Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 26 December 28 >

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 Keep --Stephen 04:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Division Street, Manhattan[edit]

Division Street, Manhattan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

no assertion of notability per WP:N Mh29255 (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is a deletion criterion as indicated here: WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? Notability is the primary criterion for deletion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a street / geography based article so notability can be inferred from the context of the article. Certainly some among the 842 mentions in the New York Times there is substantial enough coverage to establish notability. I don't agree with the premise of the essay on street notability, cited by the primary author of the essay.Wikidemo (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has been cleaned up. This is a notable street on the historic Lower East Side of Manhattan, one of about 200-odd articles on streets in the new York City borough of Manhattan, including more than a dozen other articles about streets on the Lower East Side. Alansohn (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn --- what, are you going to nominate Division Street next? --- tqbf 06:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the cleaned-up version, which adequately asserts notability. JamesMLane t c 10:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. as per Wikidemo cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Grutness. I know the area, and it is not notable in any sense of the word. This is a side street. Most of the sites cited are actually not on Division Street (for example, Eldridge Street Synagogue, Seward Park (Manhattan), and Confucius Plaza are off Division Street). The other sites are just plainly not notable - no links or would-be red links. Sorry, folks, this does not cut WP:50k, the most revelant guildline/essay. Possibly redirect to Lower East Side. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:50K implies that there are only 30 keepably-notable streets in Manhattan. I'm only in Manhattan a few days a year and I feel like I can name more Manhattan streets than that. --- tqbf 01:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, with very important cities, such as Manhattan and London, the ratio is probably more like 1 street per 20,000 persons. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Verifiability and notability are demonstrated per Alansohn - further sources are needed to strengthen that, though. "WP:50k" is an invalid deletion argument since it's an essay without supporting consensus (not a guideline, let alone policy) that attempts an instruction creep (see WP:BURO) and imposes unnecessarily arbitrary limits (see WP:NOTPAPER). Dl2000 (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability seems to have been verified. --Sharkface217 20:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Perhaps I should be more explicit. According to the essay, "Notable streets and roads can be divided into two types: those which are inherently notable due to some specific historical, geographical, or other quirk, and those which are notable simply by way of their prominence within a city or town." I don't see how Division Street in Manhattan is either. True, at sometime in the past, it had a short, 2 or 4 block portion, of the 2nd Ave. El, but that stretch had a single "subway" stop. Is the assertion that it is notable because two (or three or four) important buildings are nearby or around the corner? Or that a public transit system historically ran its length? Currently, no subway, El, or bus lines run down Division Street. It is a four-block back street, bypassed by the Manhattan Bridge. There are no historical buildings facing or having addresses on Division Street. There have, as far as I can ever tell, never been a book, or even New York Times article about this street. No notable person has ever lived on this street. I'm confused as to why other editors could be even more of an inclusionist than I am. Is there a project to list every named street in Manhattan? Please, tell me so I don't continue to make a fool of myself. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A historic transit route should provide the same level of notability as a current one, if any. — brighterorange (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This article doesn't even attempt to claim it's notable. It's nothing but a description of where it's at and what's located on it. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Compare to Broad Street (Manhattan), which lacks any real assertion of notability but is clearly notable, or Nassau Street (Manhattan), which is riddled with notability assertions. If one wanted to (please don't), one could consult the NYTimes archive to uncover Division's role in the wedding dress industry (1960), the efforts to straighten it (1933), or the various people found dead along it. I get that Division isn't Wall or Madison Ave., but how does it improve WP to lose this content? --- tqbf 01:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All verifiable (and some of it is verified) and historic street in arguably the most important city in the world. --Oakshade (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete, default to keep. Neıl ☎ 11:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shore City Magicians Club[edit]

Shore City Magicians Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A magic club which does not appear to meet the notability criteria (WP:ORG) for organizations. An online search revealed few potential sources beyond directory and events listings. CIreland (talk) 23:37, 27 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 --Stephen 04:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Ericsson W600[edit]

Sony Ericsson W600 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mobile phone. Wikipedia is not a cell phone catalog. Wikpiedia is not a Sony Ericson catalog.

Because few substantial references are available to support a viable Wikipedia article, we're left with this article, which contains original research, dubious and unclear claims, trivia, how-to information, and so on -- all unreferenced.

Listing at AfD because {{prod}} was removed with the comment "notable - first ever walkman phone by sony". I don't think being the first prodcut to re-use a brand name is notable. Further, having "Walkman features" isn't described by the article, and is not obvious. I expect it just means that the phone plays music, and it's certainly not the first phone to do that. Even if it was (or really is the first Sony phone to play music), being the first prodcut to do something, particularly in a crowded market where features change so frequently, is a claim to notabilty. Being the only phone to have a particular feature might be notable, but I don't see that claimed here. Mikeblas (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notability is not a deletion criterion --Ryan Delaney talk 02:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Please stop your counterfactual claims in numerous AFDs that notability is not a criterion for deletion. It most certainly is and has been the basis for countless deletions. Read the policy WP:DEL#REASON which says "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following:.."Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)." Edison (talk) 06:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stop nominating cell phone articles for deletion, please. If we want to change our practice regarding cell phone articles we should do that at the policy / guiddeline level and not keep dealing with ad hoc deletion nominations. Wikidemo (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to show that this one particular cell phone is notable. Lacks multiple references from reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage. Wikipedia is not a place to have articles about every product some company makes, regardless of whether it has gained attention in the press or other reliable and independent sources. As for the demand that AFDs for cell phones cease, AFDs are a forum wherein editors may create the "facts on the ground" which are the basis for the guidelines and policies. We do not have a Wikipedia Senate which creates policies at some Olympian level. Edison (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being the first Walkman phone seems significant and so the article seem capable of expansion from its current stubby form. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. If being a "Walkman phone" is significant and goes to notability, why does the article not even define that term, or link to a definition of it? -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, suggest Speedy Close per WP:SNOW Precedent has shown that cell phones, electronic communication devices used by millions worldwide, are notable. Should we delete articles relating to the Blackbury, Sidekick, Chocolate, Iphone, or RAZR? I think not. This article should be kept. --Sharkface217 20:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Precedent has also been set for deleting phones, too; see the links that Edison provided above. (Looks like you're also unfamiliar WP:WAX, so you'll want to read that, too.) -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notably the first Walkman phone by Sony. Article meets the 3 core content policies WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V.
    On another point I think perhaps taking the mobile phones issue up to policy level may be a better way of getting things done, or perhaps a mass AfD. Also WP:WAX is not a guideline is not a policy and is just a point of view. EJF (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7. JERRY talk contribs 05:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Progressive Rock Page[edit]

Dutch Progressive Rock Page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I have serious notability doubts here. Article has existed for several months. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - no assertation of notability made. Tagged as such. --Badger Drink (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd use WP:WEB to establish notability for an e-zine, and this doesn't pass. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, to be honest it could be speedied per CSD A7. --Stormie (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. --Sharkface217 20:40, 30 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 JERRY talk contribs 05:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants of Pirates[edit]

