Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 14

< December 13	December 15 >

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 Delete --JForget 00:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buffyverse rare promos[edit]

A fan piece not suitable for a general purpose encyclopedia. kingboyk (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two things kill this article: 1. Define rare without violating WP:NOR or WP:NPOV. Can't do it, can ya. 2. The fact the article has to include a statement explaining why it exists and who might be interested in it already has several strikes against it from a notability perspective. If any of these promos become widely known or notable, then they can be mentioned in the article for the appropriate series. 23skidoo (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Rare" doesn't violate NOR or NPOV as long as multiple reliable sources agree that something is rare. Copies of Action Comics #1 are rare, especially in good condition. No point of view or original research there as long as multiple reliable sources agree. Rray (talk) 23:09, 7 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, CitiCat^♫ 00:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article can be summarized as "Buffy and Angel had commercials that may be interesting for fans". And even that sentence is too trivial to be merged. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I am inclined to agree with this articles topic being not suitable for an encyclopedia, but I can't see anything in WP:NOT which would kill it? Sting_au Talk 00:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically just plot sumaries for non-notable tv ads. Ridernyc (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the most important policy statement, The Five Pillars, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers. It includes elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. The proposed deletion is therefore based upon a misconception of the fundamental nature of this project, which is to cover both general and specialized material for which there is a readership. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Colonel Warden. Rray (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT#PLOT as plot summaries of ads with no real-world notability. Buffy-cruft. Noting that the Five Pillars are not policy but are instead a summary of policy. Otto4711 (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT, WP:CRUFT --Shark face 217 02:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:N guidelines. Referenced materials are links to the existence of the commercials but not the notability. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:58, 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. Singu larity 00:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bad[edit]

Neologism. Original research. kingboyk (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even a notable neologism. Cosmo0 (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and hope that the Buffy fan reads up on either notability or one of the wp-projects on TV shows... this has no real notability. Worse yet, it may confuse people who look up "Big Bad" thinking about the big bad wolf, or somesuch. Epthorn (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And add sourcing. I've seen this phrase used in multiple discussions of the show and how the season long plotlines are structure. This is not original research. Rray (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add sources. I've seen quotes from Joss Whedon using the term in desribing the development of the show. But even without that, if the uses in other works were more formally cited (instead of loosely in passing in the text), that sufficiently establishes continued use (i.e., not a neologism) and notability. Tag those statements as citation needed and let the cleanup commence. *debates whether to create a macro for "AfD is not for cleanup."* —Quasirandom (talk) 04:09, 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, CitiCat^♫ 00:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Content sounds sourcible, but unless there is some sort of documentation to say why this is a notable term and not just another neologism, then it should be deleted. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 00:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add sources. However, I think it came from Big Bad Wolf. /* aba dafa */ +C0 00:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't a notable idea. So redirect it to the Buffy article. I (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source. It's a fairly common term with enough notable history to warrant an article -- Masterzora (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I accept that this phrase is in use, and should be in a dictionary, but Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. It should be moved to Wiktionary if sources can be found. An article in an encyclopedia about a 2-word phrase simply stating where it was first used, and listing TV series in which it has been used just seems wrong to me.--Michig (talk) 10:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This phrase goes back at least 74 years to the Oscar-winning Walt Disney cartoon. It is now a cliché rather than a neologism. Since usage is so widespread, the article still has much potential. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Big Bad Wolf" goes back to the children's story. The other google news hits are for 'Big Bad something' rather than just 'Big Bad' as a phrase in itself.--Michig (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and since Big Bad Wolf already has an article on WP, the argument to keep this article because of "Big Bad Wolf" seems incredibly weak.--Michig (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of Big Bad Wolf is a good new point. I suggest that we merge/redirect into that article. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this should be merged or redirected. The phrase "big bad" in this context doesn't refer to the "Big Bad Wolf"; it refers to the main villain during a season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It would be similar to merging "lightening bug" with the "lightening" article. Rray (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands is about 'Big Bad' as a phrase, first used in Buffy. It hardly says anything about the Buffy villain. An article about said villain may be worth including in WP, but this article isn't it.--Michig (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source, as per Quasirandom. Can someone source it now, in fact? Tphi (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge it with Big Bad Wolf, add it to a trivia section. --Shark face 217 02:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article claims it is a term that originated from the show. There is no notability claims. The term meets the definition of a Neologism (as written). Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:06, 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 delete.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karina Pasian[edit]

It's true that she has signed with DefJam, but she has yet to release any material, and her DefJam web page is empty - http://www.defjam.com/site/artist_home.php?artist_id=629. I think she fails WP:MUSIC. Corvus cornix_talk 23:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn (at this point at least). JJL (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The artist is not notable according to WP:MUSIC and the editor keeps removing the tags him/herself.--Manderson198 (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC for now.Sting_au Talk 03:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. If she becomes notable in the future, then the article can be recreated. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Shark face 217 02:12, 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 Delete. Per notability criteria (or lack thereof) CitiCat^♫ 04:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Langer[edit]

Self-promotional article for minor lobbyist. A search of general and political media shows no independent references to Langer. Creation of this article is the only contribution of the article creator. Leeannedy (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to be notable. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 00:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Notability not established. Concur with Leeannedy's assessment. — ERcheck (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He did testify before the US House of Representatives. --Shark face 217 02:13, 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 delete. Singu larity 20:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

life is a pumpkin[edit]

Non-notable and original research. A page is created by an IP address who’s only edits were in creating this article. The only source is a single website probably run by the author of this article. Only 317 Google hits mostly Wikipedia mirrors. S.dedalus (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds interesting, but it doesn't look like it is interesting enough for a third party to write about it. A quick search reveals a google bomb. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 00:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - couldn't find any published reliable sources. Article is just used as an avenue to host link for his own research. Fails WP:NOR. Sting_au Talk 03:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sources available, appears to be OR. Maralia (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR, above. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. Kudos to the article creator though, in using incredibly big words and musical jargon to confuse me into thinking it was, in fact, important. But it's not. Keeper | 76 20:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking of keeping a small chunk of the article on a user subpage just because of the unusually talented academia-cruft writing. I’m still not sure what all this means. . . --S.dedalus (talk) 22:57, 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 Delete. Since the content presently has no sources, it is inappropriate to merge at this time. I will userfy later to anyone who promises to source the material. Xoloz (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utrom[edit]

This article lacks notability and referencing, and is just an in-universe plot repetition of the various appearances in the various TMNT stories. It is just duplication of the plot section of the various TMNT articles and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve This article does duplicate a lot of content from other articles, and some of this content should be trimmed, but it is worth keeping since it documents the development of the species as the brand developed. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't shown, because you have failed to cite any sources at all, that that documentation is not original research and that it is even possible to keep and improve such an article whilst sticking to Wikipedia's content policies. Sources! Sources! Sources! Arguments without them don't hold water. Uncle G (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If sources are impossible to find (and I'm having some trouble myself :-/) then it should be deleted. Content is already duplicated in other relevant articles. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 15:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject isn't notable. So I'd redirect it to TMNT. I suppose the history could be left in tact to use for merging. I (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Appears notable within the TMNT universe, but if sources cannot be found, it should be merged. --Shark face 217 02:14, 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 delete. east.718 at 08:47, December 22, 2007

Locations in The Order of the Stick[edit]

This is just an in-universe plot repetition of the various places in the Order of the Stick comic, and has no notability and references of its own. As such, its just duplication of material from the plot sections of The Order of the Stick articles and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and place anything of value at the comic's page (or on a website). We need a generic Fanpedia to distract these things away from WP. JJL (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think an article about the world of the Order of the Stick, with emphasis on how it parodies existing fantasy works and campaign settings, would be an entirely valid Wikipedia article. Sadly, this is not that article. I'd prefer not to see the text just dumped into the main OOTS article, though, which is finally getting into decent shape without the previous abundance of plot regurgitations. Better to purge this and (if someone really wants to write it) start anew with a better referenced article, in my opinion. Ig8887 (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge with the comic's wikipage. --Shark face 217 02:14, 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 Delete As this material is currently without any sources, merging is inappropriate. I will userfy later for anyone promising to source the material. Xoloz (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Honeycutt[edit]

Love TMNT, but this is just an in-universe plot repetition of the various appearances by by this minor character in the TMNT stories, and has no notability and references of its own. As such, its just duplication of material from the plot section of various TMNT articles, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to be a notable character within the universe. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 00:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I usually prefer merging non-notable characters, but the plot renarration makes it real hard to merge something, and it is probably easier to come up with a completely new paragraph in the List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Already took a huge chunk out of the plot details -71.59.237.110 (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect: As stated on the main page of this article this article needs to be merged and trimmed down I cut some of it down but it might need more work to make it suitable for merging —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.237.110 (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Send to List of TMNT characters --Shark face 217 02:16, 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 delete.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ages of Myst[edit]

This is just an in-universe plot repetition of the various locations in the Myst franchise, and has no notability and references of its own. As such, its just duplication of material from the plot section of various Myst articles and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

judging from the article, this seems to be indeed correct, but wasn't there an ages of Myst game aswell, that might be notable? I'll do more research into this sunday (when I have time). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You might be thinking of Uru: Ages Beyond Myst. Since the name isn't that similar it would probably be better to redirect Ages of Myst to Myst franchise where the concept of the ages is discussed. Garrett^Talk 09:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yup, that's the one. Delete it is then. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Repetition of content that is much better covered in the other Myst related articles, although the pictures could be used in other articles. There does not appear to be a game by this name either, perhaps there is some confusion between the Myst and the Myth (computer game) games, which have similar titles. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 00:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete excessive content that fails WP:FICT and WP:PLOT. Game guide type content, not encyclopedic. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the small pieces of out-of-universe material that are present don't add up to a seperate article. Given the number of 'making of' magazine articles for this series, such a section might be possible but nothing that can't be merged into the main articles. Marasmusine (talk) 08:55, 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 keep. east.718 at 08:48, December 22, 2007

Q Continuum[edit]

Love Star Trek, but this is just an in-universe plot repetition of the various appearances by Q in the Star Trek stories, and has no notability and references of its own. As such, its just duplication of material from the plot section of various Star Trek articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a fairly important concept in the Trek universe, and the article can grow. Bacchiad (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the issue, the issue is notability, meaning can we get information like "how was this created", "what issues came up while writing for this aspect of the show?" That kind of stuff. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicates content that is mostly contained in the Q (Star Trek) article, and other relevant places. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 00:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there is consensus (which we are not here to discuss) Q (Star Trek) can be merged into this article or the other way around. As for out-of-universe relevance, several theologians have drawn parallels between the Q Continuum and the Gods of various religions. Those can be incorporated into the article (or maybe just a mention of the existence of such works), but we must be careful about WP:POV. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 00:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep must admit that this has achieved some notability; can also be merged with the character's page and set to redirect. JJL (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, there are no indications that this article can attain sources to prove notability. Until such time, I believe it should be redirected, so that if sources are found, it can be easily recreated. I (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm saying that on the grounds of my Google Books search [1] which brings up several likely sources. I don't have any of those books. But if there is a Star Trek Wikiproject? Perhaps one of those editors listed can come and work on the article. Deserving of its own article in my opinion. Sting_au Talk 03:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Q (Star Trek) - and trim down in-universe info. Ejfetters (talk) 07:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above, but it should be noted that Q (Star Trek) is also woefully lacking in reliable sources. Q is a notable character, but one properly sourced article for the character(s)/continuum would be enough.--Michig (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no reason why reliable sources couldn't be found, as per Sting_au. Cleanup can be done quite easily. mattbuck (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough for inclusion. Plenty of in print sources which cover this aspect of the Star Trek universe. We needn't delete articles just because they need cleanup. Rray (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough for inclusion. Plenty of online and in print sources which cover this aspect of the Star Trek universe. We needn't delete articles just because they need cleanup, or because they are mentioned in other articles on wikipedia. John1951 (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If someone could post, say three of them, I will withdraw this nomination. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NOTABILITY, has been cited in several Star Trek franchise series.--Shark face 217 02:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just because it appeared in several episodes of Star Trek doesn't establish notability, stuff like creator commentary, how they came up with this idea and so forth. Assembling keep votes and claiming without proof that its notable is not what this AFD is about, its about seeing if anyone can establish notability, otherwise you should concede it has none. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very useful, concept and continuum notable for more than just the John de Lancie Q. Kolindigo (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge as above, but in the opposite order. Merge and redirect Q (Star Trek) into this article. If not for the Q Continuum there would not have been Q, and without Q the entire Star Trek Universe post Q on the Enterprise would be drastically different. The Continuum is a vital part of the story as we know it, and quite notable. Lostinlodos (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with main Q article. Lostinlodos makes a good point that the "continuum"-aspect makes a merge very easy to justify. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 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 Merged and redirected to J. L. Ilsley High School though not all content taken over as appears to be a copyvio of one of the references. BLACKKITE 11:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precalentines Day[edit]

Contested PROD. This appears to be a holiday made up in a particular school (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day), and even though the school appears to officially publish T-shirts and other materials, there's no assertion that this holiday is notable and no proof that anyone else is celebrating it. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to a mention in the article about the school. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Brad; and the School is notable — for this? (I'm so disillusioned now that I've learned that Fig Newtons aren't actually named after Isaac Newton. --Jack Merridew 16:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect sounds good; I'd just like to say that I don't see the problem that this originated from one school or particular location; all holidays must have originated from a common location or event as well - and I could certainly state this wasn't just made up in school one day and only this particular school is celebrating it - it is gaining some credible ground in universities around Canada. Alex-at-canada (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2007 (AST)

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. See below. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 23:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Escape (Book by Carolyn Jessop)[edit]

Contested PROD. Book of unasserted notability. Delete. Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 22:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This book is of great importance. It is currently the besting selling religious book for Women on Amazon.com. It is current because of the recent events surrounding the trial of the FLDS leader Warren Jeffs that has made national headlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyorunner (talk • contribs) 22:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per precedent on books from major publishers (Random House in this case) and fairly hefty mainstream media coverage.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This book is currently #31 on the NY Times bestseller list for hardbacks(as of December 9). I've added several external links documenting media coverage. I plan to keep looking, but have no doubt that this book satisfies the notability guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (book), although notability was not set out in the early version of the article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per added information. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 23:15, 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 deleted by administrator Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Non-admin closure. I (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Narn Bat Squad[edit]

A minor, long-forgotten usenet neologism/in-joke coined by Babylon 5 fans, based on a post made by J. Michael Straczynski one day. Impossible to verify except by sifting the posts themselves. Fails almost every guideline you could care to mention. Nydas^(Talk) 22:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject isn't notable, it's also unverified. So I suggest deletion. I (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rabidly. Simply unnotable in-jokery. --Dhartung | Talk 03:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Vorlons have a question. The Shadows have a question. Lorien has several questions. I have a question, too: "Who documented this in depth outside of Wikipedia and where was it documented?". The answer appears to be, from my research: "1 person, ever, by the name of Steven Orso, on a short WWW page.". Reliability of web pages as sources aside, this isn't enough sourcing to support a whole article. (Indeed, the article is longer than that 1 source itself is, with much of the article being original research, that isn't supported at all by any sources anywhere.) There's no evidence that anyone other than that 1 person has ever documented this, thus demonstrating that it is both notable and an idea that has actually escaped its creators and been acknowledged by the rest of the world; and there are no supporting sources for ensuring that an article on this subject is neutral and accurate. 1 short source is not enough. The PNC is not satisfied. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 13:40, 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. Kurykh 01:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skypanels[edit]

Spam masquerading as an article. The only linked "reference" doesn't use this word. The term is a registered trademark - www.usaskypanels.com (I didn't use a full URL to avoid spammage) Corvus cornix_talk 22:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references to prove the product exists so deletable, spam or not. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep The article appears to have been improved with appropriate sources. --Shark face 217 02:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. Maybe transwiki as a dict def? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the references appear to be studies about light and not about "skypanels". There is no mention of skypanels or diffusers painted with clouds. So really, there are no reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 19:15, 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 and salt. There is no problem with removing protection if future bases of notability are found.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bieze[edit]

Article Dr. Michael Bieze has been speedily deleted four times; Michael Bieze was up for speedy, however since "importance" has possibly been asserted, I'd rather it be discussed here. Beyond asserting importance, Notability seems to be an issue. Marasmusine (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article obviously inserted by admiring student. He is head of the art department at the Marist School in Atlanta [2]. He has certainly published more than most high school teachers, but also its clearly not enough to be notable as a scholar--just one book and some miscellaneous. A university dissertation prize is not usually accepted as general notability outside that institution. Notability for high school teachers is generally shown by awards on a national basis, or major position of leadership, and I dod not see it here. There may well be some in the future, so I wouldn't salt. DGG (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing notability here. Maralia (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per DGG. --Crusio (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a mild inclination to salt (deleted 4 times is more than a couple). Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt I'm not a deletionist, but this is getting ridiculous. --Shark face 217 02:22, 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 Redirect. I hope folks actually looked at the article here -- it is, in its entirety, the text of the law. That's the definition of WP:NOT. Having said that, there is no iron-clad prohibition on keeping this in the history of a redirect, so I will do that. The redirect should not be undone with a complete rewrite. Xoloz (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation Act of 1920[edit]

Transwiki to Wikisource. Corvus cornix_talk 21:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, this act reversed an act during World War I that effectively nationalized the operation of United States railways. If so, this topic is notable, but the presentation of this article (including a large swath of the original law) doesn't give any context to the reader. I'd recommend a full rewrite in this case. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, here it is: United States Railroad Administration. Maybe a merge would be more appropriate in this case. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Railroad Administration for now. I wouldn't transwiki as this is only part of the bill, and in any case it applies to more things such as waterways and labor. A proper article would treat all of that. --Dhartung | Talk 04:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Isn't this... um, notable? --Shark face 217 02:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if expanded. It is notable, but it needs at least a minimal discussion, not just the text of the bill, to make it a WP article. DGG (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the basis of at least one US Supreme Court case, United States v. McBoyle. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject is notable, but the current article is not a basis from which to build an article as it needs to be rewritten completely from scratch. -- Whpq (talk) 19:18, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Earthworm Jim locations[edit]

Great game, but this article is just an in-universe repetition of the plot section of the various Earthworm Jim game articles, and has no notability or referencing of its own. As such, its just duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicates content in the main Earthworm Jim articles and just watching the show/playing the game; no real added value by repeating it here in this way. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 00:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 04:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 07:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing encyclopedic to say, per WP:WAF; try a gaming wiki instead. Marasmusine (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Shark face 217 02:23, 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 delete. Kurykh 01:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MAX Awards[edit]

Local awards program sponsored by a college. Many of the winners are notable, but notability is not inherited. Also, strong conflict of interest suspicion - article created by a single purpose account. No assertion of notability beyond simply existing and giving out trophies to big companies. Keeper | 76 21:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be a bunch of awards programs going by this name, and the coverage I can find of this particular program doesn't seem to be very useful in establishing notability. Delete unless someone points out strong references soon. Note that this was speedied on Dec. 11 as spam, and the way it's written leans towards the promotional. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no apparent notability. I did learn that Georgia has both Zell Miller and an apparently unrelated store-design consulting firm called Miller Zell, though. What are the odds? --Dhartung | Talk 04:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found some stuff on it, including this and this. Just might be notable. --Shark face 217 02:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your first link is about the TMA award, not MAX award, and really it's a press release about the company (Alogent) that won it, not the award anyway. The second link is a press release (and only a paragraph long) that says the deadline for entering is Nov. 20 and gives a phone number to call to self-nominate. How do either of these help notability? Keeper | 76 15:05, 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 delete. Singu larity 06:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic Park Visitors Center[edit]

This article asserts no notability through referencing, and as such is just plot repetition from various Jurassic Park media. And the only significent real world coverage, the theme park with a real Jurassica park Visitors center, already has a significent section in another article, so this is duplicative. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it appears not to have improved since its last nomination at AFD, showing further its lack of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fancruft with no notability. Very well done, as such things go, but nevertheless... - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I must admit that I was positively surprised to see Jurassic_Park_Visitors_Center#Real-life_Jurassic_Park_Visitors_Center and was ready to recommend a merge, but that section unfortuntely sounds like a travel guide with no independent notability. I suspect there is no Jurassic Park wiki, because this article would be great there. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because even though the real-life place is based on the fictional one, there's no independence and thus no real real-world notability (and I suspect little WP:N notability as well). There is, btw, a Jurassic Park wikia compatible with the GFDL. --Dhartung | Talk 04:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As pointed out by the last RFA, there is a precedent in place for fictional places in fictional works. An example of this would be Sunnydale High School. --Shark face 217 02:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume by precedent you mean "consensus", and consensus can change. There are important issues to thrash out in this review before we put this one to rest. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no notability independent of the film for this location. -- Whpq (talk) 19:21, 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 No consensus, default to Keep. Walton^One 17:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Colt (Supernatural)[edit]

Procedural relisting. The previous AfD closed by me without consensus, but I think further discussion is needed. Please see previous AfD for arguments before and against deletion. 1 != 2 20:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what are the guidelines for notability of a particular weapon in fiction? It seems unlikely that any threshold could be passed. I'd say probably trim and merge if not outright delete. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The artifact seems to be covered in plenty of detail in the plot section of the Supernatural article (starting with season two). If this article were merged into the main article of the series, it would still face the same problems with sources and lack of out-of-universe information. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that the information contained needs to be condensed, and perhaps at that point it will be more appropriate to list this in the plot section or (as I suggested in the previous AfD) a page documenting notable artifacts from the series. Although this particular artifact is pivotal and spans multiple episodes, its notability is probably not so high as to warrant a standalone page, and I would vote "merge" if the artifact page existed already. I definitely do not agree that this page should be deleted outright. - Banazir (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to WP:NOT#PLOT and sufficient coverage in Supernatural (TV series)#Plot. Miremare 23:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think there is nearly enough detail in the plot section as it is now, it would be reasonable IMO to merge it in under "Dean's car" and migrate all of the content from the page. I still think that both the car and the gun belong in an artifact page, though - especially considering that there is an "artifact of the week" cf. the "monster of the week" (or the "alien race of the week" on Star Trek: The Next Generation or Doctor Who). - Banazir (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But how would such an article not itself fail WP:NOT#PLOT? Miremare 01:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does the section on Dean's Impala not fail it? Or do you think that section should be excised from the plot page itself? Now, without getting into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I would like to point out that the contents of the page at issue are absolutely integral to the plot, spanning many important episodes, and IMO notable as a fictional reference to a highly notable real-world gun maker (Samuel Colt). In fact, the story-external aspect is one reason I voted to keep the article. - Banazir (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Dean's Impala is part of a larger article, so is fine. Articles are not allowed to be all plot with no real-world context, which is what the Colt article is. I would also say that if the contents of the article are absolutely integral to the plot of the show, it should, by all common sense and logic, be in the plot section of the show's page, not shoved off into another article. Miremare 18:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm fine with integrating it, but I don't follow your reasoning as to how Dean's car is more integral than the Colt (or even equally integral to it) with respect to the plot of Supernatural. Besides being a sort of deus ex machina for eliminating demons (even regulars), it ties Samuel Colt into the story continuity. In any case, my position is that it is notable because of the attribution to a real life weapon-maker, but I personally would be willing to see it absorbed into the plot section. - Banazir (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the car is more important to the plot than the colt, or vice-versa, just that the car doesn't fail WP:NOT#PLOT because it is a small part of a larger article, rather than a stand-alone article. Miremare 21:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I think merging is a reasonable compromise, though I still think that real-world historical references have notability beyond plot relevance (so that with an accumulation of "artifacts of the week", and artifacts page will be appropriate, independently of WP:NOT#PLOT). IMO a lot of the information contained in the existing article is useful as a reference about the artifact (the aforementioned real-world ties, its iconic appearance, the legend imputed to its maker, etc.). That is, it's not just about what story-internal impact it has had (e.g., what demons it's been used to kill). - Banazir (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, or what Wikipedia defines as notability, can only be established by coverage in reliable independent sources as per WP:N; historical references, or whatever else the show contains, can have no bearing on that. Miremare 18:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they can. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Meaning, are there reliable secondary sources that write about the Colt and are not just giving plot synopses, but critical analyses of its role in popular mythology, fictional history or alternate history, etc.? Examples:

Seattle Post-Intelligencer article on mythological references in current television series - Independent? Yes. Salient to the topic? Yes. Not merely a plot reference? Yes. Reliable? Yes, though YMMV. (This being a fictional artifact that was first mentioned on a current television show last season, we're not going to find any secondary source that is itself encyclopedic, so if you are of the persuasion that TV Guide and popular media are inherently unreliable, I can't help you there.) Significant? This particular reference is quite minor, although there are many like it. (All I can do personally is to look them up and cite them one by one, in what I consider to be descending order of significance, reliability, and salience.)
TV Guide interview of Supernatural creator Eric Kripke - Independent? Yes. Salient? Yes; one of the questions is specifically about the role of the Colt. Not merely a plot reference? Yes, but primarily about plot-related questions. Significant? Again, if you're looking for permanence as a criterion, almost any interview of a author, screenwriter, director, or producer is going to fail a notability test, but that's not so. i.e., some fictional elements of a TV series are notable just for their (documented) impact on the viewership or fandom of the show, or for the directions in which they take the show. I would furthermore maintain that notability not only does not expire; it is timeless. Once something reaches popular awareness to the level of being independently documented, it has met the notability criterion for inclusion in a truly general-purpose encyclopedic reference. Finally, popularity alone does not equal notability does not equal notability, but it can contribute to it. IMO, a topic that makes it into multiple television reviews and interviews that are syndicated in dozens or hundreds of secondary media outlets has received significant coverage.
BuddyTV.com interview notes - In a similar vein, this correspondent reports on questions asked of Kripke at a convention. I'm not saying this is a comparably important source to the professional reviewers' articles (or even a reliable source), but the union of Kripke interviews provides some independent verification. Take this article as one more example (though Kripke only alludes to the reason why the Winchesters' weapons rather than religious relics or divine intervention will be viable solutions). The predictions made have already come to pass, so there is no WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL issue here.

- Banazir (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources establish notability, and you have just demonstrated that there isn't such coverage - the Colt is mentioned once in each of the three sources you mention above, which justifies coverage in the main article, not in a separate one. Miremare 18:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We must be operating under different definitions of "significance", because the first article makes very clear, direct reference to the Colt as a prima facie example of the "intricate mythology" of the series. Per the WP:Notability, "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." A few sentences or a paragraph in a review of several television shows (as opposed to a single episode of one) can be more than trivial if it the topic in question is presented as a primary, or sole, example, as it is in the Seattle P-I article. Could you please specify what you consider sufficient evidence of significance? More to the point, I just came up with several examples of reliable secondary sources that you implied did not exist, significant or not, so I would suggest we hold off on blanket declarations of existence or nonexistence until we are both clear on how you are using or interpreting the terms "trivial", "significant", and perhaps "reliable". (And yes, I have read WP:Reliable sources, WP:Fiction, WP:CYF, etc. Wikipedia guidelines are clear about the definitions of reliability and independence of sources, but they rightly leave open the definition of significance, which indeed has subjective and context-specific aspects.) To this I would just add that what I've dug up are just two examples among several I have found, without a whole lot of looking, so many additional similar references exist, which just need to be cited. - Banazir (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way the article is titled will not be searched for. As such, there is no need to redirect. We could add it to uthe Colt disambig page with a link to Supernatural, though, after it is deleted as non-notable. I (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is deleted, I propose to subsume its contents into a subsection at the same level as "Dean's car". (Note: for the record, I did not make the page nor even contribute to it before now.) - Banazir (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable fictional plot element. Ridernyc (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the simple fact that when I want info on something, someone, somewhere, somewhen, somehow... I come here because I know it to be the best place to find what I'm looking for. I personnaly don't care about the Colt, but that doesn't mean there isn't anyone else interested in finding info about it. Wheter it is merged or on it's own page, as long as it can be found so that WP keeps satisfying those who seek knowledge. I would also like to add that non-notable for someone could be notable for someone else. Notability, IMO, is territorial-dependant, interest-dependent and plain all subjective. I also believe it is a problem around here.Smumdax (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Notability" in the case of Wikipedia articles refers to whether there are reliable secondary sources that have covered the subject in question, rather than whether people find the article useful or interesting. It is also absolutely against Wikipedia policy for an article to contain nothing other than a description of the subject's role in fiction. There has to be real-world context for an encyclopedia article, otherwise the subject should be covered in a parent article, in this case Supernatural (TV series). Miremare 18:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - There is no legitimate reason to delete the article. There is precedent for articles on fictional objects within the well-known television series. Especially an object that has a detailed history such as "The Colt." -- Voldemore (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reasons are explained at WP:NOT#PLOT, and the exchange above. Miremare 18:19, 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 delete. Kurykh 04:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye-Aye (Simptimes)[edit]

non-notable cartoon character from a fan site will381796 (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:MADEUP also see previous related AfD for more context - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simptimes nancy ^(talk) 19:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, wikipedia is not a repository for things that people have just made up - Dumelow (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The author did not bother to create an article on Simptimes, and one cannot verify how notable Aye-Aye is even within the Simptimes universe. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, yeah... Multiple speedy deletion that led to salting. WP:COATRACK (uh, not quite). --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:04, 9 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]
Delete per the above arguments and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simptimes. Hiding T 10:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and per "Would you please not put things you've made up yourself on Wiki?" AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasoning above, and now per its chances. Keeper | 76 22:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, I agree, this one looks like a made-up article, and I find that kinda...childish. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable; the first 100 results of a Google search show no mention of this cartoon character. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete and total trash. JuJube (talk) 02:58, 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 This article has no sources, and is barely decipherable. Redirect left to editorial discretion. Xoloz (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Ambush[edit]

Seems NN. Only references are social networking sites. I speedied it but the author removed the tab. meshach (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's in Spyro Gyra. Check this [3]. Suggest possible merge of Scott Ambush and Jay Beckenstein into Spyro Gyra article. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - no merges as notability is satisfied (IMHO), but cleanups are badly required on all related articles. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Spyro Gyra - cleaning up this article would delete most of the content, and what would be left could be merged into Spyro Gyra. I tried to find independent coverage of Ambush, but what I found suggests he is only notable as a member of Spyro Gyra, so doesn't merit a separate article to himself.--Michig (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Spyro Gyra or delete unless supporting reliable sources can be found. Curious Blue (talk) 17:20, 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 05:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Urquhart[edit]

No indication of importance/significance. Delete --Fromgermany (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are plenty of Google hits about him, including this [4]. He seems to be a promising player who has yet to make his debut. I really don't know if he's sufficiently notable for a Wiki bio yet though. But then I'm not an Australian. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Second pick in the AFL for the Kangaroos but didn't play a game due to injury. Would welcome input from AFL Wikiproject. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I say that because he fails WP:BIO as far as additional criteria for athletes goes. He hasn't as yet competed in a fully professional league. Having not played a single game with the Roos he doesn't qualify yet. In commenting on that criteria for athletes however it seems to me that a lot of athletes are deemed to be notable by just having competed at first grade level! I personally feel that many athletes are going to wind up with a Wikipedia page after playing just a few first grade games then retiring with a busted knee! The notability criteria for athletes needs work. Sting_au Talk 02:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Sting_au says, he doesn't meet WP:BIO for professional athletes. The article does seem to meet the primary notability criterion either insofar as the subject does not seem to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That said, previous consensus on drafted AFL players seems to run counter to WP:BIO see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaxson Barham for an earlier discussion. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting earlier discussion. Thanks for the link. Shows that even the anticipation of an athlete playing in first grade was deemed to be sufficient criteria! I still think there are a lot of articles on first grade players that are really unworthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia. First grade appearance should not be regarded as a right of inclusion here. Editors should actually take notice of what it states at top of WP:BIO page and I quote "This page is considered a notability guideline on Wikipedia. It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.". See that, occasional exceptions! To my mind a first grade player who only plays a handful of first grade games spending a lot of time in most of them on the bench does not deserve inclusion here. Nor does this guy who is yet to play a first grade game. Sting_au Talk 14:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not played in a fully-professional league and thus fails WP:BIO. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands this fails WP:BIO per WP:CRYSTAL in that he has not yet played professionally. Per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaxson Barham, there are only two options: delete this article, or modify WP:BIO to allow athletes selected in the draft of major professional sporting competitions.Ga rr ie 01:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment actually, I'd even support a notability note on relevant sporting-focused Wiki Projects such as AFL, NFL, NBA etc.Ga rr ie 01:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, based on this kid's injury, it's not a given that he'll play. Can easily be recreated if he does manage to get into a top-grade game. Lankiveil (talk) 12:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: I think that WP:BIO at one time included sportspeople who were in the squad for a fully professional top level team. (It was definitely argued at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Davis (footballer). It definitely does not say that now, and I don't see the need for these articles, but it would seem strange to treat this case differently to similar examples. JPD (talk) 13:43, 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. DS (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Funercise[edit]

NN public service ad, zero ghits and no reliable sources. Fails WP:V because there's virtually nothing on this, except for the retrostatic video and the comments on the talk page. Mr Senseless (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Deletercise per total failure of WP:RS, only "source" is a video which doesn't meet criteria. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha, ha, thats funny-ercise Mr Senseless (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article seems to be unverifiable and non-notable--Cailil ^talk 23:36, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hipurnias

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 nom. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 21:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hipurnias[edit]

Basically as far as I can tell there have been no references anywhere to this supposed people since the 1911 Britannica. I tried to search under similar spellings in google and came up empty-handed. I have recently been improving a lot of the articles related to indigenous people in Brazil, and this is unusual, since normally even a 100-person group will turn up some anthropological materials. I did turn up one reference in jstor to an 1895 article listing groups that said something about a "warlike and formidable" cannibal tribe called the Hipurinas (notice- not quite the same spelling). Googling hipurina reveals (thanks to Babelfish) that "hipurina" is a Tupi word for maiden, flower, or fruit. So basically I think that this was either a wrong name in 1911 (my money is here) or has since become obsolete. Mangostar (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solved the mystery! The real name is Ipurina. The 1910 updated version of the 1895 article on the "Hipurinas" is basically the same thing verbatim as Britannica, so the "Hipurnia" in Britannica seems to have been a misspelling of that. Googling the linguist mentioned in the 1910 article reveals that he actually wrote a grammar for the "Ipurina". (Which pulls up tons of google sources.) It's just like telephone, huh? Mangostar (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the Ipurina are evidently better known as the Apurinã, whose language already has a WP article! Mangostar (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and redirect to Apurinã, then? --Dhartung | Talk 21:20, 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 04:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Improvement Method[edit]

Article was created by the main proponent of the method, with few subsequent edits. Non-notable (133 Google results for "Quantum Improvement Method"). Unverifiable, as Mark Profitt's blog (only given reference) does not seem to mention the method by name. Sho Uemura (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable, non-notable, neologism. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Neologism. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jejune. Herostratus (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No Google Scholar hits. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:28, 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 delete. Kafziel ^Talk 19:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Engin Varol[edit]

This article was created by the subject's son with no understanding of Wikipedia's notability guidelines or original research policy. I can't find any indication of notability from any English sources, but the article does seem to assert notability in a reasonable way which is why I didn't speedy delete it myself. The article on the Turkish Wikipedia (also written by his son) is brand-new as well and lists no sources. Kafziel ^Talk 19:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. Parsing the text, I see that a) he has a job and b) other famous people who held that job have influenced him. I see NO actually assertions of significance or notability here... Thus speedy A7. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? You're right. The claims of notability are thin enough for a speedy. Done. Kafziel ^Talk 19:51, 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 Keep. — Scientizzle 21:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Belmain[edit]

A biography of an non-notable person. Marlith ^T/C 03:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Edward VI of England. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is limited information about him online but he was considered a humanist scholar ~~and he was later Bishop of Poitiers, and believed to have started construction of Poitiers Cathedral.~~--Dhartung | Talk 04:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, wrong century. Let me see what else I've got. Never research while a cat is destroying something to get your attention. --Dhartung | Talk 04:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ISBN 0754604691 page 41? Uncle G (talk) 05:15, 5 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, — Scientizzle 19:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs expansion, but print sources seem to clearly exist. I see no reason to delete when sources exist. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[5] here's one. [6] and another. [7] and another. Some of these are VERY old (19th century even) texts, but there is no time limit on notability. There are sources, therefore he is likely notable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: existence of sources demostrating notability has been shown, and that's sufficient. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks to meet WP:BIO Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:00, 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 g11, advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vallarta Adventures[edit]

Appears to be in violation of WP:SPAM Simple Paradox 19:11, 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 05:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Wing (ship)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article was merged following a first AfD, but later turned into a kind of disambiguation page about fictional ships, none of which seems notable. Per MOS:DAB, disambiguation pages serve to disambiguate articles. No article about a ship named "Dragon Wing" exists however, and that's for a reason. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't disambiguate for articles that don't themselves exist. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of these ships is likely to have a page on it, so the dab serves no purpose. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jayron32. As for the mentions, the first two are adequately covered by Dragon Wing, which is the more likely search term anyway, and the last barely gets a mention in Eldest, which suggests it is unimportant enough to ignore. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Ten Pound Hammer. Malinaccier (talk) 22:36, 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 Keep. CitiCat^♫ 05:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dingle CBS[edit]

Unreferenced stub article on a school which closed this summer, now a regular vandalism target. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I just cleaned this page up from about 2 months worth of vandal edits. Some notability is claimed, however I'm not sure it's enough for inclusion. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and protect I have to take back my previous statement, the notable, while open was notable, especially for such a long time and the athletes that came out of the school. I will suggest however if the article is kept, that this page be fully protected as it has been a playground for vandals. Wildthing61476 (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That the school closed does not make it suddenly unnotable. Notability does not expire. Its a stubby article, but this appears to be a school with a long history; there is probably information out there to expand this article and establish notability. Vandalism may require protection, but being a vandalism target is NOT a valid reason for deletion.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. None of being a stub article, having closed or being a vandalism target are reasons for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 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. Singu larity 20:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Baumgardner[edit]

This is an obscure scientist who is not notable. He, however, happens to be a creationist and that's probably why someone thought to write an article on him. WP:BIO and WP:PROF need to be looked at in reference to this person. I note that there has been one mainstream publication on him in US News and World Report. Does that satisfy notability? I'm pretty sure it doesn't as US News and World Reports has also done an article on one of my academic advisors and they would never pass the notability gambit at Wikipedia for inclusion. If Baumgardner was not a creationist he would not be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, therefore to judge Baumgarder to be notable simply because he is a creationist seems to me to be pandering toward biasing Wikipedia in favor of coverage of creationists. See also WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT which may be violated since giving this guy his own article lends him more weight and notoriety to his ideas (which are obviously outside the mainstream) than those of other run-of-the-mill geophysicists. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You don't have to agree with either his politics or his science (I don't agree with either) to note that he has been the subject of independent articles in reliable sources (US News and World Reports is cited directly by the article, for example. The New York Times calls him an "authority.": [8]. Even journals that specifically refute creationism have written about him: [9] Creation science may be bunk, but by the Wikipedia definition of notability (OTHER reliable sources have covered the subject), he is notable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are fairly out-of-the-way citations: neither of the articles are actually about Baumgardner. As such they really do not establish notability. In the New York Times citation, Baumgardner is only mentioned in passing in a paraphrased quote. Doesn't get much more obscure than that. I hope you'll agree that just because someone is mentioned in the New York Times, that doesn't mean they are notable. Likewise the Iol source simply quotes a Baumgardner paper at the very end of the article for what seems to be mostly effect. If being mentioned in the New York Times isn't criteria for notability, how is being quoted in the much less notable IOL news of South Africa? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable, as he appears to be a vocal and controversial figure in the creationist debate. He has a (highly POV) article on Creationwiki, and he has been credited as having extensive knowledge on the subject, as indicated by his repeated use as a source by the mainstream and creationist media. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 20:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Baumgardner apears to be a notable figure in the creationist debate. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's put it this way,he is a notable geologist among creationists. As such, he is frequently quoted by them, and better that people find an article here making it clear where he stands. They can then interpret it as they think appropriate. It's satisfying to pretend the opponents of rational science are not important, but that doesnt make them go away. DGG (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Although I agree with DGG's reasoning, I wonder whether this person would still be considered notable if he would be a mainstream scientist. Just being a flat-earther doesn't make someone automatically notable, I think. But then, I'm from Europe and fortunately we don't have to deal with this kind of muddled thinking much over here. --Crusio (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thought(ec) (with much envy of Crusio's intellectual environment) he probably would not be considered notable if he were a mainstream scientist. I think DGG's logic is along the lines that no one would run to wikipedia to look up a mainstream analog to Baumgardner, but because of his relatively prominent role in fringe theories, it is quite likely that someone will look up Baumgardner here, and that makes it worthwhile to have an informative article on him. As long as the article itself is NPOV about endorsing his beliefs, it isn't a violation of NPOV to have a lower bar for notability for creationist "scientists" than honest-to-snot mainstream ones. (*disclaimer: DGG might well believe that a mainstream analog *is* notable, but I take the liberty of misrepresenting his larger views this to highlight the point I thiink he's making here). Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is exactly the point I was making. I hadn't yet analyzed his notability as a geologist in the ordinary sense. But I'm looking now at his CV [10], and I see he has two papers in Nature, one in Science, one in PhilTrans, and a number in impt. specialized journals--all the way from 1983 to 2003 at least. So his conventional work does seem to be taken seriously by peer-reviewers. In fairness, this should be added to the article, because it does affect the way people would think of him. People sometimes get a PhD and then do nothing else or go in non-science directions, but he has actually continued to publish very respectable conventional work. (I will admit, I did not expect to find as much as this. I've added to the article the citation counts for the top 3 of his 20 peer-reviewed conventional papers: 89, 75, and 65.) I don't know the standards in geology, but this would be at least borderline notability as a conventional scientist. There are precedents of scientists with both accepted good work and also really strange views on their subject, like one of my former teachers, Peter Duesberg. DGG (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am in total agreement with Crusio's sentiments, but unfortunately pseudo-scientists are very notable and influential in the most powerful country in the world, as is evident from this week's discussions in Bali. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per the above arguments, I am convinced. --Crusio (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking it up he is notable in this "field." Although I'd like to add that the America-bashing seems to be "piling on" a bit too much. Europe has its pseudoscientists too, some quite notable, they just go in different directions. There are a great many notable European pseudoscientists like [[Erich von Dänikenl], Anthroposophists (largely European), and List of Ufologists#Europe should have some other pseudoscientists. Although Giuseppe Sermonti, Maciej Giertych, Per Landgren essentially go creationist.--T. Anthony (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, absolutely! Didn't want to imply that we don't have our share of fringe theorists here, just that we are lucky that creationists are not as influential here as in (certain parts of) the US! --Crusio (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles on notable scientists should be kept. ^ross ^nixon 19:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability != reliability. He's not notable as a respectable scientist, but he's certainly notable as a fringe theory scientist. Fortunately or not, activists' use of scholarship can render that scholarship (and that scholar) notable. --Lquilter (talk) 19:19, 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. Kurykh 01:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Labus[edit]

Possibly a hoax, as I could not find any reliable sources to indicate that any of the information in this article is true, which means at the very least it seems to violate WP:V. Google results turn up Wiki mirrors and, given the nature of his fame, it's not unreasonable to assume that Google should come up with some relevant results. The tone in which the article this article is written doesn't quell my suspicious that this is a hoax either.In addition, even if this were a real person, I question whether he would be notable if one took out all the POV stuff about him; but I'll need to see the sources before I can judge that. Cheers, CP 18:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely cleaned up by User:Shunpiker and apparentely not a hoax as per AlasdairGreen27 but, as pointed out by Shunpiker, there's still no notability asserted here, so I still think this should be deleted, albeit for different reasons now. Cheers, CP 21:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral leaning towards Weak delete. It's not a hoax, despite all the ridiculous hyperbole (likely he wrote it himself). This is him: [11]. He's "Morning Reporter/Anchor 5am - 10am" at a radio station in Houston. Normally, I'd say speedy delete about any article that ends "That is the God's facts right there" on grounds of grammatical incompetence and as a point of principle regarding an encyclopaedia. I don't know, though. I'm not in the US, so I don't know how notable this guy is there. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject writes a blog for the radio station, and reports and anchors morning news. No mention of him on the schedule or rest of site. Information on site agrees with article, so not a hoax. Apparently nonnotable. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real assertion of notability. Terraxos (talk) 21:41, 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, nominator has stated withdrawal per this diff on my talk page, and has asked me to close the nomination. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema of Pakistan[edit]

There are so many things wrong with this article that I scarcely know where to begin.

1) Sections like Cineplex and Zibakhana are written like advertisements.
2) Article is full of superlative POV's, eg, Saqib Malik is one of the most critically acclaimed directors in the Pakistani satellite entertainment circles, and his film, which brings together some of Pakistan's best talents, is being much awaited.
3) Article is full of original research, contrary to WP:OR
4) There are no references at all.
5) Weasel words throughout the article.
6) It is full of irrelvant asides and littered with red links.
7) Very poor English in the article, eg, a popular actress jerked the film industry and broke countless hearts.
8) Bad grammar.
9) Poor quality.

Tovojolo (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article demands clean-up, but clean-up issues are not deletion issues. I see no reason for Wikipedia not to have an article entitled this (or something like it. Maybe "Cinema in Pakistan" or "Film in Pakistan" would be more standard). However, despite the fact that the article has all of the problems listed above, not ONE of them is a justification for deletion. Fix the article up so it meets standards, don't delete it... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. AfD is not cleanup. Maintenance tags have been applied to the article, so now it just needs some fixing up. I'll see what I can do. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly legitimate subject which just needs improving as an article. There are so many things wrong with the nomination that I scarcely know where to begin. Nick mallory (talk) 22:59, 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. Xoloz (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shoppes at Blackstone Valley[edit]

Sub-stub-class article on a mall in Massachusetts, does not establish notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, is not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mall blamed for Traffic nightmare but also holds key say to State road work. RS provided. As an aside question: Do Sub-Stubs need to provide notability ??? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's a good idea to assert notability in a stub-class article, to decrease the odds of speedy deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as just another small US mall. Traffic issues with a mall are not notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:36, 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. east.718 at 06:42, December 20, 2007

Crossroads Center (Bellingham)[edit]

Non-notable malls in Massachusetts, no notability asserted, no sources to be seen. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, just a list of shops (Wikipedia is not a directory). Malinaccier (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - related to a Previous AfD that ended in No Consensus. Same words now as I did in that one. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More small US malls. Nothing notable about them. Shoppes at Bellingham needs to show why it is notable and that it will probably be built. Given the suggested size, it night have a better chance in the future for notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:37, 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. Kurykh 01:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Faustinelli[edit]

No evidence of notability. Mayor of a town with a population of 11k. Fails WP:BIO Rtphokie (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, dramatically short of WP:BIO minimums. (I'm more flexible on mayors than the guideline, but my personal rule is that cities of 100,000 and up have some inherent notability for their executives.) --Dhartung | Talk 21:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 20:42, 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. Kurykh 01:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BioSyn[edit]

The article appears to have no notability, and is just plot repetition from the various stories in the Jurassic Park series, bereft of notability or referencing Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:FICT. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article just repeats the plot in more topic-related detail. It's already mentioned in the main article, so nothing to merge. – sgeureka ^t•c 01:02, 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 The result was speedy delete per the author's request hbdragon88 (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandview Commons[edit]

Three non-notable shopping centers in Algonquin, Illinois, none of which meet notability standards. The pages are mostly just listings of the stores in each mall, thus violating WP:NOT#DIR. A search for sources online turned up nothing of value. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of these articles, yeah go ahead and delete them. I created these articles on specific power centers before I realized the "notability" standards for shopping centers on Wikipedia. Most of the important content on these power centers (anchors, square feet, location, etc.) has already been merged into Algonquin, Illinois anyway. Abog (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all three of these would qualify for G7 (author requests deletion) since you're the only significant contributor to all of them (i.e., the only other edits were very minor). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, author requests deletion. Malinaccier (talk) 22:38, 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 No consensus, default to Keep. Brief explanation of closure: While the title seems to suggest original research by synthesis, as was pointed out by many participants in the discussion below, the actual article ascribes each of the major interpretations to published secondary sources, and does not attempt to synthesise them into an original view on the part of the article's author; accordingly I did not discount the numerous Keep !votes in this discussion. Walton^One 17:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey[edit]

Unencyclopedic original synthesis that might belong on a fansite but does not belong in Wikipedia. Groupthink (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it is the greatest sci-fi film ever made, this really is fansite material. Intersting read, but certainly doesn't belong here. I'd go so far as to say that this article can serve no purpose... Lugnuts (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely original research. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to improve it. It's a badly-written article, but most of it is sourced to reliable sources, not to fansites, and as far as I can tell the summaries are accurate. It certainly is NOT "purely original research". If somebody gave it some TLC it could become a good article. Cop 663 (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly IS purely original synthesis, and while 2001: A Space Odyssey is most definitely noteworthy, no amount of TLC is going to make "interpretations of 2001" an encyclopedic topic in-and-of-itself. Groupthink (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by synthesis? Your understanding of it does not seem to tally with WP:SYN. Cop 663 (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:SYN: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research." From the article: "An allegory is a story in which the events are intended to represent some other, underlying meaning. One allegorical interpretation of the film is made by Leonard F. Wheat... An alternative allegory is provided by New Zealand journalist Scott MacLeod... Numerous other theories and interpretations have been put forward by amateur and professional movie scholars and critics alike, with a number of Web sites postulating the meaning behind HAL's behavior and the enigmatic journey into the unknown." Hmm, so Messrs. Wheat and MacLeod (neither of whom merit their own Wikipedia article, BTW) have pontificated on 2001 as allegory, therefore there must be numerous other scholarly opinions. Sounds like A + B = C to me. Groupthink (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's weasel words - "unspecific disclaimers attached to what otherwise would be plain statements of opinion, rather than fact". I agree that it's crap, but a different kind of crap, and one very easy to fix by deleting the sentence in question. Cop 663 (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that that sentence by itself contains weasely terminology, but it's also O.S. in the broader context of the article. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Groupthink (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the article's sources confirm, 2001 has been a film that has been subjected to many different interpretations since it first came out 40 years ago, which is what Stanley Kubrick was aiming for. Because the film is so bizarre, it's been the subject of speculation more so than most films. Author's speculation is "original research". However, an author's references to someone else's speculation is not original research. Mandsford (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article's sources most definitely do NOT confirm this. They confirm two published sources and one self-published website expositing a novel allegorical interpretation of 2001. The citations/references fail to establish that "2001 has been a film that has been subjected to many different interpretations since it first came out 40 years ago, which is what Stanley Kubrick was aiming for. Because the film is so bizarre, it's been the subject of speculation more so than most films." like you assert. Even if that proposition could be substantiated, you'd still need to establish that the article's topic passes notability muster, which it does not (remember, notability is not inherited). Groupthink (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two minutes of research reveals further evidence of the subject's notability:

* Robert Kolker, ed. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey: New Essays (Oxford University Press) - from the blurb: "Almost all students have seen 2001, but virtually none understand its inheritance, its complexities, and certainly not its ironies. The essays in this collection, commissioned from a wide variety of scholars, examine in detail various possible readings of the film and its historical context ... 2001 is, like all of [Kubrick's] films, more than it appears, and it keeps revealing more the more it is seen."

* Michael Chion, Kubrick's Cinematic Odyssey (British Film Institute) - "In this multilayered study, acclaimed critic and theorist of film sound Michel Chion offers some keys to understanding 2001 ... He then conducts a meticulous and subtle analysis of its structure and style, arguing that 2001 is an "absolute film," a unique assemblage of cinema's elements, through which pulses a vision of human existence. "Animals who know they will die, beings lost on earth, forever caught between two species, not animal enough, not cerebral enough.""

And those are just the entire books on the subject. There will be many more academic essays on the subject. This article has great potential despite its currently unprepossessing appearance. Cop 663 (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your citations merely further establish that 2001 itself is a seminal film which has inspired scholarly work. They do not establish that interpretations of 2001 is a notable topic, however. Compare this search with ~~this search~~ this search as an illustration of my point. Now, if they're not in there already, the citations you list above would make a great addition to the 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) article, but I'm still not convinced that the topic under discussion has independent, uninherited notability. Groupthink (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this article was originally a section of 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) but grew too large and was siphoned off. So if readings of 2001 are worthy of inclusion, there is a practical need for a separate article. BTW, your Google search is picking up interpretations of every film made in the year 2001, so it's pretty meaningless...! :) Cop 663 (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I posted the wrong link for the 2001 search and have corrected accordingly, thanks for catching that. As for your first point, I disagree with your reasoning. Formal criticism of 2001 is different from interpretations of 2001 for starters. Even if an "Interpretations of 2001" section is worthy of inclusion in the main article, what's called for is fastidious pruning, not a separate article. There may be enough material to create a separate article, but that's not sufficient to qualify said article's topic for inclusion in WP. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Groupthink (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well sourced with reliable sources. Issues of synthesis can be edited out. Some of the statements in the article still require references, but I don't see any valid reason to delete the entire article. Rray (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're contradicting yourself: the article can't be both "well sourced" and "still require references"... but that's beside the point. It's the original synthesis that gives the illusion that this article's topic is notable. Once the synthesis is "edited out" it's obvious that there are multiple valid reasons – notability foremost among them – which justify this article's deletion. Groupthink (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some statements can have good sources while other statements still require references. I can see why you'd think I'm contradicting myself there, but I think you're also nitpicking, which I don't think should be necessary if the article really qualified for deletion.

But references can be added for statements which don't have good sources, or those statements can be deleted. Deletion isn't necessary or even preferable, although cleanup might be needed. Since entire books have been written on the subject, notability is well established, regardless of any cleanup issues. Rray (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, entire books have been written on the subject of 2001 itself, and I agree that its notability is well-established. However, we're not debating the notability of 2001 here, we're debating the notability of the topic "Interpretations of 2001", which is a fringe topic not sufficiently notable enough to merit its own article. This isn't about cleanup, it's about being encyclopedic. Groupthink (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Per WP:NOT#OR If you look back at the original version it most definitely was WP:OR. Since then editors have been trying to improve it by citing references and deleting sections that can not be verified. The article will always be WP:OR or it will be a complete recreation of Wheat's work both of which should not be here. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a Film School 101 class. Struct (talk) 18:38, 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. Kurykh 01:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Middle School[edit]

Previously prodded and deleted twice over. No assertion of notability. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to district to discourage re-creation as a stub and encourage a richer district article. Non-notable, no assertion of notability, etc. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep falls under Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools and, as a school, is notable enough. It is linked from WCPSS and is of similar format to Durant Road Middle School which falls in the exact same category. Look at the earlier revisions; it was changed from a CSD G1 worthy article to a stub to what it is now. The deletions were not a result of non-notibility. Main Author (Chasecarter (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Not every school is notable. Is there a reason why this one is special? Has it received significant coverage from secondary and tertiary sources? If you think that every school mentioned in Wake County Public School System deserves an article, you may be in for a rude awakening. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This one has special programs including Magnet School and is part of the Talented and Gifted program which according to the WCPSS directory is one of only two school of the same caliber. I'm new to wikipedia, but I'm sure alot of people in Raleigh would find useful and notable information in this article. Stub it if you want, but why delete it when people could find use in it?(Chasecarter (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    - These are common programs. "Talented and Gifted", in particular, is more of a meaningless catchphrase used in the WCPSS directory to promote the school. People in Raleigh may indeed find useful information in this stub and even more useful information in the WCPSS directory and other official literature. However Wikipedia is not a directory of local schools, it is not meant to be a comprehensive guide to every school system in every county in every state in every country. Such goals are untenable and should be avoided. As a general interest encyclopedia, Wikipedia includes articles on some schools that meet notability guidelines, namely articles which include mentions of important historic events, a track record of accomplished alumni, or numerous national recognitions. There is nothing about Martin Middle that makes it stand out. The sources used don't meet editorial standards for substantial coverage, they currently include district published information and a listing in a vast online directory. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're right, this article does not meet the un-offical policy listed below. I guess I thought of Wikipedia as a compendium of all verifiable knowledge, notable to many or just a few. I guess all the people this school has ever graduated, alumni, teachers, district and all the people looking for a middle school for their kids in Raleigh. These people who use wikipedia as their primary source for retreiving information will have to go to another website and will just have to accept that because this is an irrelevant educational institution it does not deserve an article like Ascospora ruborum does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasecarter (talk • contribs) 23:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Look at it this way: if you were one of those people, would you go to the library and crack open a copy of Britannica to find out which local school your kid should attend? Most people use a search engine like google to find info online, Wikipedia results pop up first because the wiki structure lends itself to maximizing pagerank. Wikipedia shouldn't strive to be a primary source of information in fields not covered by general knowledge reference works. Specialized sources like http://www.greatschools.net/ will always be better tools for parents, and with good reason. Frankly, I doubt anyone in Raleigh would really care whether the neighborhood middle school has an article on an online encyclopedia. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Will websites like http://www.greatschools.net/ be better at describing the schools. Well, at least right now they are. You said people use pages like http:/www.google.com/ to find this kind of information. Possibly. And do the people in Raleigh really care if the school is on wikipedia? Probobly not. The information is not all that hard to get, but having it on wikipedia allows simplicity and ease of access to the information rather than spread out between three websites. And wikipedia being very well know and used widley as a source for all kinds of information, I can easily see it as being the first place some people look for information like this. Wikipedia is not any ordinary encyclopedia like Britannica. While I don't really think this article is that important; it is just the idea that an educational institution doesn't deserve a spot on wikipedia if an editor bothers to make it and source it. Alot of other articles are far less notable. This article has potential for expansion from someone who could contribute far more to this than I ever could.Chasecarter (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, this school isn't special. See Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Primary education. Malinaccier (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial notability. If someone is able to write an article with references showing notability, then they can certainly do so, but they should read WP:N and WP:V beforehand. DGG (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. Nothing notable in the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:42, 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. Xoloz (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfield Mall[edit]

Unsourced stub article on a dead mall in Massachusetts. Only sources found were DeadMalls.com and the Labelscar blog, neither of which can really be considered reliable. The "Chicopee Marketplace" that replaced it doesn't seem to meet notability either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and precedent for notability of malls. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

umm ... per what precedent? please point out the precedent your refering to. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a dead mall. Malinaccier (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I seem to have found a source, and the reason for its demise. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so add the source. DGG (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was there, just as a link, not as a <ref> ... changed Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as another small US mall. Notability is not established by the reason for closing unless it is really novel and unique. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:44, 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 Merge. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Albanian pedigree of Leka Zogu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Medieval Albanian pedigree of Leka Zogu (2nd nomination)

Consensus seems to be that these articles essentially consist of genealogical trivia, which is not notable. (See precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgarian ancestry of royals of Bulgaria.) It is notable that Leka Zogu is the heir to the Albanian throne, but that only needs a statement in his article saying so; we don't need to provide his entire family history to prove it. Terraxos (talk) 07:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominator of the other articles for deletion and also per nominator. Charles 08:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as said by the nominator, clear consensus is emerging that this genealogical stuff is a violation of WP:SYN and nationalistacally oriented.--Aldux (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep King Zog was certainly notable. The ancestry of his wife is interesting, but it would be desirable if a few more of her ancestors could be demonstated to be notable. The Empress Catherine is a slightly different case. She was a princess of a very minor German princely family, who became Empress of Russia. The fact that she had a small admixture of Russian blood in her veins is this of interest. In her case there are a reaonable number of ancestors who were notable (though also a great many apparently NN). Peterkingiron (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nobility of the individual ancestors is irrelevant, the context is what matters. This falls out of the scope of Wikipedia. Charles 19:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Genealogical trivia; it is sufficient to make a brief reference in the biographical articles about ancestry. Noel S McFerran (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Both genealogies (Catherine's Russian and Leka's Albanian) in their own way. Besides, this is so-called second delete nomination, which always smack of, how to express it, sort of obsession, which may be misuse of Wikipedia processes. Let's see, some obsessive deletionist will no doubt soon come and write some retort against my opinion, basically not aimed at proper discussion, but to try to overwhelm anyone. Like bullies tend to do. Yet one problem more is this delete proposals made as bunches, when individual articles would need separate consideration. Shilkanni (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither page has sourcing explaining why the individual's geneaology is notable is notable. --RaiderAspect (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Leka, Crown Prince of Albania and Catherine the Great respectively. Genealogical information is relevant and sourced, but does not merit its own article. Walton^One 17:42, 22 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 close. Given that this is the nominator's first edit, and the phraseology of the nomination parrots several recent nominations of articles about fictional subjects, this is clearly a bad faith nomination. I remind editors not to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Uncle G (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real life[edit]

AfDs for this article:

In-universe notability is not established well enough to merit an article on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geese (talk • contribs) 16:32, 12 December 2007

Speedy Keep, as the subject contains - in theory - all in-universe everything. I would think that notability of Life itself would be apparent. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 21:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems a perfectly reasonable article to me. Abtract (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:56, 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 G7 (author requeests deletion), non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. News Ventures[edit]

U.S. News Ventures does not want an article about them at this time — Preceding unsigned comment added by PanamaZac (talk • contribs) 2007/12/12 16:28:26

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G7. Author requests deletion, and nobody else has edited the article. So tagged. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:47, 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 Keep per WP:SNOW. Article has seen a massive improvement, nominator has !voted keep. Woody (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Check NY[edit]

AfDs for this article:

NOTABILITY "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines" News search shows two relevant hits, both of which were not available (along with some false positives). Ra2007 (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what research have you done to determine how many and what sources exist, as Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination says for you to do? Uncle G (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Web searches for news articles. Found evidence of two supposedly recent articles or press releases, but both are gone. I don't have access to Nexis. Why do you ask? Ra2007 (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because your nomination rationale was non-existent. See User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving rationales at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, I did not see that sub-page in your user space. Anyway, I'll update the rationale. Ra2007 (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here are two news reports: Little Falls Times Oneida Dispatch. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Only one of the links brings up an article, and that is to a small town newspaper Oneida Disptach. I hardly think this achieves notability requirements. Ra2007 (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One link requires a subscription but the point is that the articles are out there, as you found yourself. Given that this is an impatient relisting, your case falls far short of what's needed for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I rewrote the article, removed extraneous information and added more than a dozen citations. This is clearly a notable organization. • Freechild 'sup? 14:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Freechild (good job Freechild!!!). Ra2007 (talk) 19:05, 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☿ 23:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great White Brotherhood[edit]

This got speedy deleted, but that was objected to - who knows, perhaps rightly, and so I've restored the page and brought it here. Here are the main problems:

Largely redundant with Ascended master
No independent sources. Everything used is published by presses devoted to Theosophy, a small Victorian spiritualist movement that includes this concept.
Part of a large theosophy walled garden.

In short, notability issues, mixed with redundancy. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related AfD page: A group of articles related to this topic were listed for deletion on the same day as this page was listed, at this link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Hilarion.

[The above related-AfD link has been added in the interests of process transparency. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Keep, quite strongly. This is a fairly well known concept from theosophy and turn of the century occultism; the notion of a Great White Brotherhood was shared, not only by theosophists, but also by Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn traditions; A. E. Waite (see his The Hidden Church of the Holy Grail), Aleister Crowley (see his Confessions for many references to the concept), and other associated writers all refer to the Great White Brotherhood in some form; and it fairly clearly inspired the Golden Dawn concept of the Secret Chiefs. For that matter, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, Annie Besant, and C. W. Leadbeater are not exactly obscure figures in this path of intellectual history, and the given references are therefore hardly trivial, obscure, or non-notable; sometimes I think I get more than a whiff of rationalist bias. This article needs expansion, not deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The question is whether the subject meets the WP:N standard of significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It's possible such coverage exists, but the current sources provided in the article do not meet that standard. Fireplace (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment And two sections of it are completely redundant with Ascended master, the third is just quotes. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - FWIW, "Ascended master" and "Great White Brotherhood" are two related but separate notions. GWB is the earlier of the two; "ascended master" is important primarily to the I AM movement and its offshoots, and one issue with the current content of the article appears to be that it relies heavily on those versions. I am going to have to do some digging on this, but I will try to add some different perspectives, assuming it is kept. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Certainly, I have no objection to keeping an improved version, and would be willing to check the procedure for a speedy keep (I don't do AfD much) if there's promises of improvement. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I've tried to add some very basic information to the article about the use of the term by non-I AM groups. There is surely more to be said; I will want to see if I can get hands on any books by Joscelyn Godwin or Richard Kieckhefer who discuss all of these matters from an academic perspective. The real problem with the current article seems to be to be merely undue weight to one perspective.
        I suppose I ought to disclose my conflict of interest. I am the bagman for the Great White Brotherhood. -Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's definitely a notable concept used by several unrelated groups as pointed out by Smerdis of Tlön. It is also distinct from Ascended master which concept is pretty much limited to Theosophy and its derivatives. I agree that any duplication should be sorted out, but of the two, Ascended master is the less notable. Curious Blue (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's fair enough, but it would probably help if the article actually dealt with the non-Theosophy parts in any significant way... Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I assume that could be suggested with appropriate templates. I've not familiar enough with the range of templates to choose the right ones for this. Also, I've prefer to keep my opinion in this AfD independent at least until the AfD closes, since I've never edited the article. Curious Blue (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. Just trying to figure out what to do with it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find myself surprised to be agreeing with the nominator here, as with such a long list of references I didn't expect to actually be able to verify the claim that none of the sources are good enough. But I can see they aren't. In most cases, the publisher's name is directly connected to this movement. Most of the rest aren't published at all. The few remaining after that are apparently obscure original publications from the early 20th century. This strikes me as parallel to WP:FICT: these are concepts specific to a world view found in a few written works. There's no outside importance to this, none presented in the article, and no sources that suggest any outside importance exists, and I think that would be needed here. Mango juice^talk 21:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, unless significant, independent coverage found per WP:N.Fireplace (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample sources indicating adequate notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is related to importance in the real world. While writing and references to these concepts may be limited to a small circle, there are those of us on the outside of that circle who want to know what the heck they are talking about in there. This has significant value because there are several extant religious organizations subscribing to these ideas. It's important that those of us who must deal with them in one way or another have access to this handy summary of their core concepts. Several of these groups are referenced in the article and their existence is readily verifiable. Fat Tommy (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — Fat Tommy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Conditional Keep: The article seems to meet WP:N, but it also needs a considerable amount of re-writing to be up to Wikipedia standards. I recommend the editors review WP:OBVIOUS, and also be especially careful in applying NPOV and no original research. Michaelbusch (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No to any deleting, merging or redirecting

Comment about reliable sources and verifiability - An excellent point was raised by DGG who pointed out that its "just as appropriate to use Theosophical sources as a description as to describe those of any other religion from its works." I agree that is how you get an accurate description of the beliefs of a religion or a philosophical concept. The article on Jehovah's Witnesses is an example how discussions of a religious belief have references to books written by the adherents of that belief. The same is true of the Roman Catholic Church and references to the "self-published" Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church when discussing what Catholic beliefs are. Arguments that we can apply different standards to a religion that has a smaller number of members are unconvincing.

An example of the problem with using an article that someone may erroneously consider a "reliable source" is that the author of that article may know practically nothing about the actual beliefs, and may only be interested in expressing contempt and ridicule of the subject. Fireplace used such an article (which used mocking terms like "two-bit alias" and "one of the kookiest cults") from the Los Angeles Times (See WP:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Walled_gardens_of_woo) to completely rewrite the I AM Activity article into an article written from a POV that this religious belief is a fraudulent con game, with inaccuracies such as the erroneous statement (from that Los Angeles Times hatchet job) that Guy Ballard claimed to be the reincarnation of Saint Germain or Jesus! Any review of the original sources would quickly reveal how contrary to their beliefs such a statement was. This emphasizes the problem with using outside sources to describe the religious beliefs of a church or religion. Arion (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were factual inaccuracies placed in the "I AM" Activity article by User:Fireplace as of result of his relying on an error-riddled article from Los Angeles Magazine. I just made edits that corrected a number of factual inaccuracies in this Wikipedia article, and gave specific citations to actual source documents to verify those edits. Within one half hour these corrective edits were reverted by Adam Cuerden (a Wikipedia administrator). What kind of explanation can possibly justify such action - again without discussion nor consensus? Arion (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - I'm not a follower of this religion and have not edited the related articles prior to this AfD. I must voice my concern that a group of articles about a significant minority religion were nominated for deletion ( AfD page for Master Hilarion, et al) following derogatory comments on the WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard in a report titled "Walled gardens of woo". What is "woo" intended to convey? It reads like an insult to the believers in this religion, and to the editors who worked on the articles. There are other insults in the above linked AfD and fringe noticeboard report. Insulting characterizations of minority religious beliefs and the work of well-intentioned editors do not belong in Wikipedia.

Not a "small Victorian spiritualist movenment [sic]": Not "Victorian", it started in the late 1800s and continues today; not one movement, but several; not "spiritualist", Theosophy and its descendants are part of Western esoteric tradition, forerunner of the modern New Age movement which generates a marketplace of billions of dollars a year today. Theosophy also has significant history in India. Google Books search for "Theosophy" shows 9,780 books. How many Google webhits? Over 2,400,000. Google tests have their flaws, but a number that large can't qualify as "small".
Notable and verifiable: Inconsistent referencing is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to improve. References can be found; Google Books shows 671 hits, and Google Scholar shows 176. Further on notability: here are a few Theosophists... poet WB Yeats; composer Alexander Scriabin; Rudolf Steiner, founder of the Waldorf Schools.
Not a WP:walled garden: Examples that link to the this page within a few clicks: Philosophy - Freemasonry, Kabbalah, Western mystery tradition, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Alchemy, Mysticism, Humanism, Metaphysics, Philosophy of religion, Esoteric Christianity; and, notable people - Carl Jung, WB Yeats, Alexander Scriabin, Rudolf Steiner, William James, Emanuel Swedenborg, Arthur Schopenhauer. (Some were Theosophists, but not all. The point is they link in a few clicks to the nominated page showing there is no walled garden).
References: It is not unusual for articles on religion to be based on references published by members of the religion. Examples: Ecumenical council, Eucharist (Catholic Church) , John of Damascus, Full communion ...each have no references not published by Catholic sources. Many religious articles on Wikipedia currently have no references at all. Examples: Divine Liturgy, Council of Ephesus, Veneration, Church Fathers. (No specific meaning in choice of examples, just for illustration). And, the article does already have some non-Theosophy-published references, ie, Bantam Books and Weiser Press. More can be found.
Summary: The topic is notable and verifiable; not a WP:walled garden; part of a religious philosophy that has influenced Western society and others for over a hundred years. A religion may be small, but that does not mean its information should be excluded from Wikipedia. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Some of my comment has been cross-posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Hilarion, because that list of closely-related topics was nominated separately from this one. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)][reply]

No one is arguing we should delete Theosophy or every Theosophy-related article. That's an awfully broad brush you're painting these debates with. What about this one? Mango juice^talk 05:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment included both broad brush and fine-point ink-pen, because the nomination did not specifically address only this article, it included inaccurate information about Theosophy. With my fine-point pen, I listed the exact count of Google Books and Google Scholar results on the topic of this article, and showed some non-Theosophy publishers used as references in this article. With my broad brush, I answered the nominators' complaints about the larger topic of Theosophy, and the use of a religions' publications in describing its own religious beliefs, a valid process used by Wikipedia on major religions as well, and his descriptions of Theosophy as a "small Victorian spiritualist movement" and a "walled garden", both of which are simply incorrect.

You mentioned "these debates" rather than "this debate". I assume you're referring to the other AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Hilarion, to delete every one of the six or seven "Masters of Wisdom" Theosophy articles all at once. While I am not a follower of the religion, it's surprising and disappointing to me to see a nomination for mass deletion of a historically significant religion's equivalent of "Archangels". I don't understand why someone would want to do that. It's completely clear from the quantity and depth of writings about these topics for over a hundred years that they are worthy of a few kilobytes of Wikipedia storage. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you look at the nomination, it is quite specific to this article. So are some of the other arguments being made. Do you have any reliable and clearly independent sources that talk about the "Great White Brotherhood," or is this a minor feature of an obscure belief system no one comments on from the outside? Mango juice^talk 06:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those questions seem to be a re-phrase of the nomination. I've already answered in detail. I'm not here to have an extended debate defending what I wrote. I did research on this article and the other ones in the related AfD before I entered my comments; the result of that work is the information I posted. It's here for use of the administrator who closes this AfD, and for anyone else who is wants to use it. I'm not an editor of the article and I have no vested interest to defend. I believe the article should be kept for the detailed reasons I listed, which, ultimately, come down to that the article satisfies WP:N and WP:V.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This appears to be a well referenced treatment of a religious subject. —Whig (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a fairly significant concept in theosophy, and the treatment here is at the very least in service to Wikipedia for detailing the history of the usage of the term. The article is in need of some cleanup and organization, but that's not an AfD criteria. --Clay Collier (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to Keep, but not for the reasons given by various editors above. The typical argument above takes the form "Theosophy is notable, therefore it's concepts are notable" or "theosophical sources can be used to establish notability." Those arguments aren't supported by Wikipedia's policy or guidelines. The relevant criterion is whether the subject has been significantly covered by independent reliable sources. Having looked through some books from third-party, reliable publishers, I'm convinced of the notability here. I'm saddened by the quality of argument, however, both here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Hilarion, which I think shows a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:Notability. Fireplace (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Others were convinced of the notability here before ~~AfD~~ speedy deletion was made without apparent consultation on the article talk. —Whig (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I favor keeping those articles in Wikipedia since they are references with reliable sources. Is there suddenly a problem with space on Wikipedia? There sure seems to be room for hundreds of articles on characters from mythology, Catholic saints, and gods of Hinduism. Yet, there's no room for a mere handful of articles on Theosophical and Ascended Master teachings? Sage 1225Sage1225 (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Article is well referenced, and I believe the subject is notable. I read a bit of Crowley and related texts years back, and was aware of this order. Sage1225 also makes a good point. It is certainly an encyclopedic subject worthy of inclusion. - Crockspot (talk) 04:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep However, I think that Mahatma, Ascended master, Great White Brotherhood, and Spiritual Hierarchy should all definitely be merged with "Great White Brotherhood" because these are all different names for the same group of alleged beings. The merged article should be called Masters of the Ancient Wisdom which was the original name used in the literature of the Theosophical Society. Keraunos (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The Mahatmas are the beings who Madame Blavatsky supposedly encountered personally; the Masters of the Ancient Wisdom are the beings as described in the literature of the Theosophical Society; Alice A. Bailey uses the terms Masters of the Wisdom, Spiritual Hierarchy, Elder Brothers of the Race, and Great White Brotherhood, or simply The Masters, all to refer to the same alleged beings; The term Ascended Master was introduced by Guy Ballard and its use was continued by Elizabeth Clare Prophet, the two major people who are the sources of the Ascended Master Teachings, but they both also sometimes use the term Great White Brotherhood; Benjamin Creme simply uses the term Masters; and non-Theosophy occultists like Alistair Crowley use the term Great White Brotherhood (he mentioned them in his book Magick). Keraunos (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, Mahatma is a Sanskrit title that was coöpted by Blavatsky and her immediate forerunners, like Anna Kingsford. It has currency outside this context, as in Mahatma Gandhi. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:42, 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 delete. No WP:V sources despite 3-4 months being tagged for them. Only sources are apparently not independent of the mall ownership. Pigman☿ 19:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Towne Mall[edit]

Non-notable mall in Kentucky, doesn't meet precedent for super-regional classification. Tagged for sources and notability since August with nothing added. Also written in a somewhat promotional tone. (P.S.: It's hard to find any sources for this mall since there are about eight million other malls that are either "Towne Mall" or "_____ Towne Mall".) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This link reveals that the Gross Leasing Area of the mall is 353,000 square feet, and the mall has about 60 stores, which would seem to fall below the threshold of notability, but if it is the only mall in an eight-county region, it might qualify as notable. Malls are always very hard to find reliable sources for, unfortunately. Horologium (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not make the claim that it is the only mall. It appears to be another nn small US mall. The article is mostly about the area rather then the mall itself. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What precedent? Please point out to me where it is written what you say is the precedent that has been agreed to by consensus ? Or that 353,000 sq ft, and/or 60 stores is an agree'd to 'threshold'? That argument is pointless after reading WP:BIG. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:55, 12 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, Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just doesn't seem notable beyond the locale. RMHED (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, it is then notable to the locals, and since there is no 'local' clause in WP:N, it should stay. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:48, 15 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, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not clearly notable. Written in a promotional tone, as noted by the nominator. Dekimasu よ! 10:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be written like an advertisment and it isn't notable. Tavix (talk) 16:07, 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 all. Pigman☿ 23:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Master Hilarion, et al[edit]

Article about a... thing... that has no notability outside of an obscure Victorian spiritualist movenment. Some material might be merged into Seven Rays, H. P. Blavatsky, etc. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for delete/merge:

and the Theosophy sectoon of Count of St. Germain, at least, if the huge section discussing a dozen or so different Theosophanist's views on him in great detail is again restored. All form part of a huge walled garden. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related AfD pages:

A related article, Great White Brotherhood, was listed for deletion on the same day as the above articles, at this link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great White Brotherhood.
This is the second nomination for deletion of the article Djwal Khul. The prior nomination was on March 12, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

[The above related-AfD links have been added in the interests of process transparency. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)][reply]

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}}.

Delete or merge unless notability established on each individual article. These articles seem to fail WP:N: no evidence of substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. The sources in the article are from publishing houses that are owned by/associated with the various New Age movements that believe in these things. I conducted Lexis-Nexis searches of all the major English-language newspapers, plus Google Scholar searches, and found no substantial coverage from reliable, independent sources. I went to the Harvard library and pulled what seem to be the major reference books that discuss Ascended Master Teachings and other New Age movements and found little or no coverage of these subjects. Full disclosure: This AfD is the result of a somewhat heated discussion on the Fringe theories noticeboard (e.g., someone compared me and other editors to the Nazis and then the Taliban for trying to "censor" a religious movement). Fireplace (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely keep all.

Since I am the individual being referred to by User:Fireplace, let me again repeat: I was referring to the mentality that desires to DENY information on subjects they find worthless. I had written: "Today that same mentality would smother access to subjects that it deems "fringe" and "pseudoscience". You have no right to make that value judgement when dealing with sourced and referenced articles, no matter what the subject matter. Using that tactic is simply not the way to build Wikipedia into the academic and NPOV encyclopedia that it is intended to be. "

I object to deletion. Before considering how to eliminate these few articles on subjects that many people consider spiritually significant to their lives, how about first considering the elimination of the

HUNDREDS of Wikipedia articles on comic book characters from Marvel Comics and DC Comics, for example: List_of_DC_Comics_characters.
HUNDREDS of Wikipedia articles on Catholic saints (List_of_saints) and
HUNDREDS of Wikipedia articles on Hindu gods and goddesses (List_of_Hindu_deities)?

In the last 132 years, hundreds of books have been written about "Theosophy" and the "Ascended Master Teachings", in various languages and by many publishers. These have described their religious / philosophical theories, their "saints" and adepts, and the social phenomena of the 19th and 20th century organizations that developed from the foundations of the writings of Helena Blavatsky, Rudolph Steiner, Alice Bailey, Guy Ballard, and various others. Great White Brotherhood, Hilarion, Sanat Kumara, Morya, Kuthumi, Paul the Venetian, Serapis Bey, Master Jesus, Djwal Khul all are prominent in many 19th and 20th century religious and philosophical organizations.

All one can do with any religion, let alone those apart from the mainstream, is to faithfully report their beliefs taken from the literature of the believers of their religious belief system. In doing so, we are not assesing truth claims (such as the Mormons believing that God is a physical being on another planet), one simply reports on the beliefs held, with as much accuracy as possible - with reliable sources and references.

There is no need at all to assess the truth claims of the 20th century new religions. If people were to delve into assessing the truth claims of religion, then an entry on Christianity may as well begin with assessing whether God exists. The best approach would seem to be an accurate rendition of any movement's beliefs, nature, history and activities (regardless of what a Wikipedia editor's own views are). Questioning the validity or "notability" of religious beliefs isn't the role of an encyclopedia entry. Arion (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a researcher for the past 4 decades of the new religious movements of the 20th century, especially the ones born from the foundations of Esoteric Buddhism, "New Thought", Theosophical and Ascended Master Teachings. Our university department has especially examined the historical and social contexts of those minority religions. To exclude relevant data from Wikipedia on their beliefs, key religious "saints" known as "Ascended Masters", and the individuals who helped shape these organizations would be unthinkable. Arion (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am against deletion or merging of the articles on Dwal Khul, Hilarion, Sanat Kumara, Morya, Kuthumi, Paul the Venetian, Serapis Bey, and Master Jesus. They are spiritually, historically, and socio-culturally significant to stand as separate articles Sage 122568.231.166.180 (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)— 68.231.166.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep All Theosophy seems to be a notable religion and so its pantheon merits some detailed articles. See Google Scholar on Master Jesus which includes Christianity and Theosophy Harmonized. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Does notability automatically transfer from a religion to its pantheon? Is that consistent with the "significant coverage" standard of WP:N? (Also, Christianity and Theosophy Harmonized does not appear to be an independent source.) Fireplace (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Answer In this case, the answer is yes. The only question here really is whether coverage of these folk should be merged with their treatment from other viewpoints. I think not, as this would tend to promote holy edit wars. See Islamic view of Jesus for another similar article to Master Jesus. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why is the answer "yes"? Phrasing the answer in terms of Wikipedia policy/guidelines, in light of WP:N, would be more helpful. Fireplace (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - For general help, I recommend WP:FANATIC. For this specific AFD, there's Subject is a POV. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure how pointing me to WP:FANATIC is relevant or civil. And Subject is a POV does not address the notability issue, which is the concern that led these articles to AfD. Fireplace (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It should not be necessary to explain that Jesus is notable. The Theosophist religious view of him is the fork in the POV which I find to be adequately notable and sourced. Your badgering of my position seems both hostile and intolerant in pursuit of your desire to destroy these articles. You note above your surprise at being compared with the Nazis. They espoused a ruthless, modern and scientific view of the world which led them to burn the books of which they disapproved. The WP:FANATIC essay encourages us to take a more relaxed view of our work here and it seems quite pertinent. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        ...I really don't think that that was being helpful, boyo. (And a ruthless, scientific view of the world that involved pagan rites based on the Siegfried myth?) Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Colonel Warden, I've been calmly discussing a legitimate policy question about interpreting the notability threshold. Fireplace (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A neutral point of view encyclopedia is founded on verifiability. Of course Wikipedia should have an appropriate depth and breath of coverage of the history, beliefs, and personalities of the theosophist movement, but having perused the articles, it appears that every one of them rests on overtly theosophist books for effectively all of the content. This is not a healthy state of affairs and seems to be an argument in favour of ruthless merging and/or redirecting. Could any of these articles be rewritten to use independent, non-theosophist sources for at least the key points? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Major figures in a major religion. I find it just as appropriate to use Theosophical sources as a description as to describe those of any other religion from its works. We don't look for non-Christian sources about Saint Paul, or insist on non-Moslem sources for Ali. If there is a controversial discussion of correspondence with secular individuals, then that might need better sourcing, but I do not see such claims being made, and its a matter of editing in any case. I generally wonder whether attempts to remove such articles are perhaps sometimes expressiond of a POV on religion or on certain religions.DGG (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep all Theosophy is not an “obscure Victorian spiritual movement”. It is the original basis for the New Age movement, which is composed of millions of people in the United States and Europe who believe in reincarnation. It was a Theosophist named Alice A. Bailey who invented the term New Age.
In addition, the Church Universal and Triumphant, the major religious body formally subscribing to this belief system, has about 100,000 members, which seems significant. Keraunos (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, there is the contemporary spiritual teacher Benjamin Creme who follows this metaphysical system of Theosophy and who has tens of thousands of followers all over the world. Keraunos (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the following references to the articles to establish notability:
  - Encyclopedic reference:
    - Melton, J. Gordon Encyclopedia of American Religions 5th Edition New York:1996 Gale Research ISBN 0-8103-7714-4 ISSN 1066-1212 Chapter 18--"The Ancient Wisdom Family of Religions" Pages 151-158; see chart on page 154 listing Masters of the Ancient Wisdom; Also see Section 18, Pages 717-757 Descriptions of various Ancient Wisdom religious organizations
  - Scholarly studies:
    - Campbell, Bruce F. A History of the Theosophical Movement Berkeley:1980 University of California Press
    - Godwin, Joscelyn The Theosophical Enlightenment Albany, New York: 1994 State University of New York Press
    - Johnson, K. Paul The Masters Revealed: Madam Blavatsky and Myth of the Great White Brotherhood Albany, New York: 1994 State University of New York Press Keraunos (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, I think that Mahatma, Ascended master, Great White Brotherhood, and Spiritual Hierarchy should all definitely be merged because these are all different names for the same group of alleged beings. The merged article should be called Masters of the Ancient Wisdom which was the original name used in the literature of the Theosophical Society. Keraunos (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, it seems to address my question. If those four articles do all address the same topic under a different name, merging and redirecting is the right answer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Keraunos. I'll take a look at the references, but assuming they are good (I was sent on a wild goose chase before in this discussion) this goes a long way to addressing my concerns. Fireplace (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No to any merging or redirecting As for reliable sources and verifiability: An excellent point was raised by DGG who pointed out that its "just as appropriate to use Theosophical sources as a description as to describe those of any other religion from its works." I agree that is how you get an accurate description of the beliefs of a religion or a philosophical concept. The article on Jehovah's Witnesses is an example how discussions of a religious belief have references to books written by the adherents of that belief. The same is true of the Roman Catholic Church and references to the "self-published" Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church when discussing what Catholic beliefs are. Arguments that we can apply different standards to a religion that has a smaller number of members are unconvincing.

An example of the problem with using an article that someone may erroneously consider a "reliable source" is that the author of that article may know practically nothing about the actual beliefs, and may only be interested in expressing contempt and ridicule of the subject. Fireplace used such an article (which used mocking terms like "two-bit alias" and "one of the kookiest cults") from the Los Angeles Magazine (See WP:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Walled_gardens_of_woo) to completely rewrite the I AM Activity article into an article written from a POV that this religious belief is a fraudulent con game, with inaccuracies such as the erroneous statement (from that Los Angeles Magazine hatchet job) that Guy Ballard claimed to be the reincarnation of Saint Germain or Jesus! Any review of the original sources would quickly reveal how contrary to their beliefs such a statement was. This emphasizes the problem with using outside sources to describe the religious beliefs of a church or religion. Arion (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were factual inaccuracies placed in the "I AM" Activity article by User:Fireplace as of result of his relying on an error-riddled article from Los Angeles Magazine. I just made edits that corrected a number of factual inaccuracies in this Wikipedia article, and gave specific citations to actual source documents to verify those edits. Within one half hour these corrective edits were reverted by Adam Cuerden (a Wikipedia administrator). What kind of explanation can possibly justify such action - again made without discussion nor consensus? Arion (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep all, regardless of what other editors think about Theosophy (and I'd like to note that I am not particularly fond of Theosophy), it is without a doubt a notable new religious movement and it's major figures are each deserving of an article just as much as the figures of any other religion. One must note that the Christian Bible is essentially a self-published work of the Roman Catholic Church, with a number of more modern translations also published within the walled garden of Christian religious publishers. Are you FRINGE guys serious about trying to apply this science guideline to matters of spiritual belief, or is this some kind of joke? Because if the former, you've just made yourself look rather ridiculous and this calls into question some of the other uses which has been made of this guideline. Curious Blue (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC) — User:Curious Blue has been indefinitely blocked as a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet.[reply]

- The policy we've been citing in this AfD is WP:Notability, not WP:Fringe. Fireplace (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great, unless you are arguing that Theosophy itself is not notable, then I think your efforts are misguided and give the appearance of being an attack on a notable new religious movement. Curious Blue (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there seems to be a considerable discussion on this at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, initiated by the nominator of these articles, and, Fireplace, you've taken part in it yourself. is there so much prejudice against the articles as to try to claim different rationales in different processes?. At Fringe, your argument was that the religion was "pseudo-philosophy." DGG (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely the discussion I was referring to. Is this what is known as "forum shopping"? Curious Blue (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this tone is helpful, please assume good faith. Curious Blue: The issue isn't whether the religion itself is notable -- it is. The issue is whether the individual deities of its pantheon are notable per the "significant coverage in independent sources" standard. DGG: There is a WP:N aspect of this discussion, appropriate for AfD. There is *also* a WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE aspect, appropriate for flagging at the fringe noticeboard and for discussion on the individual talk pages. This isn't forum shopping -- there are multiple aspects to the discussion. Fireplace (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your talk page. My apologies, I did go too far with that forum shopping remark. Otherwise, though I stand by my comments as I was careful to talk about appearances leaving open the possibility that the appearances were just that, surface only. Curious Blue (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All. - I'm not a follower of this religion and have not edited these articles prior to this AfD. I must voice my concern that a group of articles about a significant minority religion were nominated for deletion following derogatory comments on the WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard in a report titled "Walled gardens of woo". What is "woo" intended to convey? It reads like an insult to the believers in this religion, and to the editors who worked on the articles. An insult appears the text of this nomination also: The listed pages represent "Masters of Wisdom" according to Theosophy. In the nomination, they are described as "a... thing ..." What does that mean? How would people respond if a Catholic Saint or Archangel were referred to as "a... thing ..." ? Insulting characterizations of minority religious beliefs and the work of well-intentioned editors do not belong in Wikipedia.

Not an "obscure Victorian spiritualist movenment [sic]": Not "Victorian", it started in the late 1800s and continues today; not one movement, but several; not "spiritualist", Theosophy and its descendants are part of Western esoteric tradition, forerunner of the modern New Age movement which generates a marketplace of billions of dollars a year today. Theosophy also has significant history in India. Google Books search for "Theosophy" shows 9,780 books. How many Google webhits? Over 2,400,000. Google tests have their flaws, but a number that large can't qualify as "obscure".
Notable and verifiable: Inconsistent referencing is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to improve. References can be found; Google Books shows hundreds of hits for each title, and Google Scholar over a hundred each. (The searches are not simple; some of the names have alternate spellings). Further on notability: here are a few Theosophists... poet WB Yeats; composer Alexander Scriabin; Rudolf Steiner, founder of the Waldorf Schools. Van Morrison's 1982 album Beautiful Vision states in its liner notes that the lyrics were influenced by a Theosophical book describing the teachings of Djwal Khul, one of the articles listed in this AfD.
Not a WP:walled garden: Examples that link to the listed pages within a few clicks: Philosophy - Freemasonry, Kabbalah, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Alchemy, Mysticism, Humanism, Metaphysics, Philosophy of religion, Esoteric Christianity; and, notable people - Carl Jung, WB Yeats, Alexander Scriabin, Rudolf Steiner, William James, Emanuel Swedenborg, Arthur Schopenhauer. (Some were Theosophists, but not all. The point is they link in a few clicks to the nominated pages showing there is no walled garden).
References: It is not unusual for articles on religion to be based on references published by members of the religion. Examples: Ecumenical council, Eucharist (Catholic Church) , John of Damascus, Full communion ...each have no references not published by Catholic sources. Many religious articles on Wikipedia currently have no references at all. Examples: Divine Liturgy, Council of Ephesus, Veneration, Church Fathers. (No specific meaning in choice of examples, just for illustration). And, some of the nominated pages do have non-Theosophy-related references. I've not vetted them in detail, but I found these in a quick review: University of California Press, State University of New York Press, North Atlantic Books, Kessinger Publishing, Baker Book House, Sophia Perennis.
Summary: The topics are notable and verifiable; not a WP:walled garden; they are part of a religious philosophy that has influenced Western society and others for over a hundred years. A religion may be small, but that does not mean its information should be excluded from Wikipedia. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Some of my comment may end up cross-posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great White Brotherhood, because that closely-related topic was nominated separately for deletion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Keep all. There are dozens of subjects, from Xenu to Mary Baker Eddy, that might with equal justice be claimed to "have no notability beyond an obscure spiritual movement." This is a serious misreading of the notion of "notability," which is generally passed if a subject has generated a considerable literature - even if that literature is made mostly by believers for believers. FWIW, this seems to marginalize Theosophy and its offshoots more than is justified: for much of the twentieth century, the theosophical stream was the major current in Western esotericism, even if that stream became diminished in favour of others over the last third of the twentieth century. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: This entry has 9 sources all tackling the subject in a an appropriate manner for their use the breadth and depth of these sources confirms both notability and verifiability. I would suggest that the user who started the afd is simply "unaware" of the subject because they are not interested in/an expert in the field.

I'd like to point out that notability is relative, not absolute, else few things would pass it. For example, as far as most of the world's 6 billion people are concerned, football (as played in America, not soccer) is a minority sport with little following or notability. I'd wager that the 90% of the world's population couldn't tell you what month the super bowl is played in, let alone which team won it. If notability was absolute you'd simply look at the fact that the game isn't played or watched anywhere else in the world except in a few specialist circles, then you'd look at the percent of the world's population who care about it (basically less than half of the US population), then you'd look at the people who don't care about it (most of the world's population), and you'd declare that football was not notable in absolute terms. - perfectblue (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This content would be a lot more accessible to a general audience if it were condensed and merged to a single article, or one main article with a few linked articles. If merging isn't acceptable I'd have to suggest deletion. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and as for merging, not only do I not see the point but the seven rays and ascended master teachings articles would be far too long with all the info on the ascended masters in them as well. This is what we do when articles are too long - split them. Just a long standing opinion of mine that it just looks tidier having separate articles on subjects where possible rather than having one huge article with an awkward title, which in this case would be on far too broad a topic, that people get redirected to.

Saying the ascended masters have no notability outside of theosophy is a silly rationale, just like saying the 1976 Wimbledon Championships have no notability outside of tennis and therefore all those articles should be deleted. There are published sources on this subject, therefore there is enough verifiable information.

I can't see what makes the articles on the ascended masters unmaintainable. I can, however, share User:Jack-A-Roe's concerns above of an obvious personal POV influence in the nominator's rationale for this whole thing... - Zeibura ^(Talk) 19:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At the very least, these articles need to be considered independently. There may be cases where some of these can be merged, but others have significant attention devoted to them within Theosophy. As long as it is clearly identified within the article (which it seems to be in most cases) that these figures are specific to theosophy and their existence is the opinion of Theosophists rather than established fact, I don't see any NPOV problems. Notability needs to be resolved by individual cases of merging and expanding, rather than with a blanket vote. --Clay Collier (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Per Clay, these articles should be considered independently. Some may be a bit stubby right now, but that is not cause for deletion. —Whig (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Providing balance for the articles by adding a third party skeptical viewpoint: I added to the articles about the “Masters” that Madame Blavatsky spoke of in her lifetime the skeptical view of scholar K. Paul Johnson, who maintains that the “Masters” were actually idealizations of people who were her mentors. According to Johnson:

The Master Morya was actually Maharajah Ranbir Singh of Kashmir, the most powerful roya patron of the Theosophical Society. Maharajah Singh died in 1885.

The Master Kuthumi was actually Thakar Singh Sandhanwalia, a member of the Singh Saba, an Indian independence movement organization and Sikh reform movement.

Djwal Khul was actually Dayal Singh Majithia, a member of the Singh Saba.

The Master Hilarion was actually Ooton Liato, a stage magician from Cyprus whom she met in New York City in 1873.

These are all referenced to the appropriate page in Johnson’s book Initiates of Theosophical Masters Albany, New York:1995 State University of New York Press.

The other "Masters" were apparently added by C.W. Leadbeater in his book The Masters and the Path.

In Hindu mythology, Sanat Kumara is a minor deity. Sanat Kumara is mentioned in Madame Blavatsky's most important work The Secret Doctrine. Keraunos (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, today I found out that it was Alice A. Bailey who added the other “Masters” in her 1922 book Initiation, Human and Solar. C.W. Leadbeater wrote about the same ones in more detail in his 1925 book The Masters and the Path. Keraunos (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I found an even earlier reference today in my library for the “masters” were not claimed to have been encountered by Madame Blavatsky in her lifetime. They are all mentioned in the 1913 book Man: Whence, How and Whither by Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater. Keraunos (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I favor keeping those articles in Wikipedia since they are references with reliable sources. Is there suddenly a problem with space on Wikipedia? There sure seems to be room for hundreds of articles on characters from mythology, Catholic saints, and gods of Hinduism. Yet, there is no room for a mere handful of articles on Theosophical and Ascended Master teachings? Sage 1225Sage1225 (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge - the sited references only mention the subject twice. Subject does not meet WP:N or WP:BIO guidelines. The article is only 3 sentences on the subject. There should be a page that lists all the deities with a brief description. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing opinion to Keep following Keraunos' additions of several third-party, reliable sources providing significant coverage. As I've said elsewhere, I'm saddened however by the quality of this discussion. Analogies to Catholic Saints are inappropriate -- aside from WP:OTHERCRAP, there are books like the Oxford Encyclopedia of Catholic Saints that establish third-party notability. Arguments of the form "theosophy is notable, therefore its deities are notable" are a misunderstanding of WP:Notability. Arguments of the form "this AfD is motivated by anti-new-religion prejudice" both fails to AGF and is irrelevant to the WP:N criterion. Fireplace (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe OUP makes the bulk of its money from publishing the Bible (it used have a UK monopoly, together with Cambridge--don't know if it still does) and OU was explicitly founded and endowed as a Christian organization. Therefore anything about Christian saints published by them is by your method of reasoning not 3rd party. This can be extended. Nothing about activities in the US can be N unless we find sources by those in other countries. Nothing by black authors is notable, unless those of other races write about it. Nothing by males is notable unless there are substantial publications about it by females. Nothing, in fact, written by humans will be notable until extraterrestrials discover us and start compiling their galactic encyclopedia. I am of course merely joking, but to show that at some point there is a cut-off by what we mean by "third party" or "independent". You have found yourself saying one rather extreme position, and if I were to say that any Religion, however small, determines its own notabiliy, I would be as far out in the opposite.

So the real question is where does Theosophy fall? Maybe its not a line, but a range: I'd say that it was large enough for its first level divine entities and organizations and leaders to be notable, but not below that, whereas the Christian church is large enough to accept the notability of not just the trinity, but all the saints. I think even here I wouldn't accept the lower level of "blessed" It's unfortunate that we are in the situation where the choice is N/~N. It makes these problems more difficult than they need be. DGG (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't see why we'd delete this sort of thing; theosophy may be "an obscure Victorian spiritualist movenment" (though I've heard of it, which seems to count for something!), but the details of it are certainly of historical interest to the same extent they would be if contemporary. Shimgray | talk | 00:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- St. Germain article now matches other articles: I restored St. Germain’s alleged previous incarnations to the St. Germain article so it would match the other articles, but I kept it short and didn’t reinsert all the other material that was there before. Also, so it would match the other articles, I restored the Theosophy template to the St. Germain article. Finally, I added the encyclopedia reference from The Encyclopedia of American Religion and the skeptical scholarly books so that the references to the St. Germain article would match the other articles. Keraunos (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Pop culture factoids added: To round out the articles, I included instances of the appearance of the Master Jesus and Sanat Kumara in comic books in a popular culture section. (I am an avid comic book reader, fan, and collector.) Keraunos (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Key figures in religious movemrnts are automatically significant. Dimadick (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I don't see how these articles cause a problem. They have sufficient notability and have reliable sources that support their existence/notability. Zouavman Le Zouave 11:56, 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 speedy delete as copyright violation. It's a straight copy and paste of at least two papers on this subject, concatenated together. See here, here, and here. Given that Mplampla (talk · contribs) passed off other people's work as xyr own when writing the article text, I don't believe xyr assertions that the images were xyr own work. So I've deleted those, too. Uncle G (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

End-To-End Reconfigurability[edit]

Unencyclopedic, and advertisement-like. No independent reliable sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, borderline speedy as advert, and possible copyvio. Stifle (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was originaly tagged as speedy - advert, but the tag was removed by a new editors first edit. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Article is just a demonstration of a European Commission funded research project and has nothing to do with an advertisement. Fontas (talk) 17:33, 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 keep. John254 00:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Cousins (writer)[edit]

Notability of this article has been questioned in February 2007; no secondary sources are listed. A PROD was contested with comment: "seems to have major US and UK positions". This does not directly imply notability howver. A search for sources has failed. Cf. the article's edit history and talk page. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as long as some decent independent sources can be found). I have added a source to the article, and an external link to a profile which suggests notability to me, for his publications and academic work. Some independent sources would help. Seems to be plenty to sift through on Google. --Michig (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find anything independent in my fairly extensive search. "Mark" and "Cousins" are common names and what I mostly found was other people. There should be more academic profiles if the notability exists. --Stormbay (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. A Google News archive search turned up about 20 press mentions and Google Scholar about 100 citations when I searched for "Mark Cousins" + architecture. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the GS references look significant--he seems to be referred to as an important figure in the field. Iwould change it to Mark Cousins (architect). DGG (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Rename maybe, but his leadership positions are clearly notable. Mbisanz (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Length of time that notability has been questioned isn't grounds for deletion. Secondary sources can (and should) be added. (There are tags for article cleanup.) Rray (talk) 14:11, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real Custom Games[edit]

Halo clan that does not appear to meet WP:ORG. Discussion on notability has been ongoing on Talk:Real Custom Games, but article author has failed to produce any reliable and genuinely independent sources for notability. No Google News Archive hits, no Alexa ranking for the clan Web site. —Caesura ^(t) 16:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a group on Halo, they aren't notable. The article is completely lacking in reliable sources. Even if they were instrumental in creating a playlist, they still aren't notable. --Cyrus Andiron 17:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable group. I had originally speedied it but removed the tag when the author offered to find and insert more third-party sources. Apparently this did not happen. ... discospinster _talk 18:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebutal There are no other reliable third party source according to Wiki's version of a third party source. However, the Bungie Studios new stories is a third party source as the two are completely separate organizations. However, I will accept the deletion of the article and might possibly look for ways to contribute to the site. Thanks for your time.

GaTech92 (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable gaming clan. My prod tag was removed, and I thot that I was being generous, as I don't consider an online group's claim of only 160 members an 'assertion of notability' that would put it above {{db-club}}. Ravenna1961 (talk) 01:04, 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. Kurykh 02:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warlord (manhua)[edit]

This is the summary of a fictional topic per WP:NOT#PLOT. Further, it cites no sources and provides no context for understanding the work. Mbisanz (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find any information about this one at all. Not even listed in ANN, and appears to be unlicensed. Don't see any chance it could be cleaned up or expanded. Collectonian (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found the publisher's web page for the work here. Given that, with the hanzi name for the comic, possibly someone can find out more about it. Needs major cleanup including context, but if notability can be established, it's a decent stub. I'll hold off !voting pending further research. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I note btw it's not a "fictional topic" -- it's a comic book series with real-world existance. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's certainly mentioned in forums and blogs. Though I'm not sure if notability can be established here. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not crazy enough to contribute the info of a manhua I've never read. I'm not sure about the name of the author (in Sino-Vietnamese, his name is "Đặng Chí Huy", and I think the pinyin is "Deng Zhi Hui", I don't know Hong Kong language). Warlord is informated to be published by Ocean Creative Company Limited and it's published in Vietnam by Kim Dong Publisher by the name "Võ Thần", with its original name "Warlord". It's actually not a joke, a lie or something else like this. I'm deadly serious. See this Warlord —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shishishin (talk • contribs) 12:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V and probably WP:N, no sources. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 01:03, 23 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 a copyvio of the band's website with no non-infringing version to revert to (could have been speedied under CSD G12 but five days have passed).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore's Marching Ravens[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Baltimore's Marching Ravens

Plagiarism of the Marching Raven's website. Dalekusa (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even though I wrote parts of this myself and REFERENCED the original source at the bottom of the article, if you want completely original content for this article, I'll write it. I do have a real job, so I can't write it immediately. I also don't have time to sit around and police Wikipedia and destroy the intent by making sure it only contains information I deem worthy. Jgaffney (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The band itself IS notable, as it is one of the few official NFL marching bands, however I do agree the page needs to be greatly cleaned up, with the possible copyvios removed. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete this version and create a non-copyvio stub. --Smashville^BONK! 16:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate plagiarism, and I think there should be zero tolerance for it. The topic is worthwhile-- most NFL teams don't have their own marching band, after all-- but author needs to write about this in his/her own words. If you're simply cutting and pasting someone else's work, you're not actually creating an article. Mandsford (talk) 01:33, 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 Speedy delete as nn-corp/vandalism. Stifle (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XNW[edit]

Delete. NN wrestling promotion. Fails Google test. Not sourced. Creator of article had previously vandalized another notable wrestling promotion's page by inserting the same info found in this new article. EndlessDan 15:48, 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. DS (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The blasphemy Against The Holy Spirit[edit]

Companion to An Ordained Human Living Sacrifice To Satan. Listed here to consolidate discussion and pre-empt further philosophical postings and revelations. Similar OR and soapboxing issues to AOHStS. Acroterion _(talk) 14:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research, NPOV violation, soapboxing, etc., (or hoax?) --Dawn bard (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dawn bard -Verdatum (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a real subject of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, that has a fair amount of discussion in Christian exegesis (and a couple of sentences in blasphemy). But this isn't an article about it. This isn't even an article relating to it. For the reasons given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Ordained Human Living Sacrifice To Satan, which all apply here, delete. Uncle G (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced OR. And also because it makes my eyes bleed when I try to read it. --Cyrus Andiron 17:34, 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. Kurykh 02:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indira Moala[edit]

Non notable. "The runner up on Season 3 of NZ Idol. The 21-year-old is a native of Tonga and a student at the University of Auckland.(...) Last but not least, her father is famous for his very long and distinctive side burns. He is also very supportive towards Indira. On Monday 25th June she became a wife to a lovely man". Indeed. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't have notability at the moment. So redirect to NZ Idol. The history can stay intact. I (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She's non-noteable, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Majoreditor (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as falling well short of notability guidelines. Nuttah (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources at all. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 01:04, 23 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. First, let me say firmly that this AfD was not untimely -- several months is a generous allowance to give after a first "no consensus" AfD before relisting. "Speedy" keep comments were thus ignored. Having said that, there is no agreement on whether the theme unifying this list is notable. The list is sourced, and has improved since the first AfD, so no reason of policy compels deletion. If the article's present form seems unwieldy, editing is always an option. For now, this list is kept by default. Xoloz (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of government agencies in comics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Renominating due to several unfixed (and in my opinion unfixable) issues which remain after original AfD several months ago (result of which was "no consensus". Groupthink (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Too soon for you to try this again when you have nothing new to say. Such impatient repetition is disruptive per WP:DEL. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last AfD was four months ago. That's not too soon in my book. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DEL says: "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." I have allowed a reasonable amount of time to elapse, editors have had time to improve the page, and I do have "something new" to say, namely that none of the numerous issues with this article have been addressed, leading me to believe that they cannot be adequately addressed. With respect, all of your points are spurious. Groupthink (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no improvement in article since the last time; it's still essentially a random collection of trivia. <eleland/talkedits> 18:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Colonel Warden. There is no time limit for improvement on an article. Also, this nomination is vague. "Several unfixed {and in my opinion unfixable) issues" is a pretty vague description of why an article should be deleted. Rray (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, read Wikipedia:Speedy keep to see why your recommendation of "speedy keep" is silly. Secondly, "There is no time limit for improving the article" is completely misconstruing the point, which not about time limits, but about fixability. Finally, this nomination isn't vague – its basis is pretty black-and-white: there are no less than seven warnings at the top of the article, none of which have been addressed in months, leading me to believe that the numerous issues with this article are unaddressable. Prove me wrong by rewriting the article so that it 1) is adequately sourced to Wikipedia standards, 2) is devoid of original research and unverifiable claims, 3) has a topic which meets Wikipedia standards for notability, 4) has an introduction which provides sufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter, 5) makes a clear distinction between fact and fiction, 6) conforms to the Manual of Style, and 7) does not describe works and elements of fiction in an in-universe style. My money says that you can't do it. Groupthink (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, first of all, I've read it - thanks. Secondly, I'm not misconstruing the point at all. One of the reasons for deletion cited was the length of time issues remain with the article. Since there is no time limit, issues can remain uncorrected indefinitely. And yes, the nomination is vague, because you don't spell out the issues with the article that warrant deletion in the nomination. I disagree that the issues within the article are unaddressable. All of the issues you listed in your reply to me can be easily fixed. It's not incumbent upon me to rewrite the article to prove you wrong. AfD isn't a tool for you to use to force cleanup of articles by specific users in specific time periods. Rray (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that AfD isn't a tool for myself or anyone else to use to force cleanup of articles by specific users in specific time periods. Fortunately, that isn't what's happening here. Groupthink (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and regarding "speedy keep": You're welcome. Since you have read the guideline in question, I hope that you're aware that this nomination meets none of the criteria for being "speedily kept". You (and everyone else who has recommended "speedy keep" here) might want to re-read the article to refresh your memory as to what exactly "speedy keep" means. Groupthink (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I re-read it again, and you're right. A speedy keep is unwarranted in this nomination. Thanks for pointing that out. Rray (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You gave me direct instructions on how to rewrite the article to meet your concerns in this AfD discussion. Of course, you also told me you didn't think I could do it, so you're probably just using a rhetorical device to try to make a point. Fortunately, your opinion that I can't do so won't be the deciding factor in this AfD. Rray (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Not only has the person using the Groupthink sock puppet actively tried to prevent any improvement of the article, he refuses to accept the fact that his/her main objections to the original article have already been addressed. --Basique (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your baseless charge that I am engaging in sock puppetry is insulting, rude, does not assume good faith, and precludes any response to any point you might make. Please retract your accusation and apologize. Groupthink (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as I cannot prove my allegation of sock puppetry I therefore retract it and apologize. But I will not assume good faith on your part. Your confrontational actions as recorded in the history and discussion page of List of government agencies in comics, your continued threat spam on my talk pages when I attempted to update the status of the page after improving it by adding the references and changes you yourself requested, and your refusal to mediate make that impossible. --Basique (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are all your main points from the article page (It needs additional references or sources for verification - this was changed per your request, It may contain original research or unverifiable claims - this was proven false by a peer review involving members of the Comics Project, Its notability is in question. If notability cannot be established, this article may be listed for deletion - this is a multi-sourced list page, Its introduction provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter - this was also corrected by the peer review, It may fail to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction - this was never an issue, It may need a complete rewrite to meet Wikipedia's quality standards - this was also corrected by the peer review, It describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style that may require cleanup - the article's title is List of government agencies in comics). After these issues were addressed and corrected I removed the relevant tags from the page, you reverted that change and left this warning on my talk page. This showed me that I needed mediation since you were no longer being reasonable, you refused to accept the changes you requested and yet you made no statement as to their accuracy of lack of. It was at this point that I washed my hands of the issue and walked away. Unlike the first time you put this page up for deletion, this time you decided to notify me that you had in fact nominated it again, but you left a bad pointer which directed me to the old nom. And here we are again. --Basique (talk) 11:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is the theme "Government agencies in comics" really notable? And if it isn't, is a list of such things not even less notable? There are major underlying issues with this article that may, as the nom said, be unfixable, as there is (currently) no sign that points the other direction. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is useful for directing readers to other pages; however, there should be more information included to make it clear which serises these organizations feature in. Needs more context. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, needs more cowbell! ;-) But seriously, utility considerations must be balanced against the seven concerns that I listed above. Wikipedia does not and should not include everything useful about everything. Groupthink (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How could anyone not want more cowbell? But your 7 concerns could be applied to many list type articles that are not FA quality. I think this is potentially a good list, although the presentation/context needs some attention. Additionally, the article is sourced (drawing from primary sources) and although it needs a rewrite, AfD is not cleanup, and there is no time limit on article improvement. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete random collection of plot elements. Ridernyc (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree something has to be done with it but just deleting it all wont help. Many entries have there own respective articles so there would be no need to have much written for them (just keep it simple and list) while, others without individual articles, do need some explanitory text... these entries are also useful for linking too when these lesser known agencies appear in fiction character biographies --- Paulley (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, you want to keep this article because you think it's useful and you like it? Sorry, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Groupthink (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply...umm first i didn't say that i liked the article, in fact my suggestion would indicate that as it stands i am far from liking the article because it needs improvement, but its pretty obvious that you just don't like it. I do find it useful and if your going to tag me for that maybe you should read my comment again as that tag only applies when you don't give a context in what that usefulness is. --- Paulley (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong, actually. I do like this article. I think it's clever, novel, appealing (at least to those who enjoy the fictional worlds found within comic books), and would make a great resource on a fan site or comics wiki – but not here. Groupthink (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the previous objections were met adequately, so the reason for nomination fails. Lists can be encyclopedic, and the only way to get rid of decent articles such as this will be to convince people here otherwise, which is not going to happen. "in-universe" only means the sort of fan fiction that carries of the fictional environment under he deliberate pretense of it being real. A discussion of these agencies as if they had a real life existence, for example,rather than a discussion of their role in fiction. DGG (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excerpt from article: "The Agency was formed by Amanda Waller to serve as a small, quasi-independent branch of Task Force X. It performed global operations which were vital to the security of American interests. Valentina Vostok brought former NYPD Lieutenant Harry Stein into the Agency as an operative. Adrian Chase the Vigilante and Christopher Smith Peacemaker were contract operatives for the Agency." That's as in-universe as can be, and is one of many examples that indicate that the in-universe objections are a long way from being met. You also make no mention of the notablity objections, the secondary sourcing objections, the encyclopedic context objections, etc., etc. I agree that lists can be encyclopedic. This one is not, and never will be. Groupthink (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fanboy fluff doesn't belong. Struct (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been expecting you, please explain your position. --Basique (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My position is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of fanboy fluff. Now, please explain your position. Struct (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think my position was made quite plain in my earlier posts. And of course I know your position, you blanked the page under review (I will exercise good faith and chalk this up to a misunderstanding on your part). And attacked a member of the Comics Project who was trying to improve the page. Then you decided not to respond to both of his reasoned queries for evidence backing up the reason you gave for blanking the page, which was copyvio. In fact that was your last action until posting here on the 20th. And that is when I first noticed that you and Groupthink use the exact same formatting style when posting warnings, down to using the month and year of the warning. --Basique (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh darn, you found me out. Yes, it's true, User:Struct and I use the exact same formatting style when posting warnings. In fact, I use the exact same formatting style as hundreds, even thousands of other users. That's right, I command an army of sockpuppets! MUHAHA! Sigh... please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, and then apologize again for being woefully misinformed. Groupthink (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know I don't remember using the term sock puppet anywhere in that post, do you see something that I don't? I lay out a series of facts and they are open to interpretation, obviously since you interpreted them the way you did, you chose not to exercise good faith. Therefore I await your apology. --Basique (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. You overtly accused me of puppetry in a prior post, and then you implied puppetry in this post (how else is one supposed to interpret "You [struct] and Groupthink use the exact same formatting style..."? Once again, you have no constructive arguments to offer, so you're resorting to ad hominem attacks. Groupthink (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not that I'm saying anything, but there do seem to be some interesting correlations between Special:Contributions/Struct (who almost completely stopped making large amounts of edits after Jan 15th 2007) and Special:Contributions/Groupthink (who made their first edit on Feb 25th 2007 and then started making serious edits after May 18th 2007). The two users also coincidentally have been making comments on the same day on Jericho (June 24th 2007) and this article (Sept 19th 2007), and in this AFD, Groupthink as the nominator and Struct as a delete vote. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 21:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an answer as to why this other user has been idle and has had my back. However, I do know that I have nothing to hide, so feel free to ask an admin to launch an investigation. Now could we get back to the AfD, please? Groupthink (talk) 21:41, 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. Kurykh 01:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taarma[edit]

Non notable. It sounds like this band was created by some fan. Nothing links to them, and they have no notable attributes. Metal Head (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While simply being a black metal band from Afghanistan might arguably, in itself, be notable, this really could have been speedied as {{db-band}} for absolutely no assertion of WP:Notability. --Storkk (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per User:Storkk. For future reference there's probably less than 10 notable, entry worthy one man bands in the world. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:09, 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 06:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CitizenM[edit]

Janitorial nomination after I declined speedy deletion. On the one hand, it's an article about a hotel company which hasn't built any hotels! On the other, it's founder is (presumably) notable (blue linked), the company has won an award, and is apparently the subject of multiple non-trivial news reports. Crystal ball or notable? You decide. kingboyk (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A hotel chain that has no hotels yet, but wishes to talk up an entirely new concept in hotels looks like a crystal ball, and an attempt to get some additional publicity for the concept. The founder may well be notable, but notability isn't inherited by anything he is involved in Mayalld (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mayalld --Storkk (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate to be the second person to simply say "per Mayalld" but it expresses my argument completely. -Verdatum (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lennert de Jong, creator of the article, is Distribution and Business Development Director for CitizenM [12]. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but there's no way of verifying that User:Lennertdejong is actually him. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Are you serious? Surely not. No connection between Lennert de Jong, Business Development Director for CitizenM and User:Lennertdejong. Well, what a coincidence, then. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with you that there may be a connection, but it's not verifiable. User:BillGates probably isn't Bill Gates and User:George W. Bush probably isn't George W. Bush. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A quick Google search shows that the company may be notable, but they haven't even built any hotels. Re-create the article when the hotels actually materialize. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:31, 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 - obviously transformed since nom, slam-dunk keeper.--Doc^g 16:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin mnemonics[edit]

A list of mnemonics for remembering Latin is not encyclopedic. Prod declined. Mangostar (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a list of mnemonics. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, Wikipedia is not a list of mnemonics. --Simple Paradox 17:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - what I see instead is a well referenced article about the bits of subliterary verse and oral lore that once were a major part of most educated Europeans' and American's upbringing, and as such continue to resonate in literature and song. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article has been heavily expanded since nom with substantial sourcing. It still doesn't have much structure as an article but that's an editing issue. --Dhartung | Talk 21:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I looked, and I still didn't find the part of WP:NOT that says "Wikipedia is not a list of mnemonics". Where exactly is that located? Mandsford (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no idea what state this was in when the AFD was initiated, but as of now, this is NOT merely a list of mnemonics, it is an article about a concept that clearly exists outside of wikipedia. Well researched and well referenced, I see no reason for this article to be deleted. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jayron. Transformed since nom. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 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 retro me, article. DS (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Ordained Human Living Sacrifice To Satan[edit]

Contested prod. A fascinating essay on human sacrifice and demonic possession, refreshingly free of sources. Patent OR and a personal manifesto. Acroterion _(talk) 13:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is written in the first person, cites no sources at all, is grossly biased, and tells us outright at the start that it is describing the "heretofore unknown". It violates almost every content policy in the book, from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view through Wikipedia:No original research to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. There is zero salvageable content here. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything already said. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT#SOAP, perhaps WP:HOAX, but definitely WP:OR. --Storkk (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The author created another article: The blasphemy Against The Holy Spirit. Same type of stuff. I tagged it with "prod" but will add it to AfD if the prod is contested. Delete for both of them, original research, soapbox, NPOV, unsourced, etc. --Dawn bard (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and listed the companion article for AfD to consolidate the discussion. Acroterion _(talk) 15:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also Delete for other article created by editor.xC | ☎ 14:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G -Verdatum (talk) 15:15, 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 19:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tea-upon-ice[edit]

Delete as WP:MADEUP - previously PROD - initial contrib removed PROD Mayalld (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's probably made up and you'll never get reliable sources on the article anyway - the entire article is based on a blog. Littleteddy (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, though I wouldn't put the US Patent Office past granting him a patent on it. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not abuse the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Uncle G (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where something is WP:MADEUP, and relies on a self-published web source, it is A7 as NN-web, however I detect a determined hoaxer here, so AfD it will be Mayalld (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. When something is made up like this, as that very page tells you, it is original research that goes through the normal deletion process. CSD #A7 applies, as it says, to people, companies, groups, organizations, and web content. This subject is none of those things. It's purportedly a type of beverage. It's not a web site, an Internet meme, a podcast or any of the other web content to which WP:WEB applies. Uncle G (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn fails WP:RS. Blog reference fails WP:NOR. Sting_au Talk 12:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP Doc Strange (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the last sentence the article is a joke or hoax.Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Iced tea --Storkk (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As (one of) the original prodder(s). Clearly someone having fun.--Kateshort forbob 17:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and sugar Fg2 (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a joke article about a series of joke blog posts. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 11:05, 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 delete. Singu larity 06:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coach ronald graham[edit]

Delete as non-notable. Local elected officials are not automatically notable per WP:BIO, and neither are coaches for non-notable sports teams. Wikipedia is not a memorial site Mayalld (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BIO requires that a person must have reliable sources published about them. A Google search returns only a news article regarding his death ([13]). Littleteddy (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources given in article. Fails WP:BIO. Sting_au Talk 12:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn --Storkk (talk) 14:32, 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 06:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lt.quade and the hit squad[edit]

Declined prod for a seemingly non-notable rock group. Article has been pruned substantially by others since but still doesn't seem notable for my money. tomasz. 09:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable band. Article fails WP:MUSIC. Sting_au Talk 12:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could have been speedied as there is no assertion of WP:Notability. --Storkk (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it should be reverted back before the ip vandal. The article was much longer. I did not revert since it has the AFD tag. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. i disagree. since this group is most likely a hoax or a self-promotion anyway, and since there was no encyclopaedic content to any of the removed material, and since the state of the article when AfD'd was the same state that the nominating editor (me) found it in, and since past revisions are easily accessible through browsing the page history, i see no reason it should have been reverted. tomasz. 16:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:11, 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 No consensus — Caknuck (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victor, Victrola[edit]

My reasons for proposing deletion:

The article is merely a plot summary, a specific violation of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information at point 2;
The article gives no indication of real world notability, a violation of WP:N;
The article features an episode that has no reason to stand out from the others and thus does not qualify for its own page, per WP:EPISODE;
There is no reasonable expectation that any of those three problems will be solved in the future. --Nehwyn (talk) 07:59, 14 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, Caknuck (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nehwyn seems to have listed several Gossip Girl episodes, all separately, which is awkward because I think the same thing applies to all of them; there's AfD discussion incld. my comments at the other discussions. See comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Handmaiden's Tale,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor, Victrola‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blair Waldorf Must Pie! and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventeen Candles‎ -- phoebe/(talk) 06:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an individual nomination, not a mass deletion process. As for comments on other deletion debates, please state here those that you feel apply to this episode, and please keep in mind that inclusion is not a reason for notability (i.e. the argument "we kept those, we gotta keep this" is not an acceptable argument around here). This debate pertains to this particular article. --Nehwyn (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - however when you are referring to episode articles the "we kept those we gotta keep this" argument (and it's opposite) does apply, because if articles on Episode A and C are kept, but B is deleted ... it creates inconsistency. Anyway, I lack sufficient knowledge if the subject to cast a vote, except that if this is kept it should have a disambiguation note added directing users to Victor, Victoria as this is a not-unreasonable erroneous spelling. 23skidoo (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not apply. The "inconsistence" you point out is the spirit of WP:EPISODE: only if a particular episode is notable in itself it gets its own page; otherwise, it stays in the "List of..." with the others. This implies that not all episodes of the same show get their own page (some do, some do not). --Nehwyn (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you nominate just over half the episodes of a new show for a deletion, and not the others, and they all appear to be roughly the same in terms of prominence, notability, etc, then I think it's reasonable to ask what reasoning you're applying and how all the episodes relate. Talking about how notable the episodes are within the context of a show as a whole, and how prominent the show is compared to the many, many other television programs that have an article for every episode, is entirely reasonable. Besides, you're making extra work for everyone by not listing them as a group. -- phoebe/(talk) 07:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you ask: I nominated some episodes and not others because I didn't get to them. I will with time. And again - this is an individual deletion, not a mass deletion. Each episode is assessed on its own merits to see whether it stands out from the others or not. --Nehwyn (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

phoebe, please note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for keeping. --Storkk (talk) 14:39, 14 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, 1 != 2 22:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing to establish notability in the slightest. --Storkk (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Relisted a second time and still, nobody cares. Keep relisting until you can get the result that you want. Mandsford (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - see above Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC) [Note: Comment moved below line][reply]

Question for Nehwyn - If all episodes were deemed Excellent, should they all be deleted because, as you say, none would "stands out from the others" ? I see little in the way of difference from other programs episode articles (eg.Healthy Competition) that helpful editing wouldn't fix.

As an aside, I would also like to state that I feel this Mass nomination brought to AfD was the incorrect first step in a resolution. WP:Episode points this out here, these articles are neither unverifiable nor original research, and should have had a {{notability|episode}} template appended, to allow relevent editors time to correct the problems. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The condition of other episode articles is irrelevant here. This is an individual nomination, so please stick to commenting the article in question. As for your question, even before considering WP:EPISODE, this article fails two even more fundamental Wikipedia guidelines: it makes no claim to real-world notability (a speedy criterion, actually), and is limited to a plot summary without consideration for the real-world significance of its subject matter (a clear violation of WP:NOT). Each of these alone would be grounds for deletion. As for your suggestion that editors could correct the problems, as stated in my nomination above, I do not think that is possible. The reason why this article makes no claim to notability is that there is none to make; that's not something that can be improved. --Nehwyn (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The condition of other episode articles is absolutely relevent if you are taking the position that "Each episode is assessed on its own merits to see whether it stands out from the others or not. --Nehwyn (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC) " as a basis of notability. And so I repeat my question, If all episodes were deemed Excellent, should they all be deleted because, as you say, none would "stands out from the others" ? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've no interest in discussing hypothetical scenarios in which I would keep or delete other articles. If by my sentence above I've given the opposite impression, I apologise; but on my part, I will stick to commenting the actual state of this article. --Nehwyn (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to get at, is how you are judging this article. And so far it seems that you just dont like it. You claim "The reason why this article makes no claim to notability is that there is none to make; that's not something that can be improved." I see no difference between this Article and my previous given example. It too would fail your standard of real world notability. Would 'Nielsen Ratings' and their ilk be what you require for real world notability? In general, I have always respected you opinion and I will again in future debates, but in this case, we differ. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 11:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How I'm judging this article is written in the nomination above, and it's based on actual guidelines, not some arbitrary dislike (as in WP:IDONTLIKEIT). As for what constitutes notability, what I would require is of no importance - there are set rules, and you can find them on WP:N. This article just fails them. (That said, I appreciate your statement of respect and possibility to differ from our respective opinions, which of course I share.) --Nehwyn (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Gossip Girl episodes. To address the nomination reasons:

"The article is merely a plot summary, a specific violation of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information at point 2;"

No, the article is not "merely" a plot summary; but it is mostly a plot summary. The solution to this is to remove or trim the plot summary. The episode guideline gives a guideline as ten words per minute of screen time; a 450-word summary might thus be appropriate under that guildeline, but trimming even further might be appropriate given the minimal amount of non-plot information available.

"The article gives no indication of real world notability, a violation of WP:N;"

False, the article specifically mentions that it was an episode of a notable prime-time series which aired on two notable national networks, and was directed by a notable director.

"The article features an episode that has no reason to stand out from the others and thus does not qualify for its own page, per WP:EPISODE;"

Nothing in WP:EPISODE requires episodes to "stand out" from other epsiodes of the same series, otherwise it would be impossible to have an article for each episode of Star Trek, The Simpsons, or South Park, for example. I might agree, however, that there may not be anything "outstanding" about this episode (or any other Gossip Girl episode) with respect to the domain of all episodes of all TV series; however, the "Dealing with problem articles" section of the episode guildeine specifically says to consider merging or redirecting such articles and to avoid nominating them for deletion.

"There is no reasonable expectation that any of those three problems will be solved in the future.

Pure crystal ballery. Have you examined all the appropriate sources which might reasonably be assumed to contain additional information about the subject? Including offline sources such as TV Guide or Variety magazine? However, I have indicated above how to solve the problems, even without consulting other sources, and none of these solutions involves deleting the article (only removing much of the article's content). The existing entry in List of Gossip Girl episodes seems to be adequate to cover this subject. But according to deletion policy, we don't need to delete articles which contain redundant content, but redirect them. Episode names are always plausible search terms which should be redirected to the page containing the information being sought.

Given the above, the proper solution, based on policies and guidelines, is to redirect. DHowell (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no, it is to write a better article on the basis of the present one. DGG (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have done everything I can to improve the article. They isn't really that much out there. I could include a list of music featured, but I don't think that would help at this point. At this point, I would like a keep but could support a redirect. At any rate, have another look at the article. SorryGuy Talk 08:24, 23 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. I'll also add apparent alternative spelling of his name to the article. Pigman☿ 22:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Ghose[edit]

I investigated this article. Both Google and Yahoo come up with many different articles under this name... all different people. It appears that this is a bit of a common name. The "Background" links lays no mention of the name Sanjay Ghose. There is not one citations and the one reference has nothing to do with Sanjay Ghose. Not only lack of notability, but may even be a hoax.--Pmedema (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Unlikely to be a hoax - most of the Google results refer to him, including five results on Google News (and other news e.g. [14]), suggesting most of his notability resulted from him being abducted and murdered by militants, maybe WP:BLP1E but I'm not sure. Also a few results including this one suggest he may have been notable as a result of his achievements, certainly there are quite a few sources. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 01:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the references in this article lay no mention of Sanjay Ghose. The articles you mention may show the person but all the achievements that were indicated have no basis that I can find.--Pmedema (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's definitely not a hoax. ULFA kidnapped Ghose and reportedly killed him. He is also referred to as "Sanjay Ghosh". See some relevant Google searches here and here. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:45, 13 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, Tikiwont (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as per WP:BLP1E above. Article should focus more on event and reference that in the first section. Sting_au Talk 12:57, 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 keep. east.718 at 06:45, December 20, 2007

Funsho Ogundipe[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. TheRingess (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, revisit later. Sources are probably hard to come by. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:27, 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, Tikiwont (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn article fails WP:MUSIC. Ne refs since January. Sting_au Talk 13:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sting_au. If notability can ever be established, article can always be recreated. --Storkk (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep seems marginally notable. RMHED (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established, fails WP:MUSIC. HelenWatt (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because of this article in the Daily Sun, as well as this one in Nigeria's The Guardian. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's one more reference, not as extensive as the other two, but it does provide some additional material that could be added to the article: Africa on Your Street on bbc.co.uk. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:02, 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 delete. Singu larity 19:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Is The Word[edit]

A user questioned what this page was about at the Help Desk, and it doesn't seem to give any context. Another user tagged it as a speedy G1 (patent nonsense) but it has too much coherent content for that. However it's clearly going to need some explanation of what it is about before it is keepable. I've saved it from speedy deletion by bringing it here. No vote from me, yet. AndyJones (talk) 08:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly intended to be the episode guide for some sort of TV show but Google gives no relevant hits at all therefore it is presumably a hoax ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or if you are in a mighty hurry, speedy A1. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory - "Wikipedia is not... (an) electronic program guide... although mention of... historically significant programme lists and schedules... may be acceptable" (from WP:NOT#DIR). A Google search ([15]) also returns negative - "Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable." Littleteddy (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Garbage.--EndlessDan 14:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm the editor who made the Help Desk query. For the record, the article redirected from a user page of the same name. This was unacceptable (and has been fixed), but it does appear that the user in question has made some valid edits to articles for actual TV shows—[16]—and I wondered (assuming good faith and all that) if maybe the original move had somehow been inadvertent and the content should be moved to his/her user page before it's deleted. Just a thought. Probably more trouble than it's worth. Rivertorch (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I see that User:Rhys_Is_The_Word has logged on today, so no doubt he'll comment here if that's what he would like. I'm hoping he'll explain what this article is about, also, since googling suggests that there's no TV show with this title. AndyJones (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete this show doesn't exist; the name was possibly derived from the show Grease Is the Word —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasecarter (talk • contribs) 01:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not suitable for an encyclopedia and it's clearly against policy to move your user page to the main article namespace, BUT can we keep it for the Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense pages? FWIW, I think the author has used an interesting technique, presenting a weekly blog of his life as if it was a TV show. Oops! Forgot to sign about 30 mins ago Astronaut (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since it's not a real TV show or a real anything else. Sadly, BJAODN is extinct, so this can't get moved there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:01, 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 06:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jabez Peters[edit]

A seaman who died following a shipwreck and was mentioned in a book. Sad, but not particularly notable. Many thousands of seamen have died in a similar manner. Prod notice deleted without explanation except the misleading edit summary "tidy". -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another little victory for you? Albatross2147 (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware Wikipedia was a competition. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note There's now an article on the Dundonald (ship), the shipwreck in question and he's mentioned in there. Nick mallory (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still doesn't justify an article on individual crew members. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point is that this could be deleted because the information is now in another article which is obviously notable. Sorry if I didn't spell that out in simpler terms. Nick mallory (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - As Wikipedia:Notability says, if a subject is not covered in depth in the sources, but only as part of a larger subject, it should be merged into the article about the larger subject. No deletion is required. See User:Uncle G/On notability#Dealing with non-notable things. Article merger does not involve deletion, or administrator tools, at any stage. Even an editor without an account can do it. Uncle G (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N as the seaman was not remembered for anything too notable, apart from dying. Littleteddy (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also fails WP:BLP1E. Littleteddy (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn a personal diary reference is not exactly "substantive coverage in reliable sources" that from WP:NOTE. Sting_au Talk 13:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, topic covered better in ship's article, so redundant. Not a highly plausible search term. --Dhartung | Talk 21:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Maralia (talk) 05:48, 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 for now, merging is an editorial decision. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iomanip[edit]

Stagnant technical documentation of no relevance to the non-specialist community. It's difficult to see how anything could be added to the article to make it less like a piece of technical documentation. Prod template previously removed by article author. Chris Cunningham (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a poor nomination that has no basis in policy. Please familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:Deletion policy and with the purpose of this project. We don't delete information because it is technical, or because it does not have relevance outside of a particular profession. (Consider all of the mathematical, agrichemical, botanical, and astronomical subjects that Wikipedia deals with, for starters.) Wikipedia is both a general and a specialist encyclopaedia. And a quick Google Books search on your part to see how this subject is covered in the literature will show you how this article can be expanded to a full article. Uncle G (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't believe that a random part of the C++ standard library warrants inclusion, and I'd put money on the majority of literature on the subject coming from C++ programming reference manuals. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please familiarize yourself with that policy, too, and read what it actually covers and addresses. It does not cover this, which is an encyclopaedia article about a subject — a subject that those reference manuals (References manuals written by programming experts are perfectly fine sources.) document in depth. Please adhere to our policies and guidelines. Uncle G (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - My comment stands. In fact, the parent article (C++ standard library) is also an almost content-free appendix to C++ which should be rolled back into the main programming language article. Anyway, I feel the subject is worth discussion, what with the failure over the last 12+ months of any of these articles go get beyond manual-reiteration status. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your comment is not based on the actual policy, nonetheless. In addition to all of the policies that I recommend that you familiarize yourself with, I recommend that you also familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:Editing policy. There is no 12 month deadline for articles to be completed by. I strongly recommend that you familiarize yourself with all of these policies. Your arguments have no bases in them at all. Uncle G (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computers-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand- iomanip is so ubiquitous that I have little doubt it could be expanded into a real article if someone had the time and inclination. --Storkk (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Articles about software and libraries should not be how-to manuals or lists of member functions. Prose on the encyclopedic aspects (its reason for existence, history of development, criticisms, any news events it played a role in, etc.) would presumably overlap heavily with the main STL article. cab (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We have a word for an article that isn't complete yet. It is "stub". This article is clearly marked as one. I suggest that you go and review the literature, and see how much has yet to be written on this subject in Wikipedia, before opining about overlap. Wikipedia is not finished. Uncle G (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is the boilerplate inclusionist excuse for almost any subject. The likelihood that an article on a random set of function declarations in the C++ standard library is going to be eventually blossom into an accessible description of a notable subject is extremely low. Not all stubs are made equal; some have potential and some don't. This doesn't. It should be deleted, along with its sibling articles, in favour of a more general and less technical approach to the subject matter at C++ standard library. If the C++ standard library article fails to evolve, it too should be deleted and rolled back into C++. Pre-supposing how the encyclopedia will develop by prematurely stubbing articles which are unlikely to ever improve is a bad idea because it encourages duplication of effort. Articles should grow organically outwards from key concepts and be split when they overreach. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to C++ standard library. Agree with nom that this would be better as a part (a very small part) of C++ standard library, which isn't exactly bursting at the seams anyway. Could theoretically be a search term though. Recury (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We are a comprehensive encyclopedia, comprehending a large number of specialist communities--for each of us, some material will be too detailed to be useful. If it can be deciphered by more general readers, it belongs here. This article is reasonably clear to anyone who knows anything bout programming, and that probably includes tens of millions of people. DGG (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've got a CS degree and still don't see why what amounts to high-level API documentation belongs on Wikipedia. My shopping list this week is reasonably clear to most English speakers on the planet, but I don't think it's particularly useful to anyone except people who are doing my shopping. Notability is not Google hits and articles are not included solely in terms of notability anyway. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki part and merge rest—Yes, it is another of my "complicated solutions" comments. I sympathize with DGG and Uncle G on the matter of inclusion of content. However, I think that the detail in the table is better suited for Wikibooks and the remaining (expanded) stub would best sit as a section in C++ standard library. The specific Wikibook I have in mind is Understanding C++. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is another viable possibility, since the present article is not very extensive..DGG (talk) 22:55, 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 Speedy deleted. kingboyk (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Sun[edit]

This person fails WP:BIO. He is only known for having given a gift to the Falun Gong founder -i.e. he would fall under WP:BLP1E. He has apparently written to the Wall Street Journal, but it does not appear that the letter was ever published. Even if it was, the letter would not confer notability, otherwise anyone who write a letter to the newspaper would have a wikipedia article! Ohconfucius (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E and a Google search returns no results (as far as I can tell), so the article fails WP:BIO. Littleteddy (talk) 12:39, 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 deletion under CSD A7 (originally by Eliz81). Non-admin closure. --Goobergunch|? 07:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julia lindsey chot[edit]

Non-notable artist. Brianga (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per CSD A7. There's alot of text here, but nothing that claims to be notable. I see someone has so tagged it. I don't see this article lasting long. It fails the "forgot to capitalize the last name" test, for example. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as blatant WP:SPAM. No need to look any further: scores 4 Ghits, all for someone/something Vietnamese. "Julia Chot is an amazing artist" and "Julia Chot is my idol" are not valid reasons to block a deletion. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable, as tagged. Fails verifiability, and looks to be hoaxalicious if that bit at the bottom is an example of her work... Tony Fox (arf!) 06:25, 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. Kurykh 01:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spice Smoking Blend[edit]

This product is non-notable, and the only information out there seems to come from either purveyors or web forums. It's dangerous to provide unauthenticated lists of ingredients like this for products that are already dubious. I'm reminded of all the "herbal ecstasy" a while back that touted itself as such, but turned out to derive its effect from TFMPP. I've nominated this before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spice (drug). I'm also nominating the following article linked to this one, which shares obvious similarities.

If this article is deleted, mention of it should also be purged from Spice (disambiguation). deranged bulbasaur 06:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why? wouldn't just de-linking be enough? --Storkk (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability. No independent 3rd party references. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gtstricky --Storkk (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As it stands, the article looks like an advert. If the list of ingredients was properly sourced and the packaging sizes puff removed I would probably be inclined to support it though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuarum (talk • contribs) 23:05, 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 both. Singu larity 19:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inept[edit]

Say Goodbye to This (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- band's album, added by Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, this Chicago band would appear to be notable from the claims of touring; however, a deeper look indicates that it doesn't quite make WP:MUSIC at this time, though they seem to be going in the right direction. They have a single EP out, which appears to be self-published, and a claim of an album coming out next year. I've been unable to find any media coverage of the band except for a mention of the Chicago radio station's competition, and their touring seems to consist of being a local band playing Chicago-area venues on the Warped Tour, one of 60 bands playing the Dirtfest events, and a local opener for the Chicago shows of Taste of Chaos. Technically, they have played with the many bands mentioned here, but it would appear they were on the second or third stages. I don't see indications of national touring, media coverage, major awards, notable label involvement, or anything else that would confer notability at this point. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 05:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A search of Google News archives turns up empty. Perhaps they will be notable sometime soon; but, for now, delete. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. To Tony Fox, you might also want to include the article for their EP in this nomination (Say Goodbye to This). For other users, earlier I nominated the individual band member articles here. --TM 05:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here yet. Simply becayse a band plays in many places does not mean that reliable sources have noticed them yet. If reliable sources haven't noticed them, Wikipedia should not either. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 12:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, not notable yet, fails WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing at all. If you knew anything about this band from visiting absolutepunk.net, The Daily Chorus, or even keep tabs anywhere, they are a big name across the midwest, and spreading across the nation. SOME of those bands listen have been played with at festivals, yes, but most have not. They just played with Papa Roach, just got done with dates with Quietdrive, have played regularly with Trapt, Madina Lake, and many others. This band will be exploding soon, and I see no reason for their page to be deleted at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.213.221 (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The key word there being "soon." Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Notability must come first, before an article. If you have reliable sources that indicate the band meets the music guidelines, please point them out for consideration. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is full of useless and pointless articles all over the place. It's a shame that you and some others are this concerned about a national touring band that is unsigned. Go to their MySpace page and check their tour dates (unless you think they're lying about that too), check with other bands they've played with, talk to producers, A&R people, booking agents, venues. Just because you haven't heard of them or know anything about them, doesn't mean nobody else doesn't, and they aren't a notable band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.213.221 (talk) 07:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They also meet guidelines 7, 11, and 12, and soon to be more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.213.221 (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing about them isn't the issue. What matters is READING about them. Sounds are ephemeral and hard to capture in a permanent, verifiable form, and what I hear is hard to cite in a bibliography. If you have written words rather than spoken words, it would go a long way towards helping keep this article around. Also, it should be noted, just because Wikipedia contains other articles that have not yet been deleted, but should, does not excuse this article of its shortcomings. ANd if it meets guidelines 7, 11, and 12, please provide references to verify that it does. Thanks! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We don't publish what hasn't already been published in reliable sources. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Lara❤Love 18:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable yet. They will probably be notable soon, however. --Shark face 217 23:47, 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 Redirect to Idea Star Singer. Pastordavid (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjini Haridas[edit]

Reviewing my decision of this article that I’ myself created. She is a TV anchor only famous through ISS-07, & no other programs. Apart from this, no other independent source. I now think no need of keeping it as an encyclopedia article (not now, may be later). Let you decide what you think. Avinesh Jose (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that you can request a speedy deletion by placing {{G7}} on the page. Littleteddy (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (nominator & author) No, since there are other users involved in the editing, I am not sure about placing CSD G7. That’s why I suggested AfD / to be decided by established users / admins decision. --Avinesh Jose (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though she is insufferable, Idea Star Singer is one of the most successful programs in Malayalam TV, and that IMO, whether we like her or not, makes her quite notable. Tintin 13:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (nominator & author): It's not a question of liking her or not (otherwise I wouldn't create). Lack of reliable third-party sources (WP:SOURCES) google search provides all results to blog sites, except this . Well, WP is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid (WP:BLP). The existing article says little info & nothing more to write. I doubt a real need of encyclopedia article about her at this stage. It doesn't meet notability criteria (see Entertainers) also. --Avinesh Jose (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There must be sources in print - magazines like Vanitha must surely have dedicated several pages for her - but these don't have archives online, and it is usually infernally difficult to search the archives of the Malayalam newspapers. There is one report here on the Miss Kerala contest 2000 but it mentions little more than the name of her parents. Tintin 18:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanitha is dedicated several pages for even successful female LIC agents (LOL). But I couldn't find any independent news coverege as no contribution, awards and records from the person per WP:BIO. --Avinesh Jose (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Idea Star Singer, unless some non-trivial mentions in Malayalam publications are provided as sources. utcursch | talk 08:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per utcursch, a brief bio is already there ISS which is satisfactory. --Avinesh Jose (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : She is a TV anchor only famous through ISS - I don't really agree with this. She has been anchoring (and modelling) since a long time. She was a very familiar face even before Idea Star Singer. Also, she is arguably the most popular "Miss Kerala" too.--thunderboltz ^(TALK) 14:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant to say that she has become very famous through ISS though she hosted some programs. Previously she was also like other Miss keralites who are all a little famous.--Avinesh Jose (talk) 05:06, 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 delete. Kurykh 01:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church (Lake Worth)[edit]

This article violates WP:NOT#NEWS. The current text is unrelated to the article subject. The church has no scandal or controversy in the news and the page is being used for an unencyclopedic purpose - spam? - that does not serve Wikipedia but uses it in an uncharitable and irresponsible way. Mark Foley was not abused at the church. Charles Whitman, whose killing spree is attributed to a brain tumor, was not abused and the news articles about his killing spree do not mention what church he attended as a boy. Each man happened to have once attended the church. The entire church article consists of only this unrelated information and no other information can be found on the web to expand the page. If something is not in the news it is not notable. NancyHeise (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obvious WP:COATRACK article. --Dhartung | Talk 04:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the church is a notable Lake Worth structure commonly sold on postcards[17][18][19][20], and was mentioned in news articles about both Whitman and Foley. While it is unfortunate there are not yet more details on the church in the article, that doesn't mean the article itself should be deleted. It means we should try to find more details on the church. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 08:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COATRACK, POV and sections irrelevant to the article (NOTNEWS). Rest is just a stub. Student7 (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I also fail to understand how an AFD can begin "This article violates WP:NOT#NEWS..." and end with "If something is not in the news it is not notable..." Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 19:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated above, COATRACK and POV problems. There is nothing interesting said about the church itself. The article is obviously intended to provide a venue for discussing the Whitman and Foley cases. Come back when there is something notable about the church itself that is supported by reliable published sources. -- Donald Albury 03:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. KnightLago (talk) 19:56, 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. Singu larity 19:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Envision High Schools[edit]

While school articles are rarely considered insufficiently notable, this one, right now, is, I think. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on WP:CRYSTAL because these are still in the planning stages. No prejudice against recreation at some later point in time. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to keep based on new information provided to me by TerrierFan and added into the article. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:58, 16 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, Kubigula (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until implemented, and then, being high schools, they will likely be suitable for inclusion. 04:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC) Change to keep, per the substantial difference since last time I saw it. Nicely referenced. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article isn't very clear, but from the website it looks like Envision is already operating some charter schools, just not all that are planned.--Kubigula (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Fails WP:N at present, but may satisfy the criteria for inclusion when the schools are actually encompassed by EHS. Littleteddy (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep after information provided by TerrierFan persuaded me to change my comment. Littleteddy (talk) 10:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward eventual re-creation when this leaves the scope of WP:CRYSTAL. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant; they are operating 4 high schools now. TerriersFan (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I think that there is some misunderstanding above. This is a management body for charter high schools akin to a school district. They have been operating since June 2002 and presently manage three schools with five more planned. We have always regarded schools management bodies as notable and there are plenty of sources here from which the page can be expanded. TerriersFan (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is an extremely notable effort that has established and is seeking to expand a network of charter schools in the San Francisco area. This is NOT a high scool; it is more comparable to a school district. This is NOT a WP:CRYSTAL issue; the organization exists, the school's exists, and more are on their way. As demonstrated by the ample reliable and verifiable sources included in the article -- including documentation of over $10 million in "investments" from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation since 2003 -- the Wikipedia:Notability standard is clearly satisfied. I would strongly suggest that all those who had voted delete, based on an utterly false understanding of the program, should revisit the article and reconsider their vote. Alansohn (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The editing by TerriersFan and Alansohn has clarified what Envision is, and notability appears pretty clear now.--Kubigula (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is enough to make this organisation notable. Terraxos (talk) 02:08, 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. Singu larity 19:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Korean parliamentary election, 2008[edit]

Due to the lack of information avaliable, it seems pointless to have created this page. I am nominating this for deletion and then it can be recreated later next year when the candidates who run actually announce. Davidpdx (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well-formed stub (templates, etc.) for an event certain to happen in just 124 days. Why bother with process when it's this close? --Dhartung | Talk 04:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. Why bother? --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted, it's properly formatted adn will obviously be filled with more information as we go along. Nick mallory (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand past a substub. —dima /talk/ 05:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no point in deleting just to recreate in a few days. This is a confirmed, notable, future event. If it was the 2020 election, or something like that it would be different. But this is clearly a notable event. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone, I guess. Maxa megalon 2000 06:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though this is crystal ball gazing, and I am about to say that other stuff exists, a recent AfD passed as 'keep' (but with a name change to Next Australian federal election). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian federal election, 2010. Littleteddy (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is about very important future event in South Korea. --Appletrees (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. —Nightstallion 14:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is always useful to have articles about upcoming elections, in order to invite people to put information in them. --Checco (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since if it's not there people might not bother to create the article, and people will expand on this article soon since it is almost 2008.Styrofoam1994_Discussion^Contribs 22:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 16:14, 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, with kudos to Edison for finding solid sources. Hopefully, someone will use them to reference and improve the article.--Kubigula (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etsy[edit]

Does not establish notability of website and seems to be mostly promotional and collection of external links. Delete TheRingess (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. After quite a bit of searching, I cannot find any independent secondary coverage. spryde | talk 14:52, 7 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, Kubigula (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent reilable sources found either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, unless someone can find sources I can't... There's nothing out there to reference for this article. Furthermore, seems spammy, possible speedy deletable as db-spam... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep(edited) Has anyone heard of Google News? It is a great place to check whether something has multiple coverage in reliable sources, as Etsy does [21]. See Cox News service, a wire service: [22]. See CNET Asia: [23]. See the Wall Street Journal (subscription, substantial coverage): [24]. There are many more behind paywalls per the Google News search. Etsy has a great many such reliable sources with substantial coverage, satisfying notability. See coverage in the New York Times, for instance [25] [26] , along with several articles in Business Week (example [27]) and numerous regional newspapers. The paragraph in Wired [28] would seem to be substantial coverage in a reliable source as well. See the International Herald Tribune [29]. There are many more sources which can be used to improve the article and which more than satisfy the notability requirement. Edison (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And someone else DOES... Well done Edison... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An episode of Inside the Net with Leo Laporte and Amber MacArthur featured the site also. Definitely one of the more notable crafting sites out there. Nate · (chatter) 08:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even though there are reliable secondary sources, I'm saying delete because certain statements read like an ad ('...you must pounce quick, before the item you want is gone!'? 'These tools are unique and new to online shopping.'?). Littleteddy (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising language can be fixed by editing, a total lack of reliable sources (after searches) cannot. Since there are sources there's nothing stopping anyone from running a knife through the offending material this very minute. Unless the article is so offensive it needs bleaching and rewriting from scratch deletion should be a final option. Someone another (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:N Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this source alone (found by Edison) is an excellent future cite, passes WP:N. Someone another (talk) 14:57, 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 this was a recreation of Bruce Rusty Lang, which was speedy deleted last night.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B. Rusty Lang[edit]

Article about a non-notable doctor who co-authored a paper which was published in a scientific journal. Only source is said article. Clamster 03:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From a quick search it looks like Mer Lang is an unsuccessful Republican senate candidate in the US. Open Secrets information --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO, likely WP:COATRACK behind posting the article. --Dhartung | Talk 04:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's not a paper, it's a highly opinionated letter, to the editor of a scientific journal. For those with institutional subscriptions to JSTOR it can be read here. I've listed this in the academics and educators deletion-sorting project, as he signs that letter with an affiliation of the Department of Community Medicine and the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Baylor, but I have no more idea than that what the precise nature of his affiliations with those departments was; Google turns up very little connecting him in any other way to Baylor and he doesn't say much about it in his AOL homepage. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established. --Crusio (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:COATRACK. Note the conflict of interest: the creator is Dr. B. R. Lang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:38, 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 19:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Hutchings[edit]

An article about a person and a myspace campaign related to him. Besides two myspace links, there is an article from a newspaper about the subject taking part in a martial arts competition unrelated to the myspace campaign. Lacks nobility. Clamster 03:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability, negligible ghits. JJL (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This movement must be quite new, because from the picture (which should also be deleted), this guy looks pretty young. Not notable. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article for a MySpace group, not really a bio. Fails WP:BIO and WP:WEB. --Dhartung | Talk 04:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self-promotion only for non-notable. Snowfire51 (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable. —dima /talk/ 05:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E - only notable for one event. Littleteddy (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, looks like a speedy candidate. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:15, 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 garbage. DS (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sea urchin bird[edit]

This article appears to a hoax. The sources included, as far as I can tell, are not specifically about the subject and appear unreliable. Clamster 03:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete not a shred of evidence for the veracity of this topic. 5 Ghits, 3 of which are irrelevant typos, the other two of which are this article and a wikimirror. Skomorokh ^incite 03:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant hoax per nom. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Blatant hoax; a Google search reveals no relevant information. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course it's a hoax. Nick mallory (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the references given mention a "sea urchin bird" in them. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 11:44, 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 — Caknuck (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of games supporting force feedback[edit]

A list of low importance that cannot be verified. I can't believe it hasn't been nominated since now. Moreover, it's orphan Magioladitis (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, and unsourced. Cirt (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment the list except from games contains patches and modifications which makes it impossible to be complete. The creator, Casimps1, in the talk page writes: I created this article because I was looking for such a list myself. I wanted to test out my new FF controllers. After scouring the web, I was able to compile this list and wanted to share it because the information was relatively difficult to track down. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, violates WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge/Categorise This topic does not seem well supported and deleting this page won't help. All I can find is Haptic which seems a weak treatment of the subject. We should be looking to improve these articles, not taking an axe to them. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The creator inevitably has some sources for this list, as shown by the comment above. These sources would probably be patch notes etc, indeed difficult and hard to track down. We should add those sources to the article, and not delete it (see Colonel Warden above). User:Krator (t c) 13:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the sort of information for which WP is a perfect source--the obvious source where everyone will look. if the material is sourced, then its sufficient--the information is more than would fit in a category. There is no rule that a list must be complete--almost no list is, except for historic events. DGG (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But source thoroughly. I agree with DGG above, that this is something that gamers will search for, and Wikipedia is an obvious choice. I would think that sources could be found to verify the games that do support Force Feedback technology, I'm sure IGN or other gaming review sites would have such mentions, so the sourcing shouldn't be too difficult to find. Those with FF controllers would certainly find such a compilation helpful, and while Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, I think this list would compliment both video games and Haptic#Games (force feedback). Ariel♥Gold 17:23, 23 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. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice A. Ramirez[edit]

An article about a medical doctor with other certifications and qualifications. The only source is a autobiographical book written by the subject of the article and the subject seems to have little or no nobility. Clamster 03:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, and per WP:BIO, WP:SELFPUB. Cirt (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The creator of this page added a comment to the talk page of this page and I have moved it below. Clamster 03:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional References being added. Maurice A. Ramirez is notable as the founder of the American Board of Disaster Medicine, an organization created in response to national and international calls for leadership in the medical response to disasters such as hurricane Katrina and the Indonesian tsunami. Maryandgreg (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An article about him involved with Katrina blacklisted link removed Third party sources seems to be scarce though. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The updated references list 10 third party sources including USA Today and Entrepeneur Magazine. The additional references are primarily thrid party verified reporting of data that would in theory be provided by the subject. Reviewing other biographies, the number of references is commencerate and the impact of the subject on the national and international stage justifies the article. Maryandgreg (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are certainly now enough references, & I suspect there are a few more to be found also. The tone needs adjusting to make it more objective. DGG (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep lets be optimistic that the article does develop Victuallers (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are some pretty strong claims to notability, with references to back it up. Surely it needs clean-up and in-line cites, but there is definitely enough there. I have re-written the lead to assert the notability there, and done some minor clean-up. Pastordavid (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and others; the tone is promotional but there's something worthy here, looks like. --Lockley (talk) 16:13, 23 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 01:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Meyer[edit]

No sources. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced. Cirt (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO hasn't competed in a fully professional league. Sting_au Talk 13:34, 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 19:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Brian "The Gersh"[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Captain Brian "The Gersh"

This one smells wrong. I don't believe a word of it, and whilst I can't directly check any of the cited books, a few of them are available through Google Books and a keyword search for 'brian' or 'gersh' doesn't bring up a thing. This is the original author's sole contributions, and it just screams 'hoax' to me. Shimgray | talk | 02:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless an actual source can be found. Listed sources Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea: Merchant Seamen, Pirates and the Anglo-American Maritime World and Sodomy and Pirate Tradition: English Sea Rovers in the Seventeenth Century Caribbean are available via Google Books, and neither turns up "The Gersh". -- Cyrius|✎ 03:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm just not buying this one. Cites sources but he doesn't seem to be mentioned in them... all the hallmarks of a hoax here. --W.marsh 03:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with above. Cirt (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete almost certainly a hoax. JJL (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It certainly sounds like a hoax, but there isn't any solid evidence supporting the allegation that it actually is one. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a probable hoax, and also failing the notability guideline re coverage in reliable secondary sources. While a number of book sources are attached to the article, an online search (including a googlebooks search of the books themselves) reveals no mentions of this allegedly famous pirate. Specific references are also false - a full list of pirates mentioned in the first reference can be found here and there is no "the Gersh" among them. A few other telltale signs:

1) there are zero references for the alleged vessels "Guy Porter" or ""Bass Lake", zero references for the extremely detailed family history and the only references for Johnathon Reis are for the 20th century sportsman.

2)His alleged lifespan of 69 years is very long for anyone of his era, let alone a hardliving pirate.

3)His parents cannot have met at Scarborough Fair between 1630-1635 because Scarborough Fair closed in the very early 1600's and didn't reopen until the 1700's.

4) His alleged ship bears a startling resemblance to Blackbeard's Queen Anne's Revenge - built in Britain, captured by French, renamed, converted to pirate vessel, armed with the same number of cannon. His retirement to a quiet plantation bears a startling resemblance to Captain Morgan, the only prominent Caribbean pirate to achieve retirement and die in old age.

5) The crew of "Dutch immigrants" (immigrants to where?) can't pronounce "van Splinter" so they settle for "zee Gersh". Yet "van" as part of a name is of Dutch origin. Presumably these Dutch immigrants didn't speak Dutch. Oddly, they abandoned their immigration to spend 20 years as pirates, too.

5) Gersh's piracy career is so long as to be a kind of miracle, yet he has been "overlooked by historians because of his docile nature"? Blackbeard lasted 4 years, Bartholomew Roberts 2, Stede Bonnet 1 and Captain Morgan an astonishing 10. If there ever was a Captain Gersh, his 20-year career would have made him one of the most famous pirates in the Caribbean. Yet amazingly he is overlooked and completely unreferenced outside of this Wikipedia article.

In short - no sources (fails notability) and a probable hoax (per the holes in the "story"). Euryalus (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Euryalus's excellent analysis. There's more holes in this story than... something with a heck of a lot of holes in it. Zetawoof_(ζ) 11:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete' I see no reason as to why it needs to be deleted. I mean, honestly. It is quite hard to find information on some people. Perhaps, this pirate, is just another one that is difficult to find. Perhaps we must keep it because it is one of the few sources out there. I do not agree with deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoi kiui (talk • contribs)
- Wikipedia is not a source. It's a compilation of information from sources. And - as Euryalus mentioned - the utter lack of information about a pirate whose career lasted a startling 20 years is highly suggestive that he never existed. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I read Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition, and don't recall this story, although I may be wrong. Smells fishy. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 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 delete. Singu larity 19:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stein Industries, Inc.[edit]

Non-notable company, fails WP:CORP. Corvus cornix_talk 02:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to have very good sources either. Cirt (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The existing references are self-refs to held companies and a directory listing. I could not find anything else, other than some very brief (one or two sentence) local business journal notes and more directory/ads. Would love to reconsider if anything substance turns up. Kuru ^talk 03:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that a private company has been able to survive for 100 years should add to its notability. Also this article has been marked as a stub now, so as more published information about this company becomes available the article can be expanded by other users.--B-money84 (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC) **Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Corvus cornix_talk[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The only sources provided are sales websites that are related to the company. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly NN advertising Mayalld (talk) 21:45, 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. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish anarchists[edit]

Completely uncited, offers nothing to the reader beyond Category:Jewish anarchists. Skomorokh ^incite 02:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per the redlinks that are contained within that list. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 02:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, above, and unsourced. Cirt (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Is fine as a category, and it's completely unsourced. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Um... It's impossible for the list to both duplicate a category and have red links; if the list included only category members, there wouldn't be any red links. Per WP:CLS, categories and lists "should not be considered to be in conflict with each other" (emphasis in original). The list includes some notable Jewish anarchists whose Wikipedia biographies have yet to be written, which is one of the advantages of a list relative to a category. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm conflicted over this article. While I agree that you've outlined one important difference between this list vs the category, I must probe: to what end? If all of the red links were replaced with blue ones; if each subject included were of an existing page, this list would truly serve no purpose. It offers no information divergent of a category. If it were to provide a secondary piece of information that would aid a reader in understanding Jewish anarchists and their history, I'd be all for keeping it. This article leaves me with little to support.--Cast (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment We could simply add the redlinks to Wikipedia:Requested articles or somewhere in the Anarchist task force. Skomorokh ^incite 16:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Fair point. Added them to the To do list at Anarchism task force page.--Cast (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Anarchism. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Per Malik Shabazz's argument, the list provides one thing the category cannot; a list of currently non-existent Jewish anarchist biography articles. Other than that, I can't think of a reason to keep it. I'll be saving this list to my sandbox, so that if it is deleted, I'll have a list of Jewish anarchist articles that need to be made.--Cast (talk) 07:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant article, recreate in the future if category needs to be expanded with people that do not have an article. Lord Metroid (talk) 10:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after further consideration I changed my mind, the list needs to be extended rather than deleted Lord Metroid (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One complete list of anarchist is sufficient. Lord Metroid (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Malik Shabazz. I'd also like to note that as long as these people are cited correctly as having anarchistic beliefs in their own articles, then the list article does not need additional citations. Alun (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Malik Shabazz. Maybe it's the inclusionist in me, but I don't see how this list couldn't be improved instead of deleted. Murderbike (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Malik Shabazz. Allixpeeke (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as the material is verified. This is a notable conjunction; as Cast says, there are a good many articles to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 21:31, December 17, 2007

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

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

The result was delete. Fails to provide substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources per WP:V and no sources were offered in this discussion. Pigman☿ 02:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Knight (Forever Knight)[edit]

Fails WP:FICT. Character in a single 3 season series (and pilot). Complete plot regurgitation, indeed, it literally gives the entire plot of the show from start to finish, covering every episode, with some added WP:OR. Unsourced, multiple WP:NPOV violations. Failed merge/redirect attempt. Collectonian (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No notability established at the moment, but I bet there are enough sources out there to satisfy if someone were to work on the article a bit more. Cirt (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep lead character of a multi-season series. JJL (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per User:Cirt. Article should be tagged for cleanup, but the character is more than likely notable enough for inclusion. Rray (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep to strongly consider stubbifying/merging outside AFD~~ The main characters of a three-season series often have secondary sources to justify a separate article, although plot regurgitation usually wins out. But that's a cleanup issue where I don't favor AFD unless the article has been heavily tagged for some time. Nick Knight (Forever Knight) is currently just tagged for tone. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change recommendation to redirect or weak delete after reconsideration. Forever Knight#Synopsis is detailed enough, and the character article just repeats it in more detail (so there's nothing worth merging). I am completely open to recreation of the article if it no longer fails WP:FICT as much as it currently does. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly notable. Bad show with bad acting, but notable. Hobit (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The show is notable, however notability does not inherit to a single character article and there is no List of Forever Knight characters article to cull down and merge to. Collectonian (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a single character, it's the lead character. Most leads characters have articles of their own. The article certainly needs work, but it's notable enough to stay. --Andromeda (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, notability does not inherit (and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument and "most" is a complete exaggeration). Being the lead character does not equal instant notability. WP:RS and WP:V still apply. Character articles are not automatic. It goes in the main first. If the character section gets big enough, then it goes to a List of characters sub article. Only if a specific character has plenty of real-world notability that can be verified by reliable sources should an individual article be considered and that notability should be established on creation, not two years later because all of a sudden the article may get deleted. I love the show, I love Nick, and despite your note in your revert of my earlier attempt to redirect to the main, I don't care about spoilers. The article completely fails WP:FICT and is nothing but pages of plot regurgitation. Collectonian (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs work but it's the main character of a 3 season series. It's notable enough.--Andromeda (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge to a character list). Fails WP:FICT. Written from a completely in-universe perspective with no assertion of real-world significance. The keep arguments rely on inherited notability. If demonstration can be made that real-world significance exists, it can be kept. Eusebeus (talk) 23:37, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curb stomping[edit]

Unsourced, possibly WP:NFT VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 01:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NEO, WP:OR, and, given the nature of the gesture, WP:NFT. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 01:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:DICT. As a comment, it is not WP:NFT. There seems to have been an AfD on this before that I cannot find; however, the old page can at least be seen through a google cache. The deleted version was far more encyclopedic than this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paiev (talk • contribs) 02:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this rings a bell for me too. There's another example of this in The Sopranos. People seem too keen to get rid of this - there isn't even an entry in Wiktionary. So, I'll vote Keep as there's definitely something to be said about this. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Unsourced and poorly written. Cirt (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete as original research and violation of WP:NEO. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not abuse the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Uncle G (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ecch! No sources, only notable occurrence is in a Neo-Nazi centric movie featuring the talents of Edward Norton. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Innovative murder techniques are still not necessarily notable because of two appearances in film and television; unclear how the article would develop. Category: Death moves could be cool, though. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Unsourced and written by someone who seems almost enthusiastic about the subject material. And of what benefit to humankind could it possibly be for anyone to know about it? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Unfortunately this is a true action/method of crime, try google search to find sources. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is hardly a WP:NFT, it is a well known expression. It's not a very strong instance of WP:OR either. The primary reason for delete that I see would be WP:N. I could easily be swayed to delete with a good argument. -Verdatum (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since no examples of the crime are mentioned other than the memorable scene in American History X, this isn't much of an article. And after American History X, I think that people are less likely to honor a request to rest their face upon a curb. I agree with Alasdair that the author seems to be enthusiastic about the subject. Maybe someone can write about other "really cool" ways to kill another person. Mandsford (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not much of an article and seriously does not express any real-world notability (only one actual crime is stated, with no citations or sources). JuJube (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:OR, but definitely not WP:NFT. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there may be something to be said on it, but the article can be re-created when more sources are found to help us say it. DGG (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American History X, the sole notable example of this maneuver. --Lockley (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Curbing basically I wanted to read about the topic and luckly there was something here. Kelly Denham (talk) 21:33, 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 delete. Cool Hand Luke 10:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charli Carpenter[edit]

Accomplished professor, but wouldn't seem to meet our inclusion guidelines WP:PROF or WP:BIO. No articles about her, just a few casual mentions here and there.[30] W.marsh 01:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and unsourced. Cirt (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The article establishes no notability for what appears to be a regular university lecturer. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promising young academic, but nothing notable at this point. --Crusio (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Assistant (i.e., non-tenured) professor at a major university, recent ph.d., do not in themselves suggest notability. The field is notable but I can't tell whether Carpenter's work has yet achieved notability. --Lquilter (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as author. She has two books, and 13 peer-reviewed papers, and a large NSF grant. A $600,000 NSF grant to an asssistant professor is a recognition of notability. I filled in the article, which left out a good deal. DGG (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Crusio and Lquilter. The level of accomplishment mentioned by DGG is good, a sign of a successful academic career, but not to my mind quite enough yet for our standards of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, assistant prof, the papers are average output. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At this point, I simply do not feel that anything in this article meets the standards of WP:PROF. I do not feel that a grant counts as an award or honor, I'm afraid. SorryGuy Talk 08:34, 23 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. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Note: Non-admin Closure[reply]

Judith Jacobs[edit]

Non-notable county politician. Ridernyc (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep county politicians are notable enough to get a category; as head of the legislature, she seems notable. Shiva_eVolved 00:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nassau County is big enough for all of its county commissioners to be considered inherently notable. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 01:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to WP:BIO. " * Politicians :Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislator. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone.

nothing about size of the locality. Also statewide seems to be as low as the automatic notability will go. Ridernyc (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- At this point, I am invoking WP:IAR. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 01:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of the category — it's not been tested at XFD nor listed on a policy page as sufficient — there's nothing that makes her automatically notable. Loving County, Texas had 67 people at the last census, and the List of counties in Texas says that all Texas counties have a government of five elected politicians — does this mean that 7.5% of all residents in the county are inherently notable, plus those who have held the office in the past? Or any of them, perhaps the judge, who's elected countywide, just one of the 67, but surely being the chief of a local group of legislators doesn't make one notable. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Despite the lack of sources, such a prominent person should have plenty of sources available to demonstrate notability, despite not having an inherently notable position. Todd Portune is obviously notable, despite being only a county commissioner (analogous to being a member of a NY county legislature) in Ohio. Provide sources to demonstrate notability, and surely this article would be keepable. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability not established within the article, lack of sourcing, WP:V/WP:RS, etc. Cirt (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment as far sources a google search shows what you would expect, tons of general directory listings, a few listing in random legal documents, and few blogish type people writing about her. Google news get a total of 15 hits, all of the stories are the run of your mill local stories for example "Storm brews over vote for Nassau budget overseer". Ridernyc (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing remotely borderline about this local politician. Falls below the WP:BIO threshold. The county has a duty to post her bio, but the sheer lack of independent sources is a concern. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Weak Keep per Alansohn[reply]
Weak Keep Highest legislative official in a county of 1.3 million people is a strong claim of notability. Ample sources exist in The New York Times and in other publications, with this Google News Archive Search finding 48 articles. Alansohn (talk) 06:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Blanchardb. WP:BIO acknowledges that exceptions exist to its guidelines. --Goobergunch|? 07:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Current high-ranking elected official in a county of well over 1 million people. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As stated above by myself and others, we should look into the spirit of the policy stated in WP:BIO for politicians instead of its exact wording. Because if we go strictly by how it is worded, then we must make the illogical conclusion that, while Judith Jacobs must establish her notability in some way other than by being county commissioner, Paul Okalik is inherently notable with maybe 25% of Jacobs's responsibilities. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 00:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Blanchardb (except the bit about WP:IAR - that's just silly). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:04, 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 keep. Singu larity 19:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xocotl[edit]

No such god. Someone is apparently confused with Xocotl Huetzi, the name of a festival. I can find no verification for this on Google Books except "The Dictionary of Gods and Goddesses, Devils and Demons", which does not seem especially reliable. Ptcamn (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have been an Otomi god (aka Otontecutli) very similar to Huitzilopochtli and subsequently assimilated. xocotl+otomi brings a few Google Books hits. In other words I find enough corroboration of the source you find doubtful to eliminate my doubts. --Dhartung | Talk 00:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see that source and raise you ~~four~~ five that say it's a classification of fruit. Uncle G (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This seems to suggest that it can also refer to a deity. Zagalejo^^^ 01:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - An article in the Gale Encyclopedia of Religion ("Sacrament: An Overview", p. 7957) refers to Xocotl as a "tree god". Zagalejo^^^ 02:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, this was one, but I'll go with the fruit. We don't have anything on the Otomi gods right now that I can tell. --Dhartung | Talk 04:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. Shiva_eVolved 00:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above, and adequate sourcing in article, though could use expansion. Cirt (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Sourcing and establishing notability is good. Expansion/cleanup would be good for this article too. PrestonH 04:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirt. Could use some expansion, but it's properly sourced, and has good potential. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:34, 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 keep (no strong consensus to delete). Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 13:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pavilion in the Park[edit]

Spammy page on a mall in Arkansas. A search for reliable sources turned up none. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pavilion in the Park is not a mall. It is a very notable upscale shopping center that is unique in our state. I haven't had the chance to research it properly and expand the article. Just because you can't Google something doesn't mean it isn't important. --The_stuart (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. Stupid Twinkle... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep article makes claims of notability, with reliable sources provided. Article would benefit greatly from expansion. Alansohn (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:25, 7 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, Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per stuart. Shiva_eVolved 00:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete upscale shopping center is essentially a marketing term for a mall. Not sure if the claims of being unique are just marketing. Most descriptions seem to contradict the idea of it being either unique or upscale. --Neon white (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and lack of adequate sourcing in the article. Cirt (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep With reliable sources provided in a article along with the notability of the article, it does have the potential to expand. Give the article some time to expand by other editors like sourcing, copyediting, etc. PrestonH 04:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One very small source that could be argued is a little trivial. --Neon white (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should find other souces then, and if in no condition it hasn't improved in months then delete. But for right now, keep. PrestonH 05:11, 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. NB The deletion points can and should be addressed by proper editing of the article. Tyrenius (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadism and masochism in fiction[edit]

Directory/trivia collection, with some entries and the lede fleshed out slightly with unsourced original research. Important works are already listed in BDSM#Culture_and_media, so this can be deleted outright. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nomination reeks of WP:PROBLEM. This topic is certainly notable and potentially informative. Although it is unsourced OR, it is not simply a list, but rather gives rationales and explanations for entries, nor is it entirely popcruft, with relevant notable entries. With a rigorous sourcing, this would be a very worthy article. Skomorokh ^incite 02:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You say that the article is unsourced original research. Unsourced original research must be deleted, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:No original research policy, note. You have just made an argument for deletion, irrespective of the boldface word that you have prefixed it with. If you want to make an argument for keeping that holds water, cite some sources. Uncle G (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Suggest interested editors have a look at the many sources available at [31] [32] for starters. Since the nominator's argument is now rebutted, can we expect it to be withdrawn? Hiding T 12:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a set of search engine results, not a source citation. To do research, one has to actually read the things that Google turns up. Most of those papers have nothing to do with this subject. Colonel Warden below actually points to a specific paper by name. That is a citation. Uncle G (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I suggest you re-read my comment if you want to start an argument. I won't defend myself against a point I didn't make. I'm well versed in citations, I include them in almost every article I edit. Maybe you need to refresh yourself as to our Wikipedia:Editing policy? Hiding T 18:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Your pointing to the editing policy is a red herring to divert the discussion. Your statement of being well versed is belied by the fact that in response to a challenge to cite sources you didn't cite a source. You linked to a set of search engine results, claiming them to be sources when most of them (as I said) have nothing to do with this subject at all, and wholly ignoring the fact that Google doesn't present the same results to everyone. A hyperlink to a set of Google search results is not a citation. I've pointed you to Wikipedia:Citing sources once already. Please read it. Uncle G (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and complete lack of sourcing. Cirt (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Seems to be a good foundation for an article - just needs more text upon the framework of the examples which seem to be well chosen. Sourcing and notability is currently adequately addressed by the many blue links. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't addressed the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Where is the existing published analysis, outside of Wikipedia, that ties all of those subjects together under this banner? Cite some sources doing such analysis, and you will have properly rebutted the nominator's argument. As of now, you haven't, and neither does the article (which cites no sources at all). Uncle G (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seemed obvious that this subject would be well-covered by many sources. So let's start with Google Scholar search for Sadism and masochism in fiction. There's 2390 hits and just the first of them Literary Trauma: Sadism, Memory, and Sexual Violence in American Women's Fiction is enough to tell me that we needn't go further to decide this. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I certainly wouldn't object to a new, well-sourced article on this subject, if that is what you are proposing. Are you up to writing it? The subject is fairly notable, but the existing framework (so to speak) guarantees further unsourced appends, not a well-edited, well-sourced article. Nothing appended to this article in the past year has been deleted, so I don't see evidence of any editorial oversight of this article at this time. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WP:WPTPC list of Articles facing deletion. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be just another case of deleting "... in Popular Culture". Some of the nominated articles are good, and some are not, and its up to our consensus to decide which to keep. I feel the subject is important enough and has enough material to stand on its own. It's really more of a cross-reference than a WP:DIRECTORY issue; similar lists and categories are a useful part of Wikipedia. I don't understand why "Original Research" keeps being mentioned though. There isn't any inappropriate opinion in this article, and the works listed are pretty obvious examples. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's because it's one of our content policies, that applies to every article. And "X in Y" articles are magnets for original research, when editors add what they personally consider to be examples of X in Y, and start growing folk lists of X in Y constructed firsthand by Wikipedia editors, rather than examples of X in Y that have actually been documented as such by reliable sources, and writing a verifiable encyclopaedia article without original research about X in Y. "But it's obvious!" is not a defence against adding novel analysis to Wikipedia. To advance the position that W is an example of X in Y, a source must be given that analyses W in such terms. Uncle G (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd also like to point out that the terms "sadism" and "masochism" actually came _from_ fiction, from the works of De Sade and von Sacher-Masoch. That might make a strong argument for notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is noted in other articles. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Themes and basic plots are notable aspects of fiction . This is a notable theme. The bulk f the examples range from notable to extremely notable. Most of them will have books or articles or reviews written about them, and using a little common sense, any book or article or review written about one of these will certainly discuss the theme. What more is needed? I don;'t see what's OR, except looking in a book and seeing what its about--fiction is an acceptable primary source for information about its plot & other contents. Perhaps the most absurd of all recent ipc nominations. The apparent reason for given is that some of the material is also covered in other articles. That holds for anything almost in wikipedia. For example, we have articles of books and also on authors. On Edison and electricity--and so on. Agree or disagree, I can account for many of the POVs concerning certain types of WP articles. I have never been able to understand the basis of the ipc one. I probably have insufficient lack of imagination. :) DGG (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per apparent consensus above and because it is referenced and concerns a notable topic. Scholarly references include: [33]. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a notable topic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:42, 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 Delete. The argument that this article is a redundant fork of the list page has not been refuted, and is supported by most commenters below. Xoloz (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worlds of the 52 multiverse[edit]

There is nothing inherently notable about the modern 52 multiverse from a real-world perspective that requires containment on a separate page from List of DC Multiverse worlds or Multiverse (DC Comics) for that matter. The Multiverse itself is notable as a publishing annd continuity concept, and if only for sake of comprehensiveness and to make its usage evident, it is important that these are listed. What we have here, unfortunately is an in-universe explanation of the Multiverse which is better suited to the DC database project on Wikia~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This material seems covered better in List of DC Multiverse worlds#The 52. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Many, many pages on wikipedia refer to specific of these worlds. This page allows linking directly to information on each of those worlds, rather than a table which by necessity has to contain a limited amount of information. The page makes wikipedia work better. I'll admit that the page has flaws, it's starter, it lacks a real world perspective, it lacks a lot of citing, but that's because it is a work in progress. Duggy 1138 (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Describe it's real world notability, independent of the larger topic.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real world notability is important, and I'd like to improve that in this article, but is it reason enough to delete it, after all:

Please note that this page is a guideline, not policy, and it should be approached with common sense and the occasional exception. However, following the basic notions laid out in this guideline is generally a good way to improve articles on fictional topics.

The page is not notable in and of it self, but rather because of the combined notability of the entries. It's 50-plus semi-notable snubs the some of which are greater than the whole.

It's the usage of this page, which I think makes it needed. Go to a page like Alternate versions of Wonder Woman (theres one of Batman and Superman, and it's a section on most DC heroes page). The use on that page is what makes this page necessary. Otherwise you get things like Earth-S which unceremonially dumps you at the top of a multiverse page.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You add a smidgin of context, such as "on Earth-S (the home dimension of the Fawcett Comics characters)...", or "the Superman of Earth-2 (depicted as the Superman appearing in the 1940s pubications Action Comics)..." or "on Earth-15, a world where many junior heroes have replaced their mentors..." The word Multiverse is already linked above so they have the encycopedic history of the concept anyway.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but this way, you don't need to add the context - which can be clunky, not always as helpful as the editor would like and digresses from the flow of the sentence/article.

The advantage that wikipedia has over a print encylopedia is the ability to link words directly to other articles.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no reason we need to articles on the exact same subject. Ridernyc (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other article, or rather the section of it with the table of the 52 multiverse is flawed by the fact that it is restricted to a table. The article itself has been locked because of a slow edit war because some people are trying to force necessary information into the table, and others (esp myself) are trying to remove information so the table is readable.

The table is a great overview of the multiverse, but it doesn't fully serve the needs of wikipedia like this page does.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so fix that article, there is no reason we need 2 articles. Ridernyc (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other article's problem is the tendency for people to skew its focus onto in-universe details. Summarise the universe, give a first appearance, maybe some distinctive details and where possible who is credited as "creating" this universe, for instance Grant Morrison designed Earth-10, and Earth-22 is based on Alex Ross's story. It doesn't matter if the boxes get bloated - they will be large in the solicitation stage, but once they've made published appearances their content can be summarised. Duggy 1138, I admire what you're trying to do here, and I think you'd appreciate that on the DC Database project there's an actual entire article to devoted to each of these alternate Earths.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if anything appears on the DC Database Project there's no room for it here?

I like your description of the table on a section of the other page, and hope that it does turn out that way. This page, as you and others can see it completely different to that. Hense there is no duplication.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consensus should be hammered out on List of DC Multiverse worlds instead of working around it by creating a duplicate article. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a duplicate page. The corresponding section on the other page is and can only be a summary page, which is why this page is necessary.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If these worlds become notable enough in their own right, they'll get their own articles, which can be linked to from the list. Until then, I see no reason why a summary isn't adequate. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is a gap between summary and notability, and this page fills that gap.

Because no matter how much information is in the summary, the link isn't as affective as a direct link to this page.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Multiple reasons, some mentioned above:

It is recreation of content from List of DC Multiverse worlds.
For all appearances it was created to avoid working with that list either by continuing to work for a consensus or revamping/cleaning the list.
It is all but devoid of context out side of in-universe material, and there is precious little in-universe context as well.
No cited references at all offered for what textual information is there, or for the characters.
As pointed out in the brief discussion at Talk:List of DC Multiverse worlds the structure created caters to fancruft. Specifically an index of appearances for the various universes and a "role call" of characters.
There is a reliance on "fan knowledge" and "fan assumption" to include characters that have as of yet made explicit appearances in the post-52 multiverse, much less having been identified to a specific universe.
There are already existing articles that would be natural choices as "homes" for more expanded information, reducing the usefulness of this article, as well as any spurious "Universe" articles, at the current time.

- J Greb (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Created from, but developing into more. (I hope).

2. I was working with that list, and still would be if it wasn't locked, but I realised there was only so much that list could do and a page was needed.

3. Working on that. Help if you can.

4. Yeah, I sort of copied and pasted and lost a lot of those. Help if you can.

5. I've been trying to delete those wherever possible. I agree. These aren't the previous worlds, we shouldn't make assumptions.

6. Yes, initially true. Working on that. Help if you can.

7. Agreed, in some cases. If these worlds are around after Final Crisis, then there may be some that deserve there own page. There are already some that have a solid or improvable section on another page, and I'm adding "mainpage" links and trying to prove those pages where possible. If all could be moved, great, let's delete this page and move on. But some don't have another place yet and some may never be big enough to get there own.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short form — not a lot of time atm...

Point 2) You created this one before that one was locked. The lock was, IIUC, the result of bold editing in lieu of actually continuing to work on the talk page.

Points 1, 3, and 4) All point to redundancy. If all you could start with, and all you could come up with was to cut and paste, then this article is not needed.

Point 7) That's crystal balling, at best. Right now there isn't much more than what can, or could, be said on the other list for most of the entries. Just because Wiki ain't paper doesn't mean we get to create article because A) they may be warranted/fleshed out at a later time or to facilitate such articles.

- J Greb (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Yes, I was working on that list and still would be if it wasn't locked. The lock was because of a slow edit war which I was a part of. I'm the last person in the threads on the discussion page... so it's the other side of the argument refusing the work on the talk page.

1, 3, 4: Everything needs a starting point, and I used that page. It's developed a long way since then, and, I hope, will develop a lot further. I believe that a lot of the people talking about redundancy haven't really compared the pages at all.

It's not crystal balling. This page is needed now. The Countdown Arena page, many character pages, et al, need something to link to to explain the worlds they're talking about. The predictions I made are that in the future this page may not be necessary. But at the moment it is.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear in my original remarks, which caused you to need this clarification.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, it's easier to work on an article in a sandbox off of your talk page and get it to a semi-polished state. That is, something more than a skeleton with a few obvious cut-n-paste sections. You started on that path, but moved to a live page before you had something more than a replication of content.

And you were fairly clear. And your reiteration underscores it. This is a redundant "backbone" article. The articles which are currently mentioning the post-52 Earths already have the wikilink resources, foremost among those being List of DC Multiverse worlds and Multiverse (DC Comics). This list of reference articles also includes the "prominent" universes such as Earth-Two and Earth-Three, where characters such as Alan Scott and Ultraman (comics) should point. As far as lesser characters go, for example the Starwoman of Earth-7, having the explanation as part of an "Alternate versions" section on Courtney Whitmore (comics) with links to the existing mutiverse article is eminently more practical than having it say nothing and link here with equally nothing to say. That is of curse unless there is an inherent assumption that Earth-7 is going to be important enough to expand the section or warrant it's own article. That is crystal balling.

Lastly, for the post-52 that are patterned after specific Elseworlds or imaginary stories, the same practice as for the lesser/cameo character renders this article redundant. Have an AV section added to Kingdom Come (comic book) that explains Earth-22 and then link the table line from the existent list article to that specific section. - J Greb (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried the Sandbox thing, but it wasn't getting me far. I felt it needed to kick that multiple contributors adds when it becomes a real page. If I did wrong, I appologise.

It certainly was a redundant backbone article, but I think it's beyond that now. You seem to disagree.

On Earth-7, yes, this page doesn't say much... there isn't much to say. But it doesn't say nothing. It says that it's the home of a Courtney. And that's all it is. On a "Alternate Version of Courtney" section there's no way to say that the same way that this link can.

On specific existing notable universe, yes, a section on the existing page is a better. Which is why when one exists (Such as Earth-Two), I've linked it as a "main page". I'm happy to remove as much information as possible. But not all the worlds are going to be notable or have notable ascendants. And it's for them that this page exists.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The current table used elsewhere is not sufficient to cover all the material, and as more "trivial knowledge" is made available, there will need to be an ACTUAL article within which to capture the bits and pieces into a coherent whole. Isn't that what you guys do? The current "52" article would become unwieldy if you include all this information within it. If you delete this now, you will only have to duplicate these efforts later. Removing "trivia" (like from which world Monitor Bob calls home) is foolhardy and rash. Far better to put a notation at the top of the page saying this is a work in progress rather than delete it outright. I'm growing tired of seeking out information in Wiki only to find that someone before me deemed said information unnecessary for me to find. Let the reader be the judge of that! What? Are you guys running out of webpages or something? Sheesh! ZachsMind (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to List of DC Multiverse worlds. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This page is useful as an overview to the subject of the DC multiverse in a specific context of the 52 storyline. As a reader of DC comics, it is often hard to keep track of how the multiverse is and has been organized in the past. This page is a good start. But, it is insufficient to cover the topic. Really, each earth should have its own page. Then each earth can have subsections that explain the context within the various time periods within the DC comics continuity. In the case of the earths that are major players(Earth 1,2,3,5) it makes sense to have specific entries for pre-crisis and 52-onward. If somebody is able to organize the relationships, it would be useful. The elseworld continuities that have become integrated into the main continuity also could use some serious documentation. jreskus2 (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)— Jreskus2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Void. Not a valid reason for why it belongs on Wikipedia. Expand to your heart's content, where it can receive as serious and comprehensive a documentation as it may deserve.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant. Expansion could be made to existing page. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 22:11, 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 Speedy deleted. IrishGuy ^talk 22:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shwayze[edit]

Claims notability but not proven, non notable performer, prod was removed without comment, authors name same as article name, previously speedied, did sign up with Suretone Records but no indication of 20 million paid, unverified/unverifiable claim of 37 million for RVCA Clothing and Vonzipper Eyewear . No references Sandahl 23:23, 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.