enough verifiable information here for a stand-alone article. I have no opinion on this. JuJube (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable (major reliable games news sources), verifiable at least in part, WP:PROBLEM for the rest. User:Krator (t c) 09:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In this month's issue of EGM, the producer for SFIV made a very strong hint that Sheng Long would make an appearance. I don't know if EGM makes its past issues available online, but I have a scan of the article where he referenced the April Fools' joke. Mfko (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - The producer in that reviewer referred to Gouken, who is Ryu and Ken's actual sensei in Street Fighter canon. Jonny2x4 (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE To the user above, it's probably gonna be another April Fools joke. It that's the case, then what's the point of this article existing. Plus, it violates guildlines, such as citing NO SOURCES. -- ZeroGiga (Contact) 02:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here's the quote in full (EGM Page 72, December 2007 issue):Ono dropped one bombshell aimed at longtime EGM readers. "I'll give you a big scoop without going into too much detail [...] Let's just say that [jokes] that your magazine has reported in t he past just might find their way into the game as fan service" [...] This would seem to imply that our famous Street Fighter II "Sheng Long" joke might finally become real
It is very unlikely that EGM would print a quote like this in its December issue intending for it to be an April Fools' joke. Mfko (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: You didn't post the part which says if he does appear in SF4, he'll go by the name of Gouken. Jonny2x4 (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep moderately successful hoax, with moderate fame 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, adding citations where possible. —boredzo 2007-12-14 05:32 PST
Delete - unless independent (i.e. non-EGM based) reliable sources can be cited. I dread to think how many magazine in-jokes could become articles otherwise. How about Amiga Power's F-Max or Kennedy-on-a-Stick? Marasmusine (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to EGM April Fools' jokes - Both, the original SF2 gag and the later SF3 version are mentioned in this article, so the Sheng Long article seems very redudant. Jonny2x4 (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability without citations. This is a universal principle. - Chardish (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with EGM April Fools' jokes#1992. This is the best way to have this article. David Pro (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per consensus above. Well-put together and from a notable magazine. EGM even claims to be the number 1 video game magazine. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:33, 20 December 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. I cannot in any good faith close this as "keep", as the article lacks any sources whatsoever, and is written entirely in an in universe manner. However, these issues were not raised as reasons for deletion to begin with, so cannot be used as reasonable justification to delete the article. Additionally, a number of the "keep" arguments are extremely weak - assertion of notability is meaningless if you are unwilling or unable to provide evidence of such. Given the great number of "keep" arguments, though, I think "no consensus" is best here. I suggest rewriting, and adding sources. Failure to do so may well result in the article being renominated for deletion fairly soon, as a "no consensus" close allows. Neıl ☎ 15:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines[edit]

Game guide material, also not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia per WP:TRIV and WP:L. Sticky Light 01:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Are all of these really important to the game? If some of them are, they should be merged here. Either way, per the nom's reason, delete. - Rjd0060 02:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree with the OP's assertion that this is a game guide, as does user CodeWranger, on the article's talk page. Calling it a game guide suggests the article discusses strategy with readers, while this article does not. And I hardly call a cast of characters trivia. Nor do I see how this is a list violation. -FeralDruid (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As FeralDruid said, I have set out my rebuttal to the OP in detail here on the article's talk page, so I will not repeat it here. To address Rjd0060's concerns: yes, all the characters described on this page play important roles in the game, although their importance will vary depending on choices made by the player. Merging into the main article for the game, as Rjd0060 proposes, is certainly a solution, but strikes me as making the main article rather unwieldy. I think the status quo is just fine here. - CodeWrangler (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mercury 02:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide or collection of trivia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The listed material is not that which one might find in a game guide and goes far beyond trivia. Not to pull a "keep this because something like it exists", but this is no less encyclopedic than, for example, the lists of Shakespearean characters. -- Masterzora (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unsourced, possibly WP:OR, and fails notability. Maybe merge the major vampire and playable into the main article, where the actual major, notable characters should be covered. The else is just minute game guide detail, which Wikipedia is not. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would oppose re-merge, as the Characters article was specifically split off from the main game article on June 6. -FeralDruid (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 09:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROBLEM. The above concerns can be alleviated easily. Generally, every story-focused game has enough real world information about the characters in the reviews on various reliable gaming websites to make a good article (or even featured - Characters of Final Fantasy VIII) out of such a list. This is a story focused game that has been reviewed by all major reliable gaming websites. User:Krator (t c) 09:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and tag for notability. On one hand, this article does not establish notability and I can only guess if there is notability to begin with. On the other hand, quite a few video game character lists are GA and even FA, so I guess it's not completely unbelievable that notability can be established for these characters as well. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep or merge Most of these characters have appeared in the Masquerade's books and RPG as well. It would be horrible for this article to be deleted. Fangz of Blood 15:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sgeureka. Needing improvement doesn't equate to needing deletion. Rray (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wholly lacking of reliable sourcing or evidence of notability. Skimming the "article", appears to be a retelling of plot. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree the article needs work, but in my view it does not violate List or Trivia guidelines, which are not set in stone anyway, as stated on the appropriate MOS pages. 23skidoo (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is essentially identical to many other role-playing game character lists, including things like List of Earthbound Characters, List of Halo Characters, a similar article for nearly every Final Fantasy game, etc. Deletion of this article would be an inconsistant and hypocritical application of notability policies. Mikeavelli (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Copied info over to StrategyWiki:Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines/Characters. If this page is deleted please leave a message on my talk page so I can do a proper transwiki. -- Prod (Talk) 17:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This appears to be a reasonable fork due to WP:SIZE. It is entirely possible that this list could be seriously compressed, and then it may be appropriate to merge back into the main article (the main article could probably use some cleanup too) but yeah, surmountable problem, afd is not cleanup, and afd is not needed for merge/redirect. -Verdatum (talk) 05:36, 20 December 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 Nomination withdrawn per nominator's comment at bottom, only !votes were for keeping anyway. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AVG Anti-Virus[edit]

This article somehow reads a little bit like advertisement. I'd like to see the community's take on this. User Doe_☻T^☼C 02:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI'm not going to vote, but I do believe this is a highly notable anti-virus software package...one of the best free solutions out there. I don't have time to search for sources, but I'm sure there are many reviews (from Cnet, etc) discussing this software. I would lean more towards keep & cleanup than delete. will381796 (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely notable. I'm more concerned about the article beeing written like some sort of ad. User Doe_☻T^☼C 02:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no question of notability and it's well sourced, then I don't think it really needs an AfD nomination. Keep & Cleanup". I'll try and do something with it. will381796 (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Wow, my college uses that on its Windows boxes. Anyway, it does seem to be notable and have a couple decent sources. Possible speedy keep for invalid nomination (Deletion is not cleanup). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup I'm currently removing some promotional parts of the article. This Afd Discussion can be closed. I've chosen another way to fight the promotional parts. :-) User Doe_☻T^☼C 03:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Do you think that we can maybe move this page to something along the lines of "Grisoft Security Software." Since Grisoft has expanded their products to include firewalls, anti-spyware, anti-malware, etc it makes more sense to change the name of the article rather than including all of the other products in the article titled "AVG Anti-Virus". will381796 (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll move that question to the talk page, seeing as this nomination has been withdrawn. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:10, 11 December 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 g1 nonsense, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Joseph Pellerine[edit]

Obviously attempting to state notability. No independent sources and nobody of that name w/ similar life story found via google search. Probably hoax. will381796 (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy - Google shows zero hits for this person. The article is written in a flowery manner, suggestive of a hoax. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as hoax, no Google hits for this person. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The comment below was left on the talk page by the page's creator: Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am shocked that this article is being considered for deletion. I think it is sad that just due to the fact that it is a lesser known actor and has not attained a heightened level of "fame" that his article is to be deemed unworthy. If one were to think on such a level it would also deem independent or "indie" films unworthy simply due to the fact that they don't have as much money as commercial films to attain popularity with the masses. How can Wikipedia claim to be the "Free Encyclopedia" if it attempts to delete such articles? It may remain free price-wise, but there is no real freedom.

Free, yes, gullible, no. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and start stacking snowballs. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. No believable claims of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as non-notable. Anarchia (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as claims to notability are a hoax. The claim that the subject is a lesser known actor in indie films is inconsistent with the article, which portrays him as the star of blockbuster movies who earns up to $7 million per film. He can't be both, and he certainly isn't the latter. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 10:46, 11 December 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, note that deletion is only an acceptable remedy for WP:NPOV problems that cannot be corrected editorially, except in the case of blatant spam, pages created primarily to disparage their subjects, and other special circumstances. John254 01:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Nation of Gods and Earths[edit]

Serious, serious POV issues which I feel probably couldn't be solved by editing the article in its current form. I know a lot of people feel that AfD isn't cleanup, but there are some cases when no article is better than a POV screed. Chardish (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Clearly a notable encylopedia topic. Tag it as POV and discuss fixes on the talk page. If the problem persists there are plenty of routes to take, AFD is not one. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Your comment is the current POV problems are the issue and you don't feel you can edit the article in its current state, then be WP:BOLD and overhaul the whole thing. Removing its history is not required to do this. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps I'm not being clear enough:

Wikipedia is not for propaganda/advocacy pieces
NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable"
We delete content that does not meet the relevant content criteria; e.g. WP:NOT and WP:NPOV
This entire article is more or less a POV propaganda piece

Hence the AfD. - Chardish (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Daniel and Lid. I don't even see what the POV problem is. The article describes the views taught by this organization but I don't see anything in the article that suggests that the writers of this Wikipedia article agree with those views. The article is reasonably well sourced, too. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I agree with Daniel, Lid, and Metropolitan. there is no POV issue here with this page. If in fact there is please site some of the POV issues and post them so they can be reworded accordingly.--KillerSim187 (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Notable subject, failure to specify POV problems. This is not what AfD is for.--Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep definitely deal with any POV issues. Deleting is not a solution.--jenlight (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination due to obvious consensus to keep. I'm a bit disappointed that no one else saw POV issues with the page, though: I thought they were fairly evident. I might go digging through it later, though. And for the record, deletion is a solution for NPOV pages - AfD isn't just for notability and WP:NOT, contrary to what people think. - Chardish (talk) 00:58, 16 December 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. "Keep - this has been nominated for deletion before" and the numerous variations on it are not valid arguments to retain the article. Only Edward321 makes any attempt to actually give a valid reason to retain the article. With all irrelevant contribution discounted, the consensus is to delete. Article fails WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NOT, and duplicates much of the content at Romulan. Neıl ☎ 13:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romulan Star Empire (Star Fleet Universe)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article is not notable, and is simply a repetition in an in-universe way of plot elements from the various Star Fleet game articles. It is thus totally duplicative and has no encyclopedic content to speak of. Also important to know, there is already an article about Romulans and their empire, this is about the Star Fleet Universe version of it, and has much less notability than the originals. Judgesurreal777 21:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Instead of nominating these pages individually, you should nominate all Star Fleet Universe articles as a bundled nomination. I was planning on doing it tonight, but I was busy with class. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but lately, bundled nominations attract massive amounts of people who don't understand policy and create so much chaos that the closers are basically unable to delete them. Judgesurreal777 21:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Star Fleet Universe is a relatively unknown subject, so I doubt it'll attract all that much attention. You should do it anyway, just to have one location where discussion can take place. Wait, are you saying that bundled nominations are never successful? I had one recently that worked just fine... —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that this is the second nomination; the last one was closed on 12 October, 2007 as keep. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So? It still violates policies such as verification and WP:FICTION, and has not improved since it was last nominated. Judgesurreal777 23:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most nominations link to the previous one(s), and it's customary to wait a certain amount of time before renominating articles. It's a form of wiki etiquette. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I used Twinkle to set this up, and the nomination was all garbled for some reason, has to reconstruct by hand. Do you know how, cause I don't. :) Judgesurreal777 23:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed it. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Judgesurreal777 23:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The proposition seems to be to sneak in a repeat nomination quickly again because this will not be noticed. Sorry but I have noticed this incivility. The Star Fleet universe is quite well known in my circle and should be properly considered as a whole rather than being subjected to these multiple assaults. Colonel Warden 00:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I will speedily withdraw if if you can produce ANY REFERENCES, if you can't, then my second nomination was for very good reason. It is now uncivil to nominate bad articles that were retained for no reason, or a bunch of keep votes were made without regard to policy? I think not. Judgesurreal777 01:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains several references already. But if you'd like another, there's issue #54 of The Space Gamer which contains further coverage of the Romulans in Star Fleet Battles. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden 01:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The kinds of references I mean are commentary by the creators of the game about the Romulans in the series, or anything explaining how this was created and developed, and also reaction to the Romulans in the Starfleet universe from game magazines. Post some of that stuff here, if it exists, and we can add it to the article and withdraw the nomination. Judgesurreal777 01:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per Colonel Warden. "Needs improvement" does not equal "needs deletion". Rray (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Star Trek. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Secret ^account 02:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete - It looks like a vast amount of this article is already found at Romulan. This article appears to be a redundancy. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no such action. An article can be merged or deleted, not both. Pick one. Uncle G (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete per LonelyBeacon - not notable independent of Romulans and not enough out-of-universe information to justify its own article. - Chardish (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no such action. An article can be merged or deleted, not both. Pick one. Uncle G (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the page is a mix of stuff, but is mostly gameguide. As it stands, there is not one source for real-world notability on the page. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or move to another wiki (if this is Star Trek, move it to the Star Trek Wiki). --Astroview120mm 05:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously needs help, but that's not a reason for deletion. Kmusser (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is already a redirect for "Klingon Empire" to Klingon. A merge and redirect or merge and delete would parallel what precedent has set. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no substantive difference between this nom and the one given in October. -- GJD (Talk to me|Damage I've done) 16:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the main difference is yet another month, like yet many other before it, of no improvement for this article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that there's a time limit for improvement? I could agree with that (almost) if the previous nom had been a "No consensus" or "cleanup", but it was a straight "Keep" for what is essentially the same deletion rationale. -- GJD (Talk to me|Damage I've done) 18:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of effort is not a criteria for deletion, I am saying it is a sign that there is no notability, because without notability there is nothing to add to this in-universe plot repetition article. 19:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgesurreal777 (talk • contribs)

Merge to Romulan Star Empire. Or at least move... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an independant setting from the Star Trek series, so merging to that is not appropriate. It it is part of the Star Fleet Battles setting, which is covered in both board and roleplaying games. Edward321 (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if it is already covered there, why wouldn't we keep this? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To quote: "Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." One month, during the holidays, is not a lot of time. I understand if you say it doesn't fit guidelines, but it was kept after the last debate, so you need to give us time to repair the issue. Otherwise you can just keep relisting this articles over and over and we will never have time to work on them. Please note that almost all of the articles in this catagory were nominated last round, and there are only a few of us that can work on a solution.Iarann (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This in-universe article provides no real world context, analysis, critisism. There has been no improvement since the last nomination; no footnotes to verify the primary sources, nor has a single reliable secondary source been added to demonstrate notability outside of the Star Fleet Universe game. Basically, the article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and there is no justification for keeping it. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article can be improved and referenced. I did not realize that Wikipedia was now on the deletionist's time table. There is nothing here to merit a deletion, but rather an attempt to clean up the article. Web Warlock (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snide comments aside, ignoring the nominating concerns will not save the article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was up last month, needs time to be fixed. Hobit (talk) 05:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom and Gavin.collins. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOTE. --Jack Merridew 10:34, 21 December 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. Please take any merge discussions to the appropriate talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons[edit]

Delete. This page is completely redundant to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, has no additional useful content, and it is all Original research. The whole page describes an image, and we can just show the image. The exact description isn't relevant to the controversy anyway, only what they were of (Muhammad). Prodego ^talk 21:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with image description page, or Delete the image if appropriate (currently it appears to be fine). --Thin boy 00 @986, i.e. 22:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not at all redundant, very useful and informative for non-danish persons. I don't see any original research, only translation from Danish into English. -- Nikolaj Winther 14:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A translation that is unsourced. If you look on the talk page, it's accuracy has been questioned. Thinking about this now, this probably belongs on the image description page, as Thinboy suggests.Prodego ^talk 20:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources can be provided. No need to delete an article because it lacks sources. Regarding the translation controversies on the talk page, the ip-user is completely wrong in his direct translation. Perhaps I should address this on the talk page? But I am glad to see that you don't want it deleted after all. I am still under the impression that this is best described in an article of its own, and can concur with the arguments 82.95.254.249 has come with as well. -- Nikolaj Winther (talk) 10:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've described all my reasons for opposing this on the talk page when I removed the proposed deletion notice. I can't vote here anyway and I'm not going to repeat those reasons in full, but they are at the end of the talk page for those who care. In brief: sources can be provided, the description is useful for non-Danish and the blind, and the information certainly contributes to a better understanding of the conflict. 82.95.254.249 (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Absolutely nothing redundant about this page. It describes an image that is the subject of a crisis and that it is even up for deletions on account of redundant is nearly incomprehensible to me. That the initiator thinks there is no useful content here, makes me a tiny bit suspicious of the motives behind this deletion nomination, as it in my view is beyond any doubt that this page contains nothing but useful information. We might as well remove any description of subject like; flags, Declaration of Independence, the Bible, Amarna letters ect… they must on the same account contain “no useful information” and be redundant. In my view it is not original research to translate from one language to another, it is used all over wiki in 1000 of articles dealing with non-English subjects. Tab in KGB and you will see a translation in the first line, but no source. It might be an issue with dead languages or when only few know the facts about certain words. But there are 10 million people that speak Danish in the world, 5m of them living in Denmark. One might as well systematically put all Danish articles up for deletion, in that most of them would contain “original research” in form of translations.Twthmoses (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Secret ^account 02:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source - it's a useful sub-article, since Wikipedia should be accessible to the blind and understanding of this controversy is impossible without understanding the content of the cartoons. - Chardish (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the place to explain an image for the blind would be on the page that it is always linked to, the description page. Wouldn't you agree. Prodego ^talk 02:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. I don't see the need to have it stand alone, it would be fine with the parent article. By the way, people seem to be worried about blind people having descriptions of the image. Would blind people be able to read the descriptions? :) It's amazing what technology can do! J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:02, 11 December 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. east.718 at 06:55, December 20, 2007

Ernie (Family Guy)[edit]

Non-notable character. Article details every occurrence of this running gag on Family Guy, padding somewhat with original research, no out-of-universe content. An article on this topic was deleted in 2007-04-17T18:46:45 (after being redirected) when character was named "Giant Chicken". / edg ☺ ☭ 02:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merge any sourced content to List of characters from Family Guy. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All this content is sourced to the show; since WP:NOT#PLOT, there is at this time nothing to merge. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's why I said deIete. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A show is a valid primary source for its own characters and plot. (It isn't, of course, a valid secondary source for showing notability.) —Quasirandom (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know, I know. I basically brought this up so that "it's too long to merge so KEEP" wouldn't rear its ugly head. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ a great running gag, but doesn't need it's own article. This is just one of many such gags/characters in the show. -- Ned Scott 03:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, content added that might be useful in the future. -- Ned Scott 01:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — This article is useful for understanding the gag. Providing useful information would seem to be the purpose of encyclopedias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfirey (talk • contribs) 12:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Prove it then. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:USEFUL is not a reason to retain an article on a non-notable subject. The argument you give is that someone may need this information to explain the joke; an encyclopedia does not contain articles explaining each joke made in any comedy. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought we already got rid of this article long ago. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional character. Plus, recreated deleted material. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nonnotable. Unreferenced discussion. `'Míkka >t 01:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of characters from Family Guy. After trimming down the plot summary, the content seems equivalent to that in the list entry. Deletion policy says to merge and redirect, not delete, redundant content. DHowell (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ~~This nomination reeks of WP:PROBLEM. Please be wary of the nominator's reasons for deleting this page.~~

the Bonnie Swanson and Kevin Swanson Family Guy characters both have 5 appearances on Family Guy, just one more than Ernie who has 4. When Ernie has his magical 5th appearance on Family Guy, will the nominator suddenly allow others to recreate this article, and will editors then have to rewrite this article? Who decided on this arbitrary number?

Anthony.bradbury deleted the page because it was a #REDIRECT [[ ]]. If you look at this Anthony's contributions, he has deleted thousands of these redirects. He probably never even look at the history of the page.

this article has never been up for AfD before,

To say this article contains WP:OR is laughable, there is no research on this page, and this page is exactly the same as 8 other reoccurring characters Family Guy pages, which risk being deleted also if this page is deleted for the same reason.

Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia: There is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page.

WP:ITSNOTABLE The Non-notable character argument is also ludicrous, based on Wikipedia:Television episodes

The "no out-of-universe" argument is also absurd, based on Wikipedia:Television episodes

Other editors have began to add references cites to this page, which did not exist when the article was nominated for deletion. The page now has more sources than many other reoccurring Family Guy character pages, it has the only cited book reference I have seen in the reoccurring characters. If this page is successfully deleted, all of those pages are at risk of being deleted too for the same reason.

For a detailed explanation of each point see the talk page.

~~Based on the above information, I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw this nomination. Odessaukrain (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete — Non-notable fictional chicken. --Jack Merridew 13:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is Ernie with 4 appearances, different from Bonnie Swanson and Kevin Swanson, both Family Guy characters who have had 5 appearances? Odessaukrain (talk) 13:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The character does not have any real world coverage, so it does not require an article. TTN (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The characters, Jonathan Weed, Joe Swanson, Mort Goldman, Tom Tucker, Neil Goldman, Kevin Swanson, Herbert, and Jonathan Weed also have no real world coverage, yet they are Family Guy pages. Real world coverage is preferable, but not required. Wikipedia:Television episodes states: While each episode on its own may not qualify for an article, it is quite likely that sources can be found to support a series or season page, where all the episodes in one season (or series) are presented on one page. All 8 of the existing Family Guy wikipages I list above fall into this category. Odessaukrain (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Basically, you're inviting those articles to be looked at and, if warranted, nominated, too. --Jack Merridew 13:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not calling the other articles "crap" (nice manipulation of the actual link: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), I am not arguing whether this page should exist simply because other pages exists.

I am trying to show that this page meets or exceeds existing television character minimum guidelines to be an article on Wikipedia. I mention Wikipedia:Television episodes because of the difficulty of finding external references and citations on this topic, as Wikipedia:Television episodes acknowledges.

This comparison of wikiguidlines is what your extremely derogatory quote of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ignores.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not stop people from comparing the minimal wiki-standard for articles. After all, isn't that what an AfD is? It is a determination of whether the article meets minimal Wikipedia guidelines. This article does.

I would really appreciate a straight answer: Do you think Bonnie Swanson and Kevin Swanson, standard Television character wikipages should be deleted and why? Odessaukrain (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thought that was the shortcut and only played with it when it came up red in the preview window. I have not looked at those two and may, or may not, next. --Jack Merridew 14:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at 'em and, in their present form they do not establish their notability or cite any third party sources, so they either need work on this score or they're in trouble (the link on the Bonnie page was lame, imho). --Jack Merridew 14:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie is nothing but a gag character. Show me a character that's just a gag character that has its own article, and then I agree with you not otherwise. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

me thinks your reply is not to me but to Odessaukrain... --Jack Merridew 14:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Merridew, way to skillfully avoid the question, sigh, is it because you know this question is a lose- lose?

Lets make it easy.

If you acknowledge that those two articles are up to minimum wikipedia standards, then you would reluctantly have to admit that this page is up to minimum wikistandards, as I explained in my reasons to keep above.
If you say those articles should be deleted, my question would be why? What is the minimum wikipedia standard for television character pages? You would answer, citing something I hope, then I would show that this is article meets those standards.

Both know that this page meets or exceeds the minimal wiki-standard for television character articles. The problem for me is that there is no way for you to save face at this point. Odessaukrain (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and yes; Bonnie Swanson and Kevin Swanson are not notable, and do not for any other reason deserve their own pages on Wikipedia. This "mini-standard" does not exist. Also, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a commonly used shortcut for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Deleted comment was here]

I don't see anything in Wikipedia:Television episodes that justifies retention of Ernie (Family Guy). List of one-time characters from The Simpsons is perennially (and reasonably) nominated for deletion, and usually kept out of caution that something in it might be worth keeping – and I don't need to tell "hundreds of" editors anything. Also, while I appreciate that removing the expletive from your previous conversation was well-intended, WP:TPG recommends you not edit previously posted comments that others may be replying to (or in the process of replying to). / edg ☺ ☭ 14:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It seems the article has gone through a lot of changes since it was first nominated. I don't know if that's enough to keep, but it should definately be taken into consideration. Personally, I'd prefer to see improvable articles kept so they can continue to be worked on and fall in line with Wikipedia policy. - Superlex (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Much effort has gone into this. Sourcing to episodes is okay for WP:VERIFIABILITY, but does not help establish WP:NOTABILITY, which is the main issue in this Afd. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never said it established notability. I just pointed it out so we could take that into consideration. The List of characters from Family Guy seems to already have a good paragraph on Ernie, so maybe this would be better as a merge/redirect? - Superlex (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good point. I just popped the voice actor and all the citations into List of characters from Family Guy, which is chronically undersourced. Merge accomplished. Thanks for bringing this up. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real-world significance. And thanks to Odessaukrain for assistance in pointing out the other pages that need to be cleaned up or deleted as well. Eusebeus (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think my message to User_talk:Edgarde#Changed vote to merge is meant for you too Eusebeus. Odessaukrain (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The character has no real-world notability. So delete it. I don't see a need to redirect, as no one will search for the character with the (Family Guy) appendage. It is already on the Ernie disambig page, so nothing to do after deletion. I (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:FICT and already covered well enough by List of characters from Family Guy. Collectonian (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, that Simpsons page is actually good example. Hmm, maybe, just maybe, this article can stay. I still don't know whether or not the chicken is notable. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is useful for understanding very popular TV show. I can certainly see people coming here trying to understand the running gag. Hobit (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't here to explain every running gag on Family Guy. -- Ned Scott 06:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is Wikipedia here to document every president of Harvard. I strongly suspect there are more people who would view a running gag on Family Guy as more notable than the most obscure president of the Harvard. Hobit (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia is documenting every president of Harvard, then it would be because each individual is notable in their own right, or that there are articles that have yet to be deleted/merged. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notability, verifiability, and this brilliantly worded argument. Well-done to the editors of the article! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, As notable as Barney Gumble, and this article has pretty much the same kind of sources. This character is verifiable per the book cited in the article. --Pixelface (talk) 05:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you compare the two? Barney has been in existance for twenty years, been in 100+ episodes and has been analyzed in several independant books. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was comparing the references in the two articles. --Pixelface (talk) 05:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, you wrote "As notable as Barney Gumble". Comparing the two is like comparing Meg Griffin and Archie Bunker or Ralph Kramden (who, by the way, doesn't have his own page) -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, as notable as Barney Gumble judging from the references in the two articles. --Pixelface (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment None of those sources are independent of the show. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well it does look like the writer of the episode guide, Steve Callaghan, is a writer for Family Guy. How about the BBC?[34] TV Guide?[35] Action figure?[36] IGN?[37] UGO interview with Seth Macfarlane?[38] Wizard! magazine[39] Yale Daily News?[40] New York Post?[41] University Wire?[42] Daily Targum?[43] Apparently the chicken is the final boss in the Family Guy Video Game!. News 8 Austin?[44] I think the character is notable, but if the article is deleted, there is an article on Wikia about the character[45], and it is on the List of characters from Family Guy. --Pixelface (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree that this character should be on List of characters from Family Guy. Feel free to add those citations to his section. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no secondary sources to add real world context. Fails WP:Plot and I doubt there are any sources to add real world context. Ridernyc (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ridernyc (talk · contribs) is correct - Unless, that is, sources can be provided to give some context and analysis to this article from secondary sources - otherwise it's just a descriptive recounting about the character, with no notability established or significance. Cirt (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I've added some reception information and such to the article, fully backed by sources. It's mostly just reworded and recycled from the "Blind Ambition" article though. -- Lord Crayak (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent effort to improve the article! Bravo! :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in its rewritten form It's not much but it is enough to avoid deletion. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:44, 20 December 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. Singu larity 06:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Minas Baptist Church[edit]

Article is about a church that exists, like thousands of others. No assertion of notability and is a small stub article. Bumm13 10:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 02:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources demonstrating notability are found. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AZ - even the church history link doesn't assert anything besides age.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 05:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Rigadoun (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Rigadoun, unless some indication of notaility is given. Anarchia (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7 No notability asserted at all. Just another church in a small town. Blueboy 96 21:26, 11 December 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 Baldur's Gate (series). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baldur's Gate II: The Throne of Bhaal (novel)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Baldur's Gate II: The Throne of Bhaal (novel)

It seems to me that the information that exists is merely fancruft, and that on Baldur's_Gate_series#Official_novels seems good enough to me. Completely open to discussion of course. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 07:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the target given by the nominator; or delete as it isn't a likely search term. BLACKKITE 11:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Good information, but better represented in its parent article. User:Krator (t c) 09:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Krator. Not an overly lengthy amount of information to merge. MLA (talk) 16:49, 11 December 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. — Scientizzle 16:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mort Levine[edit]

Of arguable notability. The only claim to notability is that this person "created the Milpitas Post and two other newspapers". No references, no indication if any of these newspapers are significant or even still in circulation. I suggest that not every business owner is notable. eaolson 05:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete falls well short of WP:BIO. RMHED (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. A few interesting trivial points of interest, but not a full biography worth. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:00, 11 December 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. Singu larity 06:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Thomas (rugby player born 1904)[edit]

Possibly a hoax, as no reliable sources can be found to substantiate the claims made in this article. Would be notable if they were true, and I will withdraw the nomination if proper sources can be found, but there is no evidence for any of the claims made. If he had lived to be 100 and died as recently as 2004, surely there would have been some sources to mention this, or at least an obituary in a national newspaper, but nothing seems to exist aside from Wikipedia mirrors. Cheers, CP 01:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Appears to be a hoax. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might be a hoax based on the current Rhys Thomas rugby player, or might be a mistaken reference to Rhys Thomas Gabe. Anarchia (talk) 07:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for WP:Verifiability. Hoax or not, this article is impossible to verify without sources. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I've tried to find sources to confirm this isn't a hoax but have not been successful. - Shudde ^talk 22:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:02, 12 December 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. Singu larity 06:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Delgos[edit]

Delete Unsourced one-line blp about someone claiming to have been a junior champion last year. So nn we don't know when or where he was born or even what country this guy is from.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable sources. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google search turned up nothing but Wikipedia pages. Fails WP:N. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Even if there were a supporting source, I believe it fails WP:N on athletes. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Anarchia (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources or claims to notability. Victuallers (talk) 11:43, 11 December 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. — Scientizzle 16:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretorse[edit]

Delete nearly every town in Italy could be described as having its own dialect, there is little context on why this one merits note. Interestingly the Italian wikipedia has nothing about this. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability beyond the single town. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:58, 11 December 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. Singu larity 06:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mugs media[edit]

I am not sure if this meets the notability guideline or not VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 00:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7, and tagged as such. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A {{hangon}} was applied. Therefore I've denied the speedy in order to allow this AfD to proceed. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 22:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: should have been left as a speedy, but no biggie. No sign of notability; only pretense is "it's famous all over town" reasoning. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable cable access TV show, fails WP:V. Caknuck (talk) 00:20, 12 December 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Lorillard[edit]

She seems to have had a minor role in the jazz festival, and there is little significant to say about her beyond that fact, and little published beyond the Bloston Globe and AP wire service obituaries (the latter being widely-published). I have added a mention of her to Newport Jazz Festival, which seems sufficient.
I had {{prod}}ded this article, but the prod was removed without explanation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I have reverted a series of 3 edits which expanded the article slightly, because they also removed the AfD tag. The expanded article looked like this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Newport Jazz Festival. She only notable for one thing, and that can be summarized in two-three sentences at the article for the Festival. Caknuck (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand Excellent article on a very notable person. Calling her role in the creation of the NJF "minor" is just silly and misleading. The New York Times credits her as a founder. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No it doesn't credit her as a founder; she suggested the idea, and persuaded her husband to lend some cash, and that's it. Even after you expanded the article, there is still only one sentence about anything she actually did of note:
  While visiting George Wein's club in 1953, she told him jazz might liven up the "terribly boring" establishment. Her husband, tobacco heir Louis Lorillard, who died in 1986, gave a $20,000 grant to a festival, the first of which in July 1954 attracted 11,000 fans
  . WP:BIO#People_notable_only_for_one_event applies here, unless someone wants to argue that sueing the festival is grounds for notability (filing-a-lawsuit-makes-you-notable sounds to me like a very bad idea). And are you really sure that it's appropriate to describe as "excellent article" something you have just written? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure which New York Times you read, maybe there is another one, ill give you the benefit of the doubt. The NewYork Times I cited has the following headline: "Elaine Lorillard, 93, a Founder of the Newport Jazz Festival, Is Dead." (emphasis added) --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, me writing, and me restoring your harsh deletions. You could have kept the AFD tag without deleting the additions. You tend to act hasty, and use the harshest route to accomplish your goals, especially when you conflict with Kitia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Richard, you are confusing the headline with the article text. The article says that it was John Maxon's idea, which the Lorillards picked up and "The Lorillards got in touch with George Wein, then the owner of a jazz club in Boston, and asked him to produce that first festival." Headlines are written by sub-editors against a variety of constraints, including saving space, and should not be relied upon to convey the all subtleties of the article: a more accurate headline would have been "Elaine Lorillard, 93, involved in the foundation of the Newport Jazz Festival" ... but no sub-editor is going to write something that verbose unless they are trying to fill some whitespace on the page.
  As to Kitia, check the history. Kitia deleted a {{prod}} tag without comment, something for which (s)he has been previously rebuked by others, and then subsequently removed the AfD tag. An AfD tag says quite clearly "this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed", and I reverted its removal. If your only complaint in all of this is that I took the easy route of reverting the removal rather than unravelling the versions, then you have got things seriously back-to-front. The reason I sometimes appear harsh with Kitia is because I repeatedly find myself having to deal with with Kitia's disruptive practices of reverting edits without comment or discussion, removing AfD tags and copyvio notices etc, and because all attempts at discussion had been futile; so I took the easiest path to undoing the damage. I don't know why you seem to find nothing at all wrong with such clearly deprecated practices as uncommented reversions and removals of notices, yet repeatedly make unfounded allegations of bad faith against me, but it's getting rather tedious. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are the master of original research! You are now rewriting headlines for the New York Times to rationalize your arguments. If the New York Times calls her a founder, she is a founder. If they call someone a genius, they are a genius. It doesn't matter if it appears in a headline, or the body, or the lede, or even in the buried lede. So long as we refer to the source of the information, and that source is a reliable source, its worthy of inclusion. I think last time, you were explaining to me how the Washington Post could use an Associated Press report without having to give credit to the Associated Press, so that the Washington Post shouldn't count as a separate source. Thats all original research, and doesn't belong in articles or in AFDs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Richard, a headline is a shorthand summary, which necessarily omits any nuances: I simply ask that you follow what is said in the full explanation in the body text of an article rather than relying on a headline, and if that's original research, I'm a banana.
    As to the Washington Post article, I simply pointed out that the full article was not available to view, and that the AP byline could well have appeared at the end of an article which was not visible beyond the first two paragrpahs. This is not original research: it's a caution about relying on material which has not been read in full. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability clearly established by references now in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-written and thoroughly documented article that supports the claim that she was the main impetus behind the creation of the Newport Jazz Festival. I can understand why the stub had been nominated, but the changes made since the AfD was initiated address any meaningful issues raised in the nomination. Kudos to all involved for doing the research and adding the multiple sources that satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks Richard Norton! ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 22:30, 13 December 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 speedied as A7 by User:Addhoc. Singu larity 06:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yung XX[edit]

My speedy tag was removed. Non-notable rapper, claims that he has produced cuts from upcoming albums, but no sources. Has not released an album on his own yet. Fails WP:MUSIC. Corvus cornix_talk 00:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No reliable sources to establish notability. Fails WP:CSD#A7. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- nothing relevant found] using [[Google News] archive search. --A. B. ^(talk) 00:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As notability is not inherited, producing unnamed tracks from upcoming albums does not constitute an assertion of notability, and may also violate WP:CRYSTAL.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 05:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. No assertion of notability. —Caesura ^(t) 06:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and everyone else! TaintedZebra (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable and user makes info on various pages on so-called "upcoming" albums. The user has put up false info before. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 23:39, 11 December 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. Neıl ☎ 15:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blood electrification[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Creating proper 2nd nomination for User:Lenticel, who asked me to do so on my talk page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because you were canvassed by another editor (e.g. [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], etc), please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note to closing admin: I've moved a number of very long comments (primarly from Oldspammer) to the talk page of this AfD. Avruch ^Talk 19:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to keep your responses succinct and focused on policy discussions for or against deletion. This is not the place to discuss general theories about the subject of the article. Avruch ^Talk 19:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the deletion argument is. There are government articles on the subject. Keep. Corvus cornix_talk 00:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, where are the government articles? MastCell ^Talk 18:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - [51], [52], [53] Corvus cornix_talk 04:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those are PubMed listings of journal articles. None of the listed sources deals with blood electrification as discussed in this article, and a long trail of original synthesis is necessary to make any sort of tenuous connection. MastCell ^Talk 21:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 00:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree, no reason to delete. Properly sourced, looks good (but I'm freaked out by the thought of my blood being electrocuted). J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Properly sourced? I see a U.S. patent being cited as if it were scientific proof of efficacy, and "lecture notes" from a marketer of "blood electrification" devices claiming his products are being suppressed. Are these really the sort of independent, reliable secondary sources that would establish notability or allow construction of a neutral, encyclopedic article? MastCell ^Talk 18:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Beck died in 2002. He had nothing to sell or market. He published information, and lectured about a suppressed medical discovery of BE. He made available patent-free circuit designs for the various treatments in his protocol, and explained the mechanisms of the treatments. Beck did make EEG machines years ago. The lecture notes can be found from whatever sources that you can locate that suit your reliability scale requirements. Oldspammer (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, if you've read the comments above and reviewed the article's edit histories, you'll see that probably 5 to 8 pub-med / journal article references were at one time present in the article, but then deleted for POV / OR reasons by 'contributors' who have voted delete here. Oldspammer (talk) 06:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay (Internet connection is erratic, you don't know how much I clicked the Save changes button), I'll copy my comment from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bioelectrification.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete both~~. due to notability as they are unsupported and undiscussed by reliable journal articles per WP:FRINGE. No reliable hits for both articles on Google, Google Scholar or PubMed. Links to PubMed in blood electrification is deceptive since it states something obvious to those who know biotechnology but not to laymen. they may be convinced to think that they are reliable sources. Yes they are RS but not for this article. Those links can be put to good use in electroporation where references are needed. (Note to nom: fix the other Afd on blood electrification, it redirects to the last one. Feel free to put my comment there once it is fixed)--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google searches reveal some interesting links and details. The bottomline question, to me, is if such an article deserves deleting. Redevelopment is another issue altogether. Shiva Evolved (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a person with a science background, I do not embrace hucksterism. After reading the first AfD discussion, I agree with one editor, in that the main reason I support keeping the article is because I would like to see more evidence showing that it is quackery. I could see an article like this having very legit educational purposes. Delete After doing some more research, I see too often articles on pseudoscience get abused by supporters of pseudoscience to push a POV until it is impossible to restore the article to a more factual status. The last 24 hours have been disappointing in what I have seen. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on the proponent. Scientists don't waste their time testing every shed built wonder cure. If this device worked then the inventor would be polishing his Nobel prize instead of pushing it at snake oil shows around America. Nick mallory (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, these findings were published in at least three places.^[1] You should be asking why would this be a threat to big pharma or the cancer industry? There is a claim that a Mexican hospital nominated Bob Beck for a Nobel for his AIDS treatment protocol that incorporates the blood electrification treatment. Re-read the article from December 11 time frame. The Drs. making the re-discovery found out that this information had been known to work since 1897 and had to cite this prior art invention patent in their patent applications. Oldspammer (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I can't find any reference to this Mexican hospital Nobel nomination, either in the article history, or on google. Link please? A small blurb in the Houston post, printed in 1991 which is quite early on in AIDS research is not terribly reputable. Also, FYI, referencing a prior patent within a patent application is not, in itself, strong evidence of relationship. You are required to research and make full disclosure of any existing patents that may have similarity to the ideas claimed in that patent. Patents are often referenced in patent apps purely as a "just in case" measure. -Verdatum (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said it was a claim--I do not even believe it! If you search hard enough, some hokey alt-health site probably still has some mention of it. Here is one of the links I searched for this. Oldspammer (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lenticel is quite right. Electroporation is a legitimate topic, but this one on 'blood electrification' is quackery masquarading as science. Electroporation is the use of short high-voltage pulses to overcome the barrier of the cell membrane and so allow drugs or other molecules, even DNA, to be absorbed by it. That's very different to the claim made in this piece that 'blood electrification' cures HIV. The sources provided in this piece are either irrelevent (e.g. links to papers on electroporation) or fringe sites with no academic or scientific validity. Can I urge editors to read the piece and think about it. It claims that a cure for HIV was discovered over 15 years ago by this method. Don't you think that might have garnered some news coverage, research data and practical applications if it was actually true? The onus is on proponants of this method to prove its validity, which they can't because it has none that I can see. Nick mallory (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, "that you can see?" Where are you looking? 23:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In peer reviewed medical journals. Call me crazy, but they might just have covered a technique which could cure someone of HIV, apparently they haven't which leads me to think blood electrification, in this context, is bollocks. Nick mallory (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, in regards to electroporation, from the quotations above, it is evident that electroporation is the mechanism of BE. So the electroporation Pub-Med source should be back in the article.

Delay judgement and add {{expert-subject}} for now - really, who here is a researcher in the field and can say anything about the subject that isn't guesswork? It looks fringe/controversial enough for me to delay my judgement and ask an expert, and I suggest we as a community do the same. --Arcanios (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence this is quackery, any more than there is evidence that my pet goldfish Stevie can't cure cancer. Both are wild claims that are too obscure for anyone to bother taking them on. Certainly not notable. After two years, the only references anyone was able to find were to vanity web pages of proponents, misleading links to scientific papers that are not relevant to the claims being made (as Nick mallory points out), and a patent (which shows nothing - many/most patents are non-notable).LeContexte (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A medical patent makes claims. The claims are examined by qualified examiners and their consultants. As a medical patent claiming curative effects, it must demonstrate utility. Utility for a medical patent means that it must provide evidence that it works, and that it is safe (not an instrument of murder for anyone making use of the patent invention). If any type patent claim is remarkable and cannot be demonstrated or supported by evidence presented to the patent office, then patents are rejected / denied. Claims made in medical patents of a curative nature must be demonstrated before patents are granted. Patents are legal documents that can be presented in court. The studies and evidence can be kept confidential. Oldspammer (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since 1897 (more than 100 years ago) electric currents have been known to eliminate pathogens from liquids.^[2] The invention at that time was intended mainly to pasteurize milk, but any liquids could be so treated to kill pathogens. You delete voters must be upset that your schooling did not teach you these facts for you would surely have taken this for granted otherwise. I have also noticed that Delete voters here have begun to attack other alternative medicine articles with waves of deleting article content without cause. Georges Lakhovsky for example. It is no wonder that my Dr. Robert (Bob) Beck, DSc., article was voted for deletion if the entire pharma and mainstream science establishment is on the lookout for electro-medicine information being circulated? It is evident that Nick Mallory has done little research on the internet for this since there are lots of Google videos on Bob Beck / Robert C. Beck / Suppressed Medical Discovery - Granada Forum / Bob Beck Protocol, and so on. Oldspammer (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The outcome of other AFDs do not have bearing on this one. Nor should an Afd be taken personally. If an article clearly violates established policies on WP, it should be deleted. If you believe you can find reputable sources that support the claims in this article, you should edit the article to include them, or at least give strong support for your belief in their existence. The references currently listed do not appear to support the claims made, and lecture notes do not count as a peer reviewed source. If you feel the sources given deserve more credit, please explain why. -Verdatum (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to confuse pasteurisation with blood electrification is typical of the scientific muddle headedness of this article. It's like saying 'of course elephants can fly, haven't you heard of jumbo jets?' Criticising my lack of research on this topic is, um, ironic Oldspammer. This is medicine, google video isn't the place to do your research, try pubmed or the Lancet. I'd be delighted if this technique worked, millions of lives could be saved, but there's no evidence that it does and it's just irresponsible to leave articles like this around Wikipedia which could raise false hope or stop people seeking proper medical attention. Nick mallory (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is arrant nonsense. We need to be far more concerned that a wikipedia article gives it some credibility and prevents someone from seeking sensible medical advice. Placebo effect treatments must complement evidence based medicine, not replace it. --Red King (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the mid-to-late 1990s, Dr. Bob C. Beck, DSc. physics, conducted his own clinical study of AIDS patients by making his blood electrification and other equipment available for use for free by patients in several Southern California hospitals with the proviso that Beck receive copies of these patient's before, during and after AIDS PCR tests. Beck during many of his health show, college and video lectures carried with him a sample of 20 or so such before-after test results. He said that he had a stack of such results that were 2-feet high, but carried with him only those whose subjects had given him permission to make their information public. Beck would typically ask any interested healthcare professionals to have a look at the reports and indicate to the others in the audience whether or not the results were as Beck had claimed. Several such videos show such a person verifying Becks assertions. Unfortunately the disposition of all of this evidence is not known to me. Sota instruments, a maker of healthcare products endorsed by Beck apparently has also conducted their own independent studies under virtually identical stipulations, and their results also exactly match Beck's resluts--100% of AIDS patients spontaneously enter remission from PCR-detected AIDS virus particle counts, and their disease related symptoms disappear. Please take the time to all of the videos that you can before you authoratively declare quackery / arrant nonsense. Perhaps various medical journals were contacted and sent the study results, but for whatever reason they rejected it because it could wipe-out all their pharma corporate ad sponsors? Oldspammer (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References do not appear to support the claims given. I have no reason to believe that reliable resources for this subject exist. -Verdatum (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Further scrutiny of WP:FRINGE leads me to now conclude that the existence of an article on this subject may be appropriate. However, the article in its current form needs serious Cleanup. That's acceptable because it appears to be a surmountable problem and AFD is not cleanup. I say weak keep because according to WP:FRINGE, "In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication or by a notable group or individual." and this is an extremely subjective and debatable criteria. -Verdatum (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We shouldn't delete an article because it makes claims which cannot be supportable, so long as there is sufficient sourcing to indicate taht it is, or at least was at some point, believed. After all, we have an article on Phlogiston. (This is not an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, this is an argument that we can have sourced articles on quackery.) Corvus cornix_talk 16:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However in this case it doesn't appear to have been believed in by a notably large bunch of people. LeContexte (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentNo, we shouldn't have articles on non-notable uh... inventions as they to are subjected to rules regarding reliable sources. My search tells me that nobody in the academe paid attention to this uh... technology. The article that you mentioned is a part of the history of science just like alchemy so comparing that article to this one is inappropriate. I hope I'm not insulting your intelligence but I don't want you to repeat my mistakes in here--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is pretty clearly pseudoscience. In addition, it doesn't even seem to be sufficiently notable pseudoscience to warrant an article on that basis. The references are very feeble, too. Tim Ross·^talk 17:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is at the protoscience stage. All of the claims can be verified. The apparatus for reproducing the results is well documented. Oldspammer (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

verified by whom? The only sources you cite are lectures by this Robert C Peck character. He is clearly of some significance to you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oldspammer/Robert_C._Beck) but, for the rest of the world, he is not notable and not a reliable source. LeContexte (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to verifiability problems. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has been correctly classified as being a part of alternative medicine. Blood electrification has existed since the early 1990s. The article has been developed beyond stub status. Whether or not the treatement actually works or not is totall besides the point. If it exists and the article is bigger than a stub, than it obviously belongs in WikiPedia. -- John Gohde (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC) — Canvassed !vote - see [54][reply]

Changing my vote to Conditional Keep as it now barely passes WP:FRINGE

I'm for keep as long as:

- Disclaimers are not removed:

The usefulness of blood electrification is considered a fringe theory, and there are no independent, peer reviewed studies showing that this technique has any significant affect against any of the pathogens claimed.

These studies were not peer reviewed, nor were they published in reputable medical journals.

There is no evidence that such a method would be effective

These experiments have not been duplicated by any credible researchers.

To date, no tests have been performed by Health and Safety regulators to determine the safety and effectiveness of blood electrification, and this therapy has not been approved by the US FDA.

The granting of patents does not in any way imply Government or scientific approval for such techniques, nor does it imply that they work.

- Permanent removal of the deceiving Electroporation and oral bacteria refs.

If these are conditions are not met, I'm more than happy to Afd nom this myself.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: see other comments above for electroporation. Oldspammer (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: Sources do not demonstrate notability (per WP:FRINGE), and are manifestly unfit to create a neutral encyclopedia article. This article could potentially be rebuilt from the ground up (using actual independent, reliable secondary sources such as this), but there's nothing salvageable here - just an ad for Robert Beck. MastCell ^Talk 18:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, no or few WP:RS left due to deletionist edits: please review the history of the article. If you have WP:RS about blood electrification (and not frequency devices, or energy machines) please add text to this alternative medicine article, then make reference to the WP:RS.

Beck is dead, and has nothing to gain.

Beck never was selling anything--nothing to gain.

Electromedicine-why is it taboo / political, and Beck for having been associated with it?

It all seems too fishy--What is at the root of the taboo-nature of this subject? Is it John D. Rockefeller and his investment in pharma and his sponsored Flexner report and the resulting schooling of medical students not to trust electro-medicine? Oldspammer (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop veering off-topic. AFD is not an appropriate place to discuss the existence or non-existence of conspiracies. -Verdatum (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice for recreation as MastCell described. As far as I can tell, this article is functioning as a soapbox. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: MastCell seems to have given a link to a fraudulent medical device news paper story about energy-medicine machines and so on, not anything that remotely mentioned Blood electrification or Beck or blood cleaning or anything at all related that could be used "in recreation" on any such new version of an article. Nice to see you support him/her unconditionally though! Oldspammer (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend never trust anyone who uses the phrase "without prejudice"--it usually means the opposite. You seem not to have read the comments here, or on the talk page, nor examined the edit history of the article, nor examined all the patents, and their cited supporting science journal articles. The momentary state of the article to me is that of one ravaged from its NPOV state. Oldspammer (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quack nostrum being deceptively touted as if it were something else. - Nunh-huh 23:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know what your quick quip is about? It is uncivil to call anyone deceptive. You do not say why the clinical trials of the more recent patent were Quackish. . . So you appear unreasoned in your beliefs. Oldspammer (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand it, reread it. While you're rereading, note that it calls no person deceptive. When finished, write a brief essay about whether calling someone "unreasoned" is civil. These would all be more productive pursuits than trying to dispute here this article's many flaws. - Nunh-huh 19:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, nostrum is unproven, and unprovable, operates in a hidden, secretive, magic, occult manner--pseudoscience. However, the devices for BE and The Beck Protocol are fully disclosed, are inexpensive, can be home built, and can be tried, as thousands or millions of people have done, safely to experiment (science) to investigate whether the scientists' claims and the anecdotal evidence, testimonials, and clinical PCR before/after results of all the others are fiction. BE is at the protoscience stage--provable and open to investigate. And, I said it appears your quip is unreasoned because you do not provide identification of specific 'flaws' and for which version of the article. If it is only the area of alternative medicine with which you disagree, and not specifically this individual article's style / content / references / layout, readers of this discussion cannot tell what is your reasoning? Oldspammer (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nostrums are remedies promulgated as if proven, which are in fact unproven. Blood electrification is unproven. The article promotes it as though it were proven. Therefore, blood electrification is a nostrum. Wikipedia is not the place to encourage home experimenters to play with your favorite - and dangererous - quack nostrum in a vain attempt to procure anecdotal evidence that it "works". - Nunh-huh 04:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An unproven, but promising treatment is exactly what alternative medicine is. If it were proven via double blind published clinical studies, then mainstream medicine would be using it now. So what your point boils down to is that it is still alt-med rather than mainstream. And BTW, the wiki article does not say to try it, and in fact has many warnings in the article that the treatment is unproven and unapproved. Oldspammer (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement is neither true, nor fair to alternative medicine. - Nunh-huh 08:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beg to differ--there are numerous disclaimers in the article about it not being approved, and being unproven. Alternative medicine is any promising medicine that has not been adopted by and is not used by mainstream medicine, or has been shunned or suppressed by big pharma for political and trust (as in anti-trust monopoly) reasons.
In the case of diseases that are currently incurable by conventional, consensus medicine, one is forced to try alternatives, no? Consensus can be based on falsified medical journal published studies, no? Those studies are sponsored by whom? Three guesses. Oldspammer (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The studies are sponsored by a secret cabal of conspirators whose lives are devoted to keeping sick people sick so they can reap a profit off their miserable, pain-racked bodies as they die slowly instead of being miraculously cured....probably the multi-billion dollar medical-industrial complex, I'm guessing. Unless maybe the Jews or the Trilateral Commission are involved. - Nunh-huh 23:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Apparently there is some notability. The existence of an article isn't a comment on the subject's credibility. If there is bad press, it should be reported, too. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ References are almost exclusively primary sources written by the main proponents of this technique. The bulk of the article is the history of two groups' development of the technique. Wikipedia doesn't exit to advertise alternative medical treatments, especially those that have almost nothing in relevant independent literature. — Scientizzle 16:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reuters News Service New York story was third party. Science News was third party source. Same with Longevity Magazine. NY News that talked about Beck talking about the technology was third party. Only the journal articles and patents by Kaali, et. al, are first-hand sources. Robert Beck was a third party to this. More than just the two patents featuring BE exist. Other patents were also issued wrt BE, but only provide the article with additional first hand sources of information. There are probably a big list of related BE patents. Oldspammer (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Press article is fine. ~~I don't have access to the Science News article (their online archives don't go back that far, and I've no time to go to the library...)~~, but I get the impression from the New York Press article that it was pretty trivial coverage--is it only the three sentences quoted in that article? Similarly, concerning the Reuters/Houston Post coverage, if this is an accurate reprint, it's rather trivial. There's no substantial media coverage, there's only evidence of a brief and modest blurbs based on conference prestation notes. Furthermore, there's not a single hit on PubMed for "Blood electrification" (or even "Blood electroporation"). — Scientizzle 22:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having perused the Science News source (see the bottom of my talk page), it's the same trivial coverage. As is the Longevity Magazine claim. A single burst of trivial coverage does not satisfy WP:N in my opinion. — Scientizzle 22:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the additional sources found by Abd (talk · contribs), I'm changing my input to weak keep, with a serious trim. — Scientizzle 17:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you finally accept that patents are not evidence of either notability or efficacy? LeContexte (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that they are first hand sources, but they themselves cite applicable, directly related third-party peer-reviewed science journal studies and articles. The patents also serve to identify points in the timeline of the history involved. A group of such patents originating from completely different parties, the patents all with virtually identical claims, and different cited supporting evidence serves to corroborate each other to a much larger extent for me than mention of BE's mere existence in a WP:RS newspaper article because it provides verifiable technical information not provided in the newspapers.

I found a reference to a US FTC project "operation cure-all" that attempts not to verify any claims, but persecute those making such claims. Wouldn't matter to them that the claim is valid, if it isn't AMA and FDA approved for the given curative claims, then there's trouble. I say fine if it is untrue, but otherwise represents a big waste of time, money, and people's freedom--all to protect big pharma from the little guy.

I also ran across a documentary that shows how foolish the "quackery claims" are for certain very old treatment regimes for cancer. The documentary person investigated claims made by a turn-of-the-century or earlier German doctor who came to America and invented a diet to treat the disease. Documentary person traveled world-wide. He examined case files, conducted interviews with patients, got patients to show him proof that they had cancer, the prognosis they were given, and when it had happened. Every patient he talked to had inoperable terminal cancer 7 to 30 years earlier, yet were still alive and cancer free. One patient recounted being in cancer counseling groups, and that one by one, the other patients of the group died off because they were undergoing conventional allopathic treatments for the disease. After a relatively short time in months, none of the other initial counseling group were left alive excepting herself. Two of the cancer patients interviewed in the sample part of the video were M.D.s themselves who had had cancer years before, but were still alive. Oldspammer (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative medicine isn't on trial here. You can save your comments for some other forum--please stick to Wikipedia-relevant discussion. — Scientizzle 17:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hope I get a ten paragraph response from Oldspammer (irony anyone?). Articles need to be both notable and verifiable (i.e. the notability has to be verifiable, as well as all controversial or disputed content). To me, this particular article fails because its notability is not verifiably, and its content is also not sufficiently verifiable for inclusion. If the second were true but the first false (notable but no verifiable content) we could stub it, but since it fails both... delete. Avruch ^Talk 18:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hopefully brief. Virtually all of the paragraphs have disclaimers on them that the treatment is unapproved, and unproven, as well, the experimental findings are similarly marked with "these findings have yet to be reproduced, and published within peer-reviewed scientific / medical journals." Beck made claims about the work of others in a third party fashion--I.E., "Their stuff works--and what they said was true!--and here's how others think that this works!" I do not think that it is disputed that Beck made these claims, just that his third-party claims are themselves also disputed by opponents / armchair doubters, and not anyone showing scientific counter indications. It is verifiable that the patents do exist, that the subject matter does exist, that Beck had made such claims, only not that substantive claims were verified by other than Beck.

So, the topic is verifiable as existing and publicized to some extent by both a bit of media coverage, and a large amount of lecturing publicity by Beck himself--it just remains alternative medicine rather than mainstream because no funding has been made available to conduct formal studies because there is no financial incentive to do so. If you are holding your breath for it, don't. If the government changes the rules, maybe some financial incentive for investigation will happen, but probably not until then. Mainstream scientists work for big bucks. The subject of electro-medicine is taboo / politically sensitive--it's just not gonna happen very soon. Oldspammer (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Insufficient indication of notability in independent reliable sources. The article cites references in a (deliberately?) deceptive manner to provide specious "evidence" for notability of the topic. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide readers here the specifics of deception, and speciousness from the article. I'm interested. Let's hear / see it! Oldspammer (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See responses from others above. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which one(s)? Many are dubious, to say the least. Oldspammer (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, many of the article's references are dubious. That's my point. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is cleansing me in it's warm soapy goodness. If not delete, recommend a prune back to historical, notable and verifiable context. At the moment it reads rather like it's preaching to the masses about it's effectiveness. And that's one thing you cannot clean yourself with. Shot info (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean cut Beck out of it? Or what are you saying exactly? The article has not encouraged trying anything--look at all of the cautions in there after nearly each paragraph. Oldspammer (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's really quite easy to see what I am saying. Delete. Shot info (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soap box articles promote. This article outlines the history accurately. It states that Beck, a third party, investigated claims made, and said they proved to be true. The article should say that BE = electroporation applied to in vivo animals. No promotion -- lots of disclaimers. No specific justification for saying that it is soap box article. The article itself has no OR statements saying to try this, or that WP thinks it is viable or any such soap box message. If so, please provide a quotation here. Oldspammer (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soapbox articles promote an agenda at the expense of Wikipedia's core policies. This article stated, in a factual tone, that human test results indicated AIDS was 100% treatable with blood electrification. Lots of disclaimers indeed. The article also cites www.papimi.gr, homepage of a notably fraudulent "blood electrification" device, as a "reliable source". Yet it's not a soapbox? MastCell ^Talk 00:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This article is about something that has been thoroughly debunked. But Wikipedia has articles on a lot of medical frauds (see Homeopathy), so it could be notable. But then I reviewed the references, and it's just completely bogus. It appears that the original author intentionally tried to make it appear more notable than it really was. Per Raymond Arritt, send it away. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tim Ross and MastCell above. sho y 22:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep and get somebody to overhaul this thing. It has poor overall structure and gets a little kooky at times. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 00:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Oldspammer and John Gohde. It is a soapbox that promotes original research that remained original research, and thus has few if any reliable sources. Beck himself is not a reliable source. Without good sources we are stuck with a promotional article being overly promoted and defended right here by one user who is misusing this AfD for personal attacks and advocacy, a practice that is forbidden and for which he can get banned. Conspiracy theories don't cut it in the real world, especially if they don't make sense (IF blood electrification really worked it would have been patented and put in use a long time ago by the pharmaceutical industry, but since it doesn't, they can't.) I have previously made my opinions on this and related subjects known to this article's OWNER in a very civil manner (in response to his comments on my talk page) and will repeat them here:

You have definitely not offended me. I don't have to prove or disprove Beck's or Rife's theories. The burden of proof is on you and them. Where is the proof (anecdotes are not legitimate for this)? If you can find published scientific evidence that is listed at PubMed, you will stand much stronger when discussing these matters.

Interestingly, Wikipedia is not about "truth", but about documentable opinions and facts. If you can provide evidence from published WP:V and WP:RS (read those pages completely) that Beck is notable (it should be possible, if not only from alternative medicine sources, but also from sources where he is criticized), you might be able to save the article in an abbreviated form. From there you can build it up using such good sources. You must not advocate his ideas, just document the opinions that exist, both for and against. WP:NPOV requires both POV. If you can do that, even I will back up the inclusion of total nonsense.[55] -- Fyslee / talk 04:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether or not the article is well-written, NPOV, properly sourced, etc., whether or not Blood Electrification is quackery or not, pseudoscience or not, is all irrelevant to whether the article should be deleted. Practically the sole question is notability, and Blood Electrification is apparently notable, as can be seen from Googling "blood electrification -wikipedia." By no means was I thorough, but the best source I found in limited time was Nexus magazine, Beck's article. Highly likely to be notable quackery. I saw enough to show claims, but, of course, it would be far better if there were an overall review published somewhere. Stub it if necessary, which preserves edit history and allows recovery piecemail if proper sources can be found. "Debunked" is irrelevant to deletion, if it has been debunked, let the article show that! --Abd (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the article in detail and found that *mostly* it was presented in an NPOV fashion. I could not verify print sources; AGF requires us to accept these as valid until someone shows them otherwise. I do not see this article as promoting the Beck Protocol or Blood Electrification; however, missing from it is sourced criticism. What criticism there is, is negative, and unsourced. "not been shown," "no published studies," and the like. Negative comments like that can't be sourced, in fact, but they are routinely acceptable because, if not true, the fact will appear relatively quickly. Surely there has been *something* critical published! Okay, found it. FTC Compromises Cancer Quackery in Mesquite FTC Black Box complaint. This last is a court filing. Reliable Source, for starters. Mentions blood electrification. I'm sure there is more.--Abd (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in the crank press Nexus may work for WP:N...unfortunately the link to the actual article is broken on that page. I'm intrigued that you found an FTC complaint that included references to Beck-derived BE technology used by Forrest. I've changed my opinion above. — Scientizzle 17:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I intervened here and did the research despite profound disinterest in blood electrification, because I see, too often, AfD used as a substitute for fixing content problems in articles. It took me a half hour to find the FTC filing (and there is also a consent decree), it was not difficult, I followed obvious leads. Many delete respondents above assert content issues as grounds for delete. Not. They are grounds for edits, even bold edits. For example, from above: "Quack nostrum being deceptively touted as if it were something else." If a quack nostrum is notable, as they sometimes are, there should be an article. Now, if the claim I just quoted is true and NPOV, why not place it in the article? I think the answer is obvious. It's POV; however, the *evidence* for that statement, or the *arguments* being made to that effect can be in the article. But it takes work. It is much, much easier to vote "Delete." Really think there is no worthwhile content there? Delete the content to a stub. Be bold. And if someone challenges it, discuss it and find consensus, and use dispute resolution if that seems impossible. This is how the encyclopedia is built, not by erasing the work of others.--Abd (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, erasing the work of others is necessary when that work is misleading and poorly done. "Nexus" magazine is worthless as a measure of notability. Having an article in "Nexus" puts the crank "treatment" on a par with "an alleged time traveller who has provided US talkshow host Art Bell with some intriguing headlines from the near future" and with the "fact" that "governments, utilities and businesses are grossly underprepared for the Y2K problem". Being in Nexus is pretty much a guarantee that a subject isn't notable; if it were notable, it would be covered in serious press, rather than one chronicling the fringes of rationality. Even were this subject to be deemed worthy of an encyclopedia article, there's nothing to be salvaged from the article that currently exists - written by an advocate who is unable to distinguish Beck's quackery from electroporation. The article consists of irrational claims presented as if they were reasonable, and is a severe disservice to our readers. - Nunh-huh 19:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability. Notability. If a "quack nostrum" is notable, then it will fulfill WP:FRINGE. This topic does not, and constantly citing the # of Google hits doesn't help. There are no usable reliable secondary sources. An FTC complaint about a person using "magnetic pulse" generators is still tangentially related to "blood electrification" as covered in this article, and is a primary source in any case. I previously cited a Seattle Times series on the sale of such "energy medicine" devices. One could certainly write a sourced article on that topic. However, this article contains nothing salvageable, and its topic ("blood electrification") is defined narrowly so as to exclude these sorts of potentially usable sources. You can't build a neutral, verifiable Wikipedia article without reliable sources - that's the basis of WP:N, and that's the issue here. MastCell ^Talk 19:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, this sounds like a reasonable argument to me. Cleanup and merge to electrotherapy then? -Verdatum (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - electrotherapy is in bad shape (quote: "The superficiality of Bernstein's and Sherrington's accounts were repeatedly re-enforced by the Nobel Prize Committee of the Swedish Academy of the Sciences and the Karolinska Institute. This bit of biological sophistry was possible only because of the intervention of organized medicine which saw to the stamping out of electrical medicine as quackery and hoax during the 1930s.") Actually, I think energy medicine is the appropriate target - it's recognized and notable, though broadly defined - and the Seattle Times series, which covers the use of machines that deliver electrical and magnetic pulses to the body, describe this approach broadly as "energy medicine". My 2 cents. Still, I don't see much or any salvageable encyclopedic material here. MastCell ^Talk 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the electrotherapy article looks to me to be in even worse shape than the Blood Electrification article, but at least it's an undisputably notable topic. However, the way I read the energy therapy article, this falls into neither of the two described categories. It is not a mechanical or electromagnetic force (as with magnet therapy), but instead the application of an electric current. -Verdatum (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Google search yields some interesting results indeed. Curing malaria.. HIV? However, this is interesting to the extent that it resembles more of a ridiculous theory disguised as legitimate science and little known. I agree with User:MastCell and Lenticel. mirageinred (talk) 23:11, 20 December 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. Singu larity 06:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claremont Colleges Queer Resource Center[edit]

Non-notable ^L_Wizard @ 00:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are apparently plenty of sources on this subject. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After removing fluff hits from my search, all hits say exactly the same thing. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Google hits are not proof of notability. Provide reliable sources which explain how this is any more notable than any other campus student support organization. Corvus cornix_talk 00:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus, if you use proper Google quoting you get lots fewer hits, and all of them seem to be of the non-notable variety. Corvus cornix_talk 00:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Shiva Evolved (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies): specifically from "Non-commercial organizations": Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the QRC to wikipedia because I think it's important for prospective students to be able to see the sort of resources available for them at schools. The QRC is a large presence on campus and positively affects the lives of many students. It also has a substantial operating budget, something I also feel is indicative of its importance. There are certainly a lot of other, much more marginal groups on our campus that have wiki pages - this one comes to mind : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomona_college_organic_farm.

But if you decide it's not notable enough I'll respect your decision of course. If you do, can anyone suggest what sort of places I could put it? I added it so that anyone looking at the claremont colleges could see what was available for them on campus. It seems like a shame that it needs to be notable on a global level to be included. I wish I could have read about places like the QRC when I was looking at schools. Doesn't wikipedia have unlimited space?

Ramsayem (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not your personal web page. --RucasHost (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I added a brief description of the QRC to the main page for the claremont consortium and/or Pomona college is that something that would also be stricken from wikipedia? Ramsayem (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A brief description with a link to their web page would be fine. Corvus cornix_talk 16:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is not notable to have an article in Wikipedia. Get your own blog/webpage, please. Not here. Dekisugi (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG and other delete recommendations. The editor who created the article may wish to consider moving the article to the Students Wikia instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Such student organisations are notable only if they are involved in a significant way in major newsworthy events--thisdoes happen, but not very often. Northing is claimed here that might be notable. DGG (talk) 11:58, 14 December 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. Singu larity 06:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Park Middle School[edit]

This disambiguation page lists only two non-existent articles that are not likely to be created. One was a page previously created but deleted. Middle schools are generally not considered notable. Sebwite (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Arthurrh (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Disambig for redlinks (Wiki-band name!) J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per all above. Malinaccier (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Numerous articles in major newspapers establish some notability for both schools. [56], [57], [58] --Hdt83 ^Chat 01:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless creation. Shiva Evolved (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete middle school. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is literally no point to keeping this article afloat. --Juansidious (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 11:47, 11 December 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. Singu larity 06:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Park, Baltimore (disambiguation)[edit]

This disambiguation page is not really needed. It lists only two pages: Roland Park, Baltimore itself and Roland Park Country School. There is a very clear link to Roland Park Country School within the Roland Park, Baltimore page. It is not likely that any more pages with "Roland Park" in the title will be created. Sebwite (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the city page, else delete. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant as per nom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchia (talk • contribs) 07:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 11:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a redundant dab page - Dumelow (talk) 18:24, 11 December 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, consensus is that it is notable enough and sources have been added where it was requested. Davewild (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Ericsson K610[edit]

Non-notable cellular phone. Wikipedia is not a cell-phone directory, nor is it a Sony Ericsson catalog. Too few substantial references exist to make a sustainable article about this phone. Mikeblas (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, pending the addition of a source for the criticism section. Such criticism implies notability, assuming it can be sourced. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of all presently-manufactured celphones. Lacks refs which are independent and reliable, so fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - if "Wikipedia is not a catalog of [...] cellphones", why do we have over 300 individual ones listed? I checked a dozen or so and most of them appear no more or less worthy of having their own page then this one. Delete them all, or none of them. Or come up with objective guidelines on which to keep and which to kill. --Arcanios (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Other stuff exists" is about the weakest argument for keeping a poor article. Instead, it is a reason to delete this one and then the others like it as soon as possible. Edison (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—adequate references available; appears notable. Spacepotato (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... if they can get some sources for it, especially the "Criticism" question (should be replaced by a "Reviews" section.Osli73 (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Who is "they"? How much longer should we wait for "they" to get substantial, verifiable sources for it? We've already waited about 22 months. I think that's long enough, so let's clean it out. -- `Mikeblas (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criticism section is now referenced. Spacepotato (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable. Criticism is now Reviews. Bearian (talk) 22:29, 17 December 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 under criterion A7. No notability of the web site is demonstrated, and no independent reliable sources are provided. —C.Fred (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We The Gamers[edit]

I don't think this is NN-enough to be A7, but still, it doesn't seem notable to me. —Jonathan 03:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is worthy of keeping. It's completely un-biased, kept to the subject, and at least gives links and citations where needed. Given, yes. I wrote it. But, I kept to the rules that I saw fit. ToxicBeGuile 22:36, 10 December 2007
Speedy delete A7, nn web content, no notability asserted, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We the gamers is an excellent resource for current political gaming discussions. I think it should stay! People need to be motivated to vote and keep our right to freedom of speech. This is a great place to start and get your voice heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PMS GI Jane (talk • contribs) — PMS GI Jane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete or speedy, it's promotional. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not promotional. It's completely non-biased. It doesn't say whether it's good. It just reports the facts about the site. ToxicBeGuile (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm counting your first comment above as a Keep !vote, please don't !vote twice. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:08, 11 December 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. — Scientizzle 16:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ITV Local times OZ soaps[edit]

Trivial, fancruft. Wikipedia is not a TV Guide, and the intricies of various specific transmissions are simply not notable. Established editors have been deleting this information from the individual pages, and a page dedicated to one show was already deleted via consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prisoner Overseas. The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massively restructure - bring the article in line with the contents of Category:Lists of television series by network which would involve a major expansion beyond soap operas and also a huge reduction in the prose denoting every jot and tittle. Otherwise delete. Otto4711 (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- but this is not like other Soaps, all the below Where all over the place! there were not network

also a number of other people what this information: and providing this information here it stop it being cluttering up the main pages but at the same time keep the info for people to see —Preceding unsigned comment added by 623danger (talk • contribs) 20:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - not sure why TV viewing times would be thought encyclopedic by anyone. If people want to find out what time TV shows are on in their area, there are other ways for them to check. Anarchia (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:V, WP:NOT and seemingly WP:OR. Caknuck (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a massive failure of WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a historic TV guide. Nuttah (talk) 17:12, 16 December 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.

^ "Scientists say Electric Current may help fight AIDS". The Houston Post (reprint). 1991-03-20. Retrieved 2007-07-10.
^ Read the referenced patent list for the article-referenced blood electrification patent; re-read the article. Their patent references US patent #592735 "Apparatus For Electrically Treating Liquids" 1897

[HoustonPostArticle-1] "Scientists say Electric Current may help fight AIDS". The Houston Post (reprint). 1991-03-20. Retrieved 2007-07-10.

[2] Read the referenced patent list for the article-referenced blood electrification patent; re-read the article. Their patent references US patent #592735 "Apparatus For Electrically Treating Liquids" 1897

[1]

[2]