Descendants of Pirates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Zero Google hits for this film, nothing at imdb. Nothing for Dustin M. Jackson on Google. There is a "Dustin Jackson" listed at imdb as a production assistant. "Up and coming" usually means "isn't notable yet". Corvus cornixtalk 23:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, borderline speedy - faintest shred of notability asserted, but falls hollow upon examination. --Badger Drink (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of reality, has already been speedied once. --Stormie (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No online sources. Either hoax or attempt for publicity. Joshdboz (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteAdreamtonight (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability issues. --Sharkface217 20:40, 30 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 only this one. This other articles were not tagged with AfD notices. --Stephen 08:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of Blue-Eyes White Dragon[edit]

Legend of Blue-Eyes White Dragon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Note I'm also nominating all the articles in that Yu-Gi-Oh trading card template, with the exception of the main article. All of these decks has no claim of meeting WP:N, it's mostly a list of cards that those decks contains, which also fails WP:NOT#INFO, nothing to merge, it's unsourced to boot Delete all. Secret account 22:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural point: None of the supposed other articles have the AfD notice on them. If this is a bundled nomination, it is incomplete. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not clear yet, does Secret mean that all of the articles on Template:Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game sets are being co-nominated in this AfD, or that he plans on making another AfD? -- Ned Scott 05:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the articles in the template. Secret account 20:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • All of the articles require a deletion notice. This remains an incomplete nomination. -- Ned Scott 01:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not sure if this should be under the "anime and manga-related" header, since these articles are about the card game and not the show. But yeah, delete this. JuJube (talk) 08:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I sorted it, I wasn't aware of the Yu-go-oh! Wikiproject -- which turns out to be a child of the Anime and Manga Wikiproject, among others. I've also put a notice on the project talk page. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all Once you delete the card list which crosses the line of WP:NOT#IINFO and doesn't actually add anything to the article except to take up space, what you have left is a sub. These stubs can be merged into a much larger article with the proper sourcing. --Farix (Talk) 16:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This will be my final edit to Wikipedia, so I am going to go down defending this article. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia. Encyclopedias contain information about useless items. Wikipedia contains useless articles. This article is not useless. There will be articles kept that hardly anyone except the creator knows about. People know about this article. Last but not least, you editors have nothing better to do than to delete articles you do not deem "worthy". Wikipedia has this problem and that is why I'm stepping down from my position as an editor. Delete the articles if you wish, but if it is kept remember what I said about the other articles that are known about. Red Director (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We delete articles based if it doesn't meet policy, which this doesn't, not because we don't like it. Secret account 20:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, Wikipedia is not a gaming guide and this falls squarely into the sort of detailed info on a deck that belongs in a guide on the TCG game and is really nothing more than a duplicate of the official card listing with a little original research and opinion tossed in. Collectonian (talk) 05:50, 30 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 --Stephen 08:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Shemin[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:FICT. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:43, 27 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 --Stephen 08:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Gray (consultant)[edit]

Vincent Gray (consultant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence for notability presented William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep --- per news search, a crackpot? perhaps --- but clearly a notable one. --- tqbf 22:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Some of those hits are old news, as in 1947. There are more than one Vincent Grays... Brusegadi (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, but I took that into account. Vincent Gray is regularly written up in mainstream/notable publications as an opponent of climate science. Here's 2006 from the NZ Herald. --- tqbf 23:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google search brings plenty of sources and sufficient notability. Article already has tag for the addition of more info with regard to notability. Joshdboz (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No proof of notability. Brusegadi (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Little information is available on Gray. The only sources we have for such basic information as his university degree and career history are a few partisan blogs and other sites with vested interests. This reflects absence of notability and does not bode well for adhering to WP:V and WP:BLP. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you reading the rest of this AfD debate before commenting? Here's another source, this time on an ABC.au Radio show. --- tqbf 23:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nom also has a WP page where his university degree is sourced with his own web page, and you would not suggest that additional sources are required to support that statement would you? --Childhood's End (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per tqbf + book published by the article's subject, which is quite more than what many other persons covered by WP articles can say. --Childhood's End (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, easily notable, has book published, interviewed in various publications, etc etc. Oren0 (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the mere publication of one book is not notability. If there is evidence that the book has been widely noticed in a substantial way, put it into the article. Keep and move to Vincent R. Gray on the basis of the information added, but he is not a (consultant)in the usual sense, nor can he be called (scientist) because he is not a scientist, regardless of what some ill-informed media sources say. But since he has a middle initial, that could simply be added. DGG (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I try to change your mind? Put the book aside, and the subject still seems to be someone the media has consulted repeatedly as a climate science skeptic. I am not a skeptic, but I worry that people are voting their opinion of the subject's research, and not the subject's notability. See above arguments. --- tqbf 22:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A minor correction; views can't be based one's opinion of the subject's research, because the subject hasn't actually done research in this area (he has no publications on climate in any ISI-listed journal). Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But he as publications on climate in non-ISI-listed publications and some media, the IPCC and a publisher, seem to think it's good as well. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have found nothing so far that makes him notable per WP:BIO, the publication of a monograph (which has how much impact?) is not sufficient. We haven't even got a WP:RS to verify his academic credentials. This is not even close to a borderline case - its close to a speedy delete. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    sigh --- we're not here to vote on the value of this person's contributions; we're here to argue whether he's notable. He's been covered in the mainstream press. If he's marginally notable, let's strip down the article to bare facts. --- tqbf 01:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If he's been covered in the mainstream press, why isn't this in his article? Please add some of this "notable" coverage William M. Connolley (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on. I've cited 2 in this AfD by myself. The onus isn't on commenters in an AfD debate to clean up articles or add the sources; you should have addressed (and perhaps shot down) the evident sources in your nomination. --- tqbf 11:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This article has a non-notable tag on it for ages. No-one did anything. Even now its still very thin. If you hav more, please don't hide them, add them William M. Connolley (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry that we don't all respond to every cleanup tag on Wikipedia. An AfD is more likely to grab attention. I'm curious why you'd ask for more sources here after I've provided seven below and added two to the article. Are those not sufficient for you or are you just choosing to ignore them? Oren0 (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources as venerable as the Hawaii Times? Its desperate stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If I had a background in climate science, I too would be irritated by this guy, but that does not excuse you from actually reading the comments you reply to. Sources include the Hawaii Reporter, ABC.NET.AU, The NZ Herald, The Conservative Voice, New Scientist, National Business Review (evidently NZ's "Crains"), and others on Factiva. --- tqbf 23:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added two more sources that establish notability. One is a feature piece in the New Zealand Herald (with a picture, no less) that refers to him as a "prominent" climate skeptic. The other is a radio interview on ABC's Counterpoint. Does this help put the notability concerns to bed, or should we add more sources? He's mentioned very non-trivially by more than enough reliable sources to qualify as notable. Additionally, both of these sources refer to him as a scientist and I intend to propose a move back to Vincent Gray (scientist) should this article result in a keep. Oren0 (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To me, this is the search that closes the debate. In addition to the two above, here are some more reliable sources in which he's non-trivially mentioned, generally as a "climate scientist" and/or "climate skeptic.": [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. That's easily more than enough. I don't understand the speedy delete argument at all; with this many reliable sources it seems easily like an unquestionable keep. Oren0 (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After reading a few of the news articles, I would say he is notable enough. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears notable from the sources. His page may require cleanup, though. --Sharkface217 20:43, 30 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 to BIRDZ --Stephen 08:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas_Abaffy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tomas_Abaffy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Person Notability Issues - Not An Notable/Important Person 82.119.100.14 (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest removing this article. Tomas Abaffy is not the right person for Wikipedia. If Tomas Abaffy is here, why aren't we adding another 5 mld people of the World?

  • this person does not meet Notability criteria

as described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29

I am therefore suggesting removing the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.119.100.14 (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - Procedural completion of nomination. My opinion is Neutral. Tevildo (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JERRY talk contribs 06:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul[edit]

Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a casebook example of redundancy. Paul's legislative activities are discussed in much greater depth at Ron Paul#Legislation. A list of legislation could be provided by linking to THOMAS, the Congressional Record, Paul's website (no surprises, yes we do have a link to that), or to the Washington Post's voting database (we have that too) from the main article. So, partly redundant to a pre-existing article, partly duplicating other, more reliable source of information which the main article links to. A bad idea I suspect, and I don't see how it can ever be anything but redundant. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep --- per WP:SUMMARY, {{SOFIXIT}} --- strip the redundant content out of Ron Paul. Other candidate articles have similar summary breakouts; at least this Paul article is factual. --- tqbf 22:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Keep in mind that not a single piece of legislation submitted by Ron Paul has ever been brought to a vote, to a one, they have died in committee. Burzmali (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Due respect, but... and? Are we calling the congressional record a WP:SPS now? =) --- tqbf 23:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Thomas! Burz, please source such an absolute comment. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Check the library of Congress via Thomas. Aside from a handful of amendments to existing bills, all he has managed to get passed is a concurrent resolution congratulating NASA for being cool. Ironically NASA is one of the departments RP was gunning for in the '88 election [6]. None of his bill have made it to the floor of the house. Go ahead, take a look for yourself. Burzmali (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you writing this content here, instead of in the nominated article? I totally agree with you, but this doesn't sound like a reason to delete. --- tqbf 06:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's WP:OR, or at least out of scope for WP:PSTS. The Paulatics would be correct to remove most of the information because no secondary sources bother to cover what amounts to Ron Paul spamming the Congressional Record. Burzmali (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Due respect, but if it's OR in an article, how is it a valid argument in an AfD? These Paulite articles need editors who aren't going to be frightened away by zealots with rulebooks. I bet you're right; why not keep the article, and figure out a way to verifiably argue that this "legislation" is meaningless? --- tqbf 20:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing says that you can't do research to justify an opinion in an AFD. Admittedly, my only research was going through the eight pages of congressional records on Ron Paul's legislation, but since I couldn't find a WP:RS on the topic... That's why I haven't voted keep or delete. I think the article should be either deleted outright for a complete lack of notable content, or completely rewritten as an article highlighting his barely notable successes in Congress. Burzmali (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am just saying that Ron Paul tends to submit legislation he knows will go nowhere just to grab a few headlines (just look at how many times he has submitted a few of them). I really don't see a point in having an article dedicated to legislation that 1: was never passed 2: was never voted on by the full house of reps and 3: never even made it out of committee. Burzmali (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability applies to topic and is not a line-item veto of individual items. Ten or more of the bills are unarguably notable in their own rights, and it is proper to include the less notable bills with them. The article also is scoped to include legislation which did pass with Paul's significant cosponsorship. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly how is a bill that has ~0% of even making it to a vote on the House floor arguably notable? Burzmali (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You are predicting again. Those ten are notable by the silent WP consensus that has let them stand so long. Why don't you nominate those ten articles first before expressing your POV about this one? John J. Bulten (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A question, then: why aren't there articles on every candidate or congressman's voting record? You should take a look at some of the other articles around here. They're not just lists, they're prose that explain the legislation. And they don't list every single one, only the notable/important/controversial ones. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 00:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a list, it is a prose description of each, often with notable analysis as collected by other editors. It could be said there is a notable, sourceable distinction between Paul's voting record and most others', but more important, why don't you write those voting record or sponsorship articles? Thank you. John J. Bulten (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in writing those articles. If this page isn't a list, then I don't know what is. Except for the introduction paragraph, every single item on the page has a bullet point. Take a look at the article on Hillary Clinton's Senate career, and you'll see a marked difference in the style - namely that the people over there wrote paragraphs about what she did, rather than just itemizing. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ron Paul. The other candidates have articles on this topic, but they're written in more of a prose form rather than just a straight list. Obama's career is on his main article, Rick Santorum's career is on his page, and Hillary has a separate page for her Senate career. I'd like to see this page merged with the main Ron Paul page and only the most important/contentious legislation listed. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge would disrespect the consensus of converting Ron Paul more into summary style. This page is modeled after Clinton's and Kerry's, and it is in prose style. Your merge proposal was in fact the former consensus, until length became prohibitive. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very interesting. Too large to merge with the main article and too important to delete. I have no problems with this article, it organizes its information well and is clear on its purpose, unlike Ron Paul Revolution. If there are some duplicates in other places like the main article, it would probably help to move that information to this article. Ron Paul is large enough.--STX 04:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nomination. This truly falls under the department of redundancy department.Umbralcorax (talk) 13:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PERNOM: "Where a nomination has been effectively addressed by counter-arguments in the discussion, however, it may be useful to explain how you justify your support in your own words and, where possible, marshaling your own evidence." John J. Bulten (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's like you want them to come back with a more vehement response, John. --- tqbf 01:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. The nomination fails to recognize the general consensus of the Ron Paul editors that more of that article should be broken out into subarticles under WP:SUMMARY style, as Ron Paul is seeking FA status. The Legislation article is a direct result of that discussion, as mooted here and here. After creation I called editors' attention to the new article again and again with no objections. The "redundancy" is merely due to the fact that the "Legislation" section of Ron Paul has not yet been converted to a short summary (3 or 4 short paragraphs) as I repeatedly advertised. Contrary to nominator's perception, the entire contents of the Legislation section were incorporated into the Legislation article-- the section does not contain "greater depth", the article does; especially as it comprises, into one place, some content from several other sources noted in TEN different articles on independent pieces of Paul's legislation. Therefore the article is, appropriately, the greater depth. Finally, there is NO other duplicative source where the legislation is not only described but discussed neutrally as per sources. This article comprises the best of WP's collation of source analysis of Paul's bills (as collected at Ron Paul and elsewhere). Such an article is widely sought and not available anywhere else. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. EvanS • talk |sign here 21:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PERNOM again. Actually, because these are per-noms, all four delete comments to date have "merge" elements. So the problem is not content but placement. However, the deletion would ignore the standing consensus to split, which this article and others are attempting to carry out; the proper placement is in this article, with most of Ron Paul#Legislation more appropriately needing to merge to this one. Right now Ron Paul is laid out in summary style with reference to six other articles, two of which are up on AFD; the helpful template for navigating them is also up for TFD. I would appreciate the prior commenters reviewing my links above and questioning whether this simultaneous urge to merge is improving WP, or getting in the way of extant efforts to improve it. Thanks. John J. Bulten (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SIZE and normal subarticle policies.--Duchamps_comb 02:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment --- Not for nothing (I'm a keep), but, WP:SIZE isn't the "universal keep trump card" you seem to think it is. (1) splitting an article into subarticles is one cure for an overlong article, but not the only one, and (2) even if an article merits subarticles (as the RP campaign clearly does), that doesn't make every possible subarticle equally appropriate. --- tqbf 21:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's well sourced, notable, and clearly too long to be in the main Ron Paul article. I see no reason to delete. Buspar (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an appropriate use of a daughter article to reduce clutter in the main article without depriving the reader of information. Burzmali asks above, "Exactly how is a bill that has ~0% of even making it to a vote on the House floor arguably notable?" No one is contending that each proposed bill is notable by itself. Any bill that is notable should have its own article (as well as being included here). The point is that Ron Paul is notable, and his decisions about what bills to introduce shed light on him. JamesMLane t c 07:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, this entire article could be summarized as "Ron Paul has submitted a ton of legislation to Congress. To date, his only significant success has been to pass a concurrent resolution congratulating NASA. No bill he has ever submitted has made it to the House floor for a vote." I guess I am having a hard time understanding how a bill that Ron Paul proposed 5 times only to let it die in committee each time, is notable. Burzmali (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      As stated, the scope is not limited to bills submitted by Paul, as it also includes his cosponsorships of successful legislation and mentions significant votes. As stated, the notability of individual bills is irrelevant to deletion of the article. As stated, I would appreciate your source for your absolute statement "no bill", as your Thomas link does not source your claim. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Obvious notability, as the workings of the United States government as well as a certain person running for POTUS should have extensive pages on Wikipedia. -Sharkface217 20:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Political positions of Ron Paul. After thinking about it, since all of this bills have died or will die (no need for a crystal ball with RP's batting average) in committee, realistically any bill that Ron Paul submits is really just a statement of his political position on an issue. Therefore, I believe that this article should be carefully combined with Political positions of Ron Paul by adding each significant bill that he has proposed to the appropriate section. Burzmali (talk) 21:03, 30 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 --JForget 00:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Square[edit]

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

The article doesn't make it clear how this mall is notable, and I haven't been able to find any indication of notability outside of Wikipedia. AecisBrievenbus 22:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Where did you look for sources? I see a lot of stuff here. Zagalejo^^^ 22:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have access to Newsbank, so I can add some material later. I have to get going right now, though. Zagalejo^^^ 23:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually annexation seems very trivial to me. It's probably done tens of thousands of times a year in the U.S. alone, and is almost always of strictly local interest only. Quale (talk) 19:22, 28 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 JERRY talk contribs 06:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Lee Riches[edit]

Jonathan Lee Riches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete No independent notability established per WP:BIO. Few of the sources seem to be wholly about this individual and are simply about cases he has filed. Wikipedia is not a tabloid - see WP:NOT#NEWS. This should have possibly been placed up for speedy since per WP:CSD since it was already deleted. Anyway, I don't see how this is a workable article since it so easily violates WP:BLP with this talk of lawsuits and its reliance completely on media speculation and rumors. Strothra (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how there's a case for a BLP violation, considering that the article is thoroughly sourced; there are more references than sentences in the article, in fact, all to reliable sources. Ubernostrum (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep --- crackpot? yes. notable? clearly. references include print newspaper article about the subject, with subject's name in the lede. --- tqbf 22:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#NEWS states, "While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news.[5] Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article."--Strothra (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't WP:BLP1E --- subject appears to be at the center of multiple incidents, all about him. --- tqbf 22:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Not News" does not mean that anything made notable through the news media should not be included. Plenty of sources and verifiable for a variety of events (or cases). Joshdboz (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreed with Joshdboz. Not news doesn't apply here because this is over a long period of time; three years, not a week and a half. That level of media attention over a period of years makes him notable. matt91486 (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep - The Fox and Boston Globe (actually AP) articles alone are enough to satisfy WP:N. Torc2 (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with tqbf. The article is about someone who is notable, not merely for a single trivial incident, but an ongoing, well-known, and newsworthy chain of events. It would be a loss to the encyclopedia to not include him. Plasma (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - this fellow is becoming a cultural icon, and is still producing a body of work. See [7]. Quite noteworthy. Erielhonan 02:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete being in the news for being bizarre is far from an establishment of notability rather it is an establishment of noteriety. These are not the same thing. This is not the kind of article that belongs here, per WP:NOT. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Too bizarre for Wikipedia"? Did I miss a memo? =) --- tqbf 03:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing in WP:NOT is remotely applicable to this, including WP:NOT#NEWS. This isn't a one-time newsflash. This is a person whose actions over a period longer than a year have resulted in people taking notice and reputable news organizations writing about his work. It doesn't matter if his work is ridiculous or surreal; there is nothing in Wikipedia that excludes an individual if they've behaved absurdly. It doesn't matter if you personally do not appreciate his work or label him 'notorious' instead of notable. The simple fact is he is notable, and that notability has been established by multiple articles about the subject from multiple reliable sources. Torc2 (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - So Mr. Riches is too weird for Wikipedia, but Kibo is notable? :) U (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While it's a bit of a pain making sure that the article stays within BLP guidelines, I believe that the individual is sufficiently notable for an article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly notable. Dreadstar † 03:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO and WP:HEY. --Sharkface217 20:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected, merge as needed. Pastordavid (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional Order of Merit[edit]

Congressional Order of Merit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable money raising scheme. I can't find any reliable sources, and once you take -wikipedia out of the equation, there are only 130 Google hits, and nothing in news.google.com. Corvus cornixtalk 21:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with National Republican Congressional Committee. - Not notable enough for own article, although I did find this [8] as a reliable source. National Republican Congressional Committee already documents similar "scams", so I don't see why this one can't be integrated. Joshdboz (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. This title should be kept as a redirect for the benefit of readers who may encounter a reference to the "award" and come to Wikipedia for information. We can tell them that it's awarded by the NRCC, not by Congress. JamesMLane t c 08:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per JamesMLane - 52 Pickup (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neıl ☎ 11:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and domestic violence[edit]

Islam and domestic violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

We don't have an article on Christianity and domestic violence, Judaism and domestic violence, Buddhism and domestic violence, Hinduism and domestic violence, or any others that I can see. This article is a POV fork of materials that could be better discussed in more generalized articles (and many of them already are, so merging is probably unnecessary). By lumping together a large number of disparate phenomena under the banner of "Islam and domestic violence," this article violates our prohibition on original research by synthesis. A separate article on the subject also potentially constitutes undue weight. *** Crotalus *** 21:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be careful of "we don't have [list of redlinks]" arguments. Remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nudity in Judaism. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. If there is published research on the other religions and domestic violence then start an article by all means. Read the reference section of this article--tons of research has been published on this topic. There is no undue weight by having this here - if anything, it reduces the discussion of this issue in other articles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*STRONG DELETE - This is nothing more than some kind of attack page, and a bigoted one at that. There is already a page on Criticism of Islam, which should have what useful information is within this article merged into it. Atari400 21:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC) -- sock puppet[reply]

  • Keep Looks well sourced and notable. By all means start the articles you mentioned if they have substantive sources and notability. Joshdboz (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --- A pure POV piece, this article literally asks if the subject has stopped beating its wife yet. --- tqbf 22:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and comment we do have an article Christianity and domestic violence now, Uncle G started it. Also, anyone who knows even several muslim women will know that domestic violence in those communities is an issue, and there are different issues around it in those cultures than in the secular culture that surrounds them, for instance, in the UK. (Due to arranged marriages, family influence, cultural values etc.) We might as well reflect reality and have an article discussing reality, than pretend something doesn't exist, when it does. It's not PC to say it's due to Islam though, so maybe rename to somehow say it's a cultural, rather than religious issue, or make that clear in the article's lead. Merkinsmum 22:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds to me like you're referring to a cultural thing not a Muslim thing. Domestic violence is indeed a problem in many immigrant communities sadly. I see no evidence it's restricted to Muslims ones though. For example a lot of what you're referring are common throughout the Indian subcontinent and is not restricted to Muslims. Do you have any evidence the problem is more widespread among Muslim Indian immigrants (including Pakistanis etc) in the UK then it is among non-Muslim (Hindu etc) Indian immigrants? I suspect there would not be much difference if any on the levels of domestic violence. Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say 'It sounds to me like you're referring to a cultural thing not a Muslim thing. ' That's sort of what I said, isn't it? As to whether it's more comoon in Pakistani, Bangladeshi, predominantly Muslim rather than India communities, I would say so because the role of women is slightly better in Hindu cultures. Anyway what I'm saying is not so much that it's worse, but that there are specific factors such as arranged marriage, that make it a bit different to the issues in the UK as a whole. Maybe it should be renamed, though, to be more about a cultural thing. Merkinsmum 17:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While I consider the title open for improvement, it is IMO appropriate to have an article on the topic which is an issue of significance, and generally notable. ITAQALLAH 23:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - nominator makes the common mistake of assuming all religions are the same. Arrow740 (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - But article needs to be restricted. Stuff like what Merkinsmum mentions above probably doesn't belong in the article. The merits of other articles should definitely be considered. We now have Christianity and domestic violence. We also have Women in Hinduism and Sati (practice) Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Pakistani analyst Farrukh Saleem points out in the Daily Times of Pakistan [9] "Of the 192 member-states of the United Nations almost all honour killings take place in nine overwhelmingly Muslim countries. Denial is not an option...[H]onour killings have taken place in France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Canada. Intriguingly, all these honour killings have taken place in Muslim communities of France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Canada. Denial is not an option." Nick mallory (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:SIZE and WP:IAR, mainly because the article itself, while it could hypothetically be merged into Criticism of Islam, is highly useful on its own. --Sharkface217 20:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong DELETE This is nothing more than an attack on Islam. By its over generalization. And does not teach a person a single thing. Nor does it contain any facts, rather a mer point of view, thus is not worthy of an encyclopidia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.237.147 (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedied as vandalism. --Stormie (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sperm Shark[edit]

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

This appears to be a hoax. Nominating to achieve consensus. Eliyak T·C 21:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Hoax of the worst kind: the kind that doesn't even try it with humour. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as obvious hoax. It is a copy-and-paste of Pygmy shark, with a few words changed (e.g. Euprotomicrus bispinatus changed to Euprotomicrus gametus).--Hnsampat (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete indeed, although it doesn't quite fit any of the criteria. That's why we have WP:SNOW...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Euprotomicrus gametus" returns nothing on Google. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 00:03, 28 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.   jj137 ♠ 23:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spritual view of history[edit]

Spritual view of history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:OR as attested to by the originator of the article as shown here. [10] Shoessss |  Chat  21:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete I wrote the definition for Wikipedia of A Spritual View of History. Am grateful for all comments. I believe with edits this document may be brought to Wiki standards which I am working on and invite anyone to join in the effort. I would be grateful of this extra time to make these edits and address the issues brought forward. Please feel free to send any comments to my talk page. Bphagan (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The term may be notable, but the content is pure OR; someone might recreate it later with references. --- tqbf 21:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was sorely tempted to speedy delete this as nonsense. This is a rambling WP:OR discourse. I don't see how this can be more than an OR essay. Dlohcierekim 22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not nonsense, for it is clear what the guy is trying to say, whatever one thinks of the value of the content. But it is merely a summary of the author's website. DGG (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : utter nonsense, completely non-notable per WP:N, not sourced per WP:V and clearly original research in violation of WP:NOR. Mh29255 (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Aside from being a synthesis of information, this article inherently speaks from a non-neutral perspective. This article (or rather, this essay) does not attempt to address the subject of how history has been looked at from a spiritual perspective, throughout the world and throughout history, and the impact this has had on society (which would probably be a pretty good article if there were a established notability of the subject). Rather, this article actually attempts to analyze history from a "spiritual perspective". This is inherently biased because (1) in order to examine something from a particular perspective, any perspective, you must adopt a particular non-neitral viewpoint, and more importantly (2) any time you present an analysis on anything, you are presenting an opinion, or an original viewpoint relating to the subject. This may be the grounds for an essay, but not for an encyclopedia article. (also, although this may be a bit besides the point, the article's title is really a misnomer, as the article discusses history from the viewpoint of Christian mythology, which is definitely not the same thing as spirituality). Calgary (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Politely Delete per WP:OR. I appreciate User:Bphagan's wish to create something that hasn't been seen before, but "original research" essays don't stay permanently on Wikipedia. Even when it's interesting, any one person's own "view of history" is not encyclopedia material. It would be different if there was a book called The Spiritual View of History that had been published and had been notable enough to be praised and criticized by other noteworthy commentators (there probably has been a book with that title, come to think of it). Don't let this experience discourage you from contributing. You write well, and I hope you'll continue to do so. However, one of Wikipedia's rules is that "original research" (in other words, one's own observations, or one's own synthesis of information) cannot be the basis for an entire article. I've been in this about six months now, and I not only know more about the rules (than I did 6 mos. ago), I also have an appreciation of why they exist. Save your work to your hard drive, don't feel too bad if it doesn't stay up. Trust me, this is not the end, but just the beginning of your contributions to Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whatever it is it is not an encyclopedic article. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Here is my response to address the issues brought up with regard to this topic and I have also made some minor edits to a Spiritual view of history.

This first issue addressed is that a Spiritual View of History constitutes original research. The issues of nonsense, verifiability and notability will be addressed in turn.

"Wikipedia does not publish original research." "All material must be verifiable using a reliable published source." Or, "Wikipedia is not a place to publish... original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly supports the information as it is presented." Or, to "forward claims not directly supported by the sources is original research", or "drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research."

A Spiritual View of History does not constitute original research because the material presented, the statement of Benedict XVI is verifiable since it appears in a reliable published source. (See citation footnote #2 - Catholic News Service, Castel Gandolfo, Italy 8/15/2007). Information is provided directly related to the topic of the article and directly supports the information as it is presented. The information provided does not deviate from the topic of the article nor does it deviate from supporting the information presented. No claims are made not directly supported by the sources. The claims of the source are far reaching both as to past and future history. Claims made do not exceed those bounds and conclusions drawn are evident in the reference again as to both past and present historical events. The reference itself states conclusions of enormous scope "into existence once again in the Nazi... dictatorships and the dictatorship of Stalin" and as to the present the reference states "the red dragon exists in new and different ways." There are conclusions that are part of the reference itself, to extend these conclusions or discuss their effects and consequences provided they are supported by the reference and evident from the source does not constitute original research.

If Lucifer has involved himself in relations between nations in the past and does so still "in new and different ways" if there is any knowledge to be gained in that area, how does that constitute "nonsense"? To toss him off lightly as though he has little or nothing to do with the development of human history - is that wise? According to a Gallup poll in 2003 (source the New York Times, 3/4/2003, Nicholas Kristof, "God, Satan and the Media"), sixty eight percent of the American people believe in the devil. If focusing on him, on his objectives, on his plans, on his future ability to achieve his goals - how does that constitute nonsense?

As to the question of verifiability "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia", is verifiability not truth? "only assertions, theories, opinions and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia". The criteria has been met.

How prevalent is the belief that Lucifer does involve himself actively in human affairs both personal and public? This position is a majority opinion and can be "substantiated with reference to commonly accepted reference texts, " which is the test for majority acceptance. The reference text, of course, is the Bible and irrespective of ones beliefs it does cite time after time Lucifer's involvement with humans and the human race. There are no publications of note stating any significant minority views or "prominent adherents of a minority viewpoint" on this issue.

As to notability, a topic is presumed notable "if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" and "sources may encompass published works in all forms and media" and "substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence". Sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject matter appear time after time in the most widely read book in the world - the Bible. Irrespective of one's views of the Bible, Lucifer is very much a notable subject in it as well as numerous other sources. He has always had long-term notability and he appears in almost all paper encyclopedias.

Admittedly some conclusions in a Spiritual View of History appear to be a personal essay, but when carefully examined these conclusions are drawn based only on the original reference or on other sources and do not constitute personal conclusions. The Democratic Peace Theory, already extensively covered in Wikipedia, explains that if strong stable democracies are extensively established throughout the world then dictatorships, a major cause of "terror and violence" are reduced in number and effect.

When Lucifer shifts his take over attempts to weaker nations, that conclusion is evident from the original reference to "new and different ways". The fact that he was behind both the Nazi and Stalinist attempts to expand and destroy democracy and the fact that he still is attempting to reach that same goal in "new and different ways" is within the bounds of the original reference. If the Democratic Peace Theory is correct then it holds that the spread of democracy throughout the world has the most promise of bringing peace to the world. This conclusion is gained by a simple review of the theory itself. Bphagan (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You infer a lot from a few statements, in hopes that you will persuade us to agree with your view of Satan's control of world affairs. Sorry, Wikipedia is nobody's personal bulletin board. Mandsford (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Whooo…are you saying the article is notable because you mention Lucifer in your piece. If that is the case, I want an article about me. My first name is George and since George is the first name of the First President of the United States, and there are numerous, verifiable and reliable articles about George - I should be able to claim notability. Shoessss |  Chat  23:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --- can I change my vote to "strong delete and hail Satan"? --- tqbf 01:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - personal essay, isn't an encyclopedia article. Addhoc (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Polite Delete per WP:NOT. This is an essay. I suggest that the user who created it saves it on a subpage before it is deleted. --Sharkface217 20:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asexual Meat Kitchen[edit]

Asexual Meat Kitchen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable single - article even states this is a B-side. No indication of any chart position or notability for the single itself. Nothing much comes up on Google. Article about the band doesn't even mention the track. No references, sources or other information given to indicate this is notable. CultureDrone (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --- per nom, can't find any indication that this is a notable b-side; why does it need its own article? No assertion of notability. --- tqbf 21:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above, song doesn't seem notable enough to have its own article, doesn't seem very well known at music sharing sites like Last.fm either. alex.muller (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per obvious lack of notability. --Sharkface217 20:56, 30 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 Dentistry#Specialities. Neıl ☎ 11:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dental specialties[edit]

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

This is a list of dental specialties just as the article name implies. However, it just so happens that this list is already covered under Dentistry as shown here [11]. Shoessss |  Chat  20:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: dental specialties vary by jurisdiction and there are important legal consequences for those dentists who claim to be a specialist. the list on the dentistry article is complete for USA, but lacking for those in the EU where EU law defines the specialties. I imagine the situation for dental specialists is legally complex elsewhere in the world, and would merit a seperate page to outline the different specialties by jurisdiction. Ashley Payne (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Flyguy. Kudos to Shoessss for spotting the origin of the article. This page was either created because someone thought that Dentistry was too big an article, or the information has been merged back into the parent article in anticipation of a deletion. It's not so large a table that it has to exist separately. Mandsford (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The section doesn't have to be spun out of the main article to include information on specialties in specific jurisdictions. And certainly we wouldn't want to add that information only to a sub-article, leaving the section in the main article Americentric. If the content grows disproportionately large it can be appropriately spun out in summary style. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:52, 28 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. Hut 8.5 11:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Wakeford[edit]

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

No reliable sources for the article's claims of notability; article appears to be a vanity page edited largely by the subject. Jonobennett (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --- was skeptical, since the article cited notable bands and the nom used the V-word, but I can't find any news references or web cites for this artist (in any permutation of his name) or his "Halfpenny Studios". --- tqbf 21:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: --- music producers are often the least publicly recognised figure in a song's development - they are not splashed all over newspapers and do not need to seek public attention therefore the article is helpful for those who want to know more --- 12:22, 29 December 2007 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.41.9 (talk)
  • Delete - per Jonobennett. A vanity page mostly edited by the subject. - 52 Pickup (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Placebo Effect (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deadeye Dunkin[edit]

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

Declined speedy. Non-notable videogame character. SmashvilleBONK! 23:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that Twinkle didn't complete the process, so the AfD is actually starting on 12/27. --SmashvilleBONK! 20:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nothing more then an Georgians research plot summary. Ridernyc (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which doesn't mean that it isn't unfixable or that it couldn't made into a better article. But my feeble protestations of principle aside, delete - characters don't come much more minor than this, and he doesn't figure into the main plot. --Kizor 08:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, game is notable. character is not. And they didn't even spell the name right anyway.Umbralcorax (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - incredibly minor character in the game he's in. 90% of the article's content (as well as the article's name) is rubbish created by the author that is false or doesn't exist in the game. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Could this be merged into a list of KOTOR characters? --Sharkface217 20:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • which parts of the unsourced original research plot summary should be merged? Ridernyc (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It shouldn't even garner a mention on the character page. He's a NPC that is present in a sidequest for about thirty seconds and carries no significance with the overall plot. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Madman (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The latter portion of the article is a complete fabrication, and his name is Deadeye Duncan, with an 'A', anyway. Alloranleon (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie James[edit]

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

The article, as per the edit history, appears to be a student's dissertation and a work in progress at that. Wikipedia is not a place to store and work on dissertations. The article seems to be about a non-notable subject and contains no references. Parts seem to be promotion/advertising, parts seem to be defining terms that are defined elsewhere on wikipedia. Sassf (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Borderline speedy, as the majority seems to fall under G11 (spam). The rest of it comes across as a somewhat poorly written resume. I won't tag this myself, but if anyone else is feeling bolder, go for it. Otherwise, delete. --Badger Drink (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity ad for nonnotable individual. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per obvious WP:NOT violation. --Sharkface217 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Madman (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Placebo Effect (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shanna Crooks[edit]

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

Not notable yet, biggest claim to notability is guest vocals on a couple Avenged Sevenfold songs and a guest spot in a few Big & Rich tours. Only links are official site and MySpace; no reliable sources could be found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:30, 23 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, Rt. 20:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's not reliable, but it asserts notability. The live performances should be verifiable.--Michig (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point. Still fails WP:V, though. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find much in the way of independent coverage, however, so maybe this should go until her Atlantic Records album comes out, when no doubt the major-label promotion machine will generate plenty of coverage.--Michig (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep WP:N seems to be met here, if only just. I think that she is barely notable. --Sharkface217 20:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not really notable. Madman (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination's basis does not appear to be correct - as Phil Bridger shows, there are plenty of hits on Google. Neıl ☎ 11:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Cali Cigal[edit]

Ahmed Cali Cigal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable. No hits on Google (outside WP). Only one link from another article. No references cited. CultureDrone (talk) 20:41, 27 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/Nomination Withdrawn --JForget 00:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Thorburn[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Rtphokie (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or Delete Merge into The Unicorns, Th' Corn Gangg, and Islands *if* citations can be found. No justification for a seperate article, particularly when it provides zero citations. Pharmboy (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - some media coverage - added citations. Addhoc (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A frontman of a number of notable Canadian bands, usually known by his stage name Nick Diamonds, he has had some media coverage on his own; I added a feature interview with The Globe and Mail from 2006.[12] Keep. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 08:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 08:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Searching his various aliases produces more sources, some of which I've added to the article. Some are just trivial mentions, but others talk about him individually as an artist and not so much about his bands. –Pomte 08:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of significant press coverage, NYT Times and Globe and Mail especially. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does have independent press coverage, but even if he didn't, a musician who's been associated with three different notable bands is not a redirect candidate since there's no easy or valid way to prioritize one of his bands over the other two as the primo inter pares of potential merge targets. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to meet WP:N and now meets WP:MUSIC. --Sharkface217 20:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment withdrawing nomination as the article has been significantly improved.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected to McStroke - "Peter Strokes His Meat" was a working title for that episode. --Stormie (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Strokes His Meat[edit]

Peter Strokes His Meat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

episode of Family Guy that has gone way past its projected airdate; doubts about existence Will (talk) 20:29, 23 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, Rt. 20:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't want to be seeing this ever again, thank you. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge with List of American Dad! episodes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frannie 911[edit]

Frannie 911 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

article about a future event with no sources Will (talk) 20:37, 23 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, Rt. 20:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sources include tvguide and fox press releases. Was initially scheduled to air in DEC, but due to strike and shortage of eps it was moved to Jan 6, 2008, although the xbox live marketplace release never changed from the initial date so its already available there.Grande13 (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Working with episode articles myself, it's a real let down to see articles with fictioncruft in and for them to be unreferenced, so, unless references can be found and it can be expanded, deletion is the best thing here. Qst 13:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no references, no real world notability, fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of American Dad! episodes. No claim of real-world notability; WP:EPISODE says such episodes should not have their own article.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment -- this also would apply to most, if not all, of the episodes of this show.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of American Dad! episodes. Recreate when significant coverage in reliable sources can be found. DHowell (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the episode name, planned airdate, and plot synopsis are verifiable to a primary source: the Fox press release reproduced here. Doesn't establish notability but does establish a valid redirect name. DHowell (talk) 05:41, 29 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 A7 by Jerry. Tevildo (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Skinny Improv[edit]

The Skinny Improv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non notable community theater that is using wikipedia as an advertisement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Floydzamarripa (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Spliff Committee[edit]

The Spliff Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is not a notable committee by any means and thus I recommend that the article be removed. Delete. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No assertion of notability. --Alfadog (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I checked their website, appears at most to be an informal group of friends who have given a clever name to their posse. --Sharkface217 21:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nice idea, and in theory worthy of having an article on the whole cannabis acceptance theme. That said, the article is not very well-written, and as Sharkface217 pointed out, they're little more than a bunch of friends with ideas far above their station. EDIT: that last part was a joke, btw. Alloranleon (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • REMAIN I am one of the founders of The Spliff Committee and the one responsible for posting the article. Can someone please explain to me why our group being listed is any different than Steve Kubby having his own listing? We are in the process of authenticating our organization as a pro-marijuana group, but do not understand why is is relevant to have an article about the group published on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robstyles21 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • REMAIN It should be noted that the Spliff Committee has made significant developments in the areas of graphic design and fashion. Using it's reputation and influence through the NY Metro area, The Spliff Committee has had significant discussions with some notable industry types, and is in the process of releasing a clothing line bearing it's many logos, designs, and symbols. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaoming88 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Feel free to contact myself or any other administrator when the article is released or almost released, when more information would be available, or request recreation via Deletion Review. Neıl ☎ 11:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BoA sixth Japanese studio album[edit]

BoA sixth Japanese studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can always wait for the album to come out before creating the article, not to mention that there are no citations explicitly stating that this album will be coming out, let alone on February 20, 2008. Pandacomics (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the album will have more information as released date comes closer even Oricon has confirmation of the album beside the lack of title also the album's released date has been push back a week. — ■~∀SÐFﾑｻ~■ =] Babashi? antenna? 06:36, 28 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 speedily deleted under WP:CSD A7, no assertion of notability. Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dran0n Studios[edit]

Dran0n Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Non-encyclopedic, non-notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Speedily delete as per CSD A7, the group is obviously not notable. --Nn123645 (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no assertion of notability. Mh29255 (talk) 20:09, 27 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 & redirect to Woodsball. Keilanatalk(recall) 00:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woodsball strategy[edit]

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

Does not have any reference, is written like an essays and some kind of stategy guide, and very tecnical GunSlingerFrag (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge -- Perhaps this article could be cleaned up a bit, maybe shortened to highlight important points, and eventually merged into the Woodsball article. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'd just really hate to see this go to waste (even tho it seems like a game guide, I still think a minor overview of strategy (similar to the Tactics section in Ice Hockey).Lazulilasher (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC) -- amended 2 minutes later Lazulilasher (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge I suggest it be merged, but I would suggest it would be kept per WP:USEFUL (and yes, I know where the link goes). I think I'll keep a copy of this on one of my subpages, though. --Sharkface217 21:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to WikiHow, where there is already an article on How to Win at Woodsball.  —SMALLJIM  13:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the useful parts to Woodsball. Not my expertise, so another sysop will have to finish this. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Just because it isn't written well isn't a reason to delete. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! 23:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mini-QMA Connectors[edit]

QMA, Mini-QMA and HPQN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- A complete encyclopedia would provide full coverage of the range of coaxial connectors. This doesn't strike me as an advert or anything else that should be readily deleted. -- Atlant (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- per Atlant; WP is filled with technical writing about technical topics; I can find multiple vendors for these connectors in a quick search. --- tqbf 21:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as G11 spam. No sources in article, and none found in a search of Google News Archive. We are not a catalog of internal cell phone electronics. --Dhartung | Talk 00:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with QLS connector. One article on the various SMA replacements would avoid the appearance of advertising a particular solution.--agr (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I originally wrote the content for the QMA and QN connector sub-category and as a result of edits that were made to that page and some research on my own part believe that other quick locking connectors also deserved recognition to avoid the appearance that there is in fact only one solution rather than many. Also, SMA and N connectors (quick lock or threaded) are very important to the RF and Microwave industry, and have nothing to do with internal cell phone electronics. -- Jamusi (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above points. Highly encyclopedic. --Sharkface217 —Preceding comment was added at 21:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable to me. I've wikified the article and added a couple of easily-found sources.  —SMALLJIM  13:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pahoia School[edit]

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

Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable article per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this version. If another editor writes a sourced, encyclopedic article, then ok, however this version appears to be an excuse to post a link to their rockband webpage. Addhoc (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of notability whatsoever. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —JERRY talk contribs 05:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tauranga. TerriersFan (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —gadfium 08:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in its present form. I intend to go through the various List of schools in New Zealand subarticles in the next two months and redirect each primary and intermediate school article (where no substantial article already exists) to the appropriate locality - in this case it would be Pahoia, which will require me to create an article on this community. This article will include a paragraph on the school, mostly sourced from [13] and [14], but I'll search the local papers as well (if I can find them online), and I'll use the school website as well.-gadfium 08:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to district JERRY talk contribs 15:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Should have been speedied per CSD-A7. --Strothra (talk) 15:46, 31 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. Keilanatalk(recall) 00:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lune Zoldark[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NOT#PLOT, since it is almost entirely plot summary and character history without real-world context or importance, and WP:FICT, since reliable secondary sources are not provided to establish notability. Google returns only non-WP:RS fansites and the like, which indicates that this article likely cannot pass notability guidelines no matter what. I both tagged the article and raised my concerns on the talk page a month ago and it has not been improved so I am bringing it to AFD. Doctorfluffy (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, here's a pretty problem for you. Per our style and notability guidelines, articles for characters that are not independently notable should be merged, not deleted. However, the closest thing to a target is Banpresto Original Characters, which lists characters not just from this character's games but ALL games by the originating studio -- and only as links, not short summaries. The article for the games themselves does not have a character section. I note, however, that the text of that article claims that the characters are part of what made the games so notable, and that reviews can be found to support this in gaming magazines. (Like the nominator, though, I'm not quickly finding any sources online, but the earliest games are from before the 'Net -- and I'm not a gamer to know where to look other than blindly.) What I would like to have happen is that the relevant WikiProject be notified that the entire suite of articles needs to be revisited for organizational problems (which are severe) and notability concerns, and if nothing is done after a good-faith period of time (I suggest a couple months, given the size), and then if nothing is done then bring this and its sister articles back to AfD, where I'll quite gladly vote for delete. Keep for larger-scale cleanup and a hearty thanks to the nominator for having tagged and waited before bringing it to AfD (even if I want more notification). —Quasirandom (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your articulate response. First, this article is a rather blatant violation of WP:NOT#PLOT; there is zero real-world context. Per WP:FICT's section on merging, In-universe information should be condensed or removed as necessary, and meaningful real-world content should be integrated. There is currently no real-world content in the article to be merged elsewhere. I don't see what from this article could be put in a parent article of the series' characters. If you followed such a course on a larger scale, instead of having a bunch of small articles that fail policy, you'd just have one larger one that still likely fails policy. I do acknowledge that the entire set of characters may be more notable than each individually, but I'd like to see sources before we go down that road. Second, as you noticed yourself, it doesn't appear that reliable, secondary sources exist to establish notability for this specific character or to add any encyclopedic information on the subject. Lastly, I think a month is plenty of time to wait. That's actually longer than I was planning to wait in the first place, but I decided to be generous. Frankly, I just don't see what effect extra time would have. It seems like anybody who would've noticed my comments, even largely inactive editors, likely would have done something to improve the article by now. A month without such improvements indicates to me that nothing will ever be done, so I started the AFD. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I quite agree that the plottiness needs condensing and more real-world context needs adding, especially to establish notability. I'd still like the video game Wikiproject to be directly notified and given a chance to improve things, however, as the members may have access to print reviews etc from before Google's usual reach. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but I just find it extremely unlikely that anything you are describing will happen. I doubt such sources exist and, even if they did, I doubt the person who has them will improve the article. A month is plenty of time to do something and even after the article was directly in danger of deletion (AFDed) still nobody has done anything. Assuming this AFD doesn't go through, the most likely outcome is that the article remains untouched for a few months and then I nominate it again, and we have the same discussion. If the article is deleted and then amazingly someone produces legitimate sources then the article can easily be recreated. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but I'd recommend the keep voters spend some time cleaning the article up, it looks quite poor as it stands. Wizardman 16:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massar Egbari[edit]

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

Delete Non-notable band. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - article appears to be copied from their myspace page. Plus, the user who created this article has the user name "Massar14" obviously indicating a WP:COI. The article, if kept, would need to be stripped down and completely re-written. Did anyone not notice this before? ScarianCall me Pat 23:26, 30 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 G12 by East718. Tevildo (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.D. Webb[edit]

J.D. Webb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete No notability proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep per h i s. Delete per nom. Provides no sources, and I could find none. Subject's name, along with his "critically acclaimed" album "Bring it on" gets 6 g-hits, but none support notability of this subject. My bad.--Evb-wiki (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry. I don't know how I did that.--Evb-wiki (talk) 20:46, 27 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 Placebo Effect (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F90 Gundam Formula 90[edit]

F90 Gundam Formula 90 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is written in a completely in-universe style. There is 1 line of context, and about a hundred of fictional specifications, and plot summary. Outside of the universe style, I doubt that the article subject is notable. RogueNinjatalk 17:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zap it for now. I plan to start working on a complete rewrite of all Formula Project related articles presently and have had the relevant stuff backed up in my sandbox for some time. Jtrainor (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete per nom Thinboy00 @852, i.e. 19:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete written entirely in in-universe style, and it simply cannot be written from real-world perspective -- there's absolutely no notability, no reliable sources, no nothing. Fancruft is the only word. Delete. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're not the one to determine whether this can be rewritten or not. That falls to me, because I'll be the one doing it. Moreover, making such a claim is crystal balling and should not be done. Jtrainor (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find multiple, non-trivial reliable sources -- which are actually about this object, and not just mention it in passing -- then you're welcome to write something that shows real-world importance and notability of this. Obviously, fan sites and blogs and suchlike are not acceptable as sources. As the article stands now, it's pure in-universe cruft about something that absolutely nobody cares about -- and that's putting it mildly. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What has that to do with your claim that this particular article could never be adequately sourced? Jtrainor (talk) 23:51, 30 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 Placebo Effect (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collective for Research and Training on Development-Action[edit]

Collective for Research and Training on Development-Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does this organization pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)? Avi (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You tell us. Per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination you should check for yourself before nominating an article for deletion. So … what did you do to check for yourself whether multiple non-trivial published works from independent sources that document this organization in depth exist? Uncle G (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete fails to assert notability Thinboy00 @854, i.e. 19:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete : this was already tagged as a G12 (copyright violation) of http://www.crtda.org/en/book/export/html/1 and is specifically listed on the Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations page. Mh29255 (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The owner of the text has given permission under the GFDL. There is no copyright violation and this cannot be speedied as a G12. -- Avi (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good work? Maybe. Good page? No. ΨνPsinu 19:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not a rationale for deletion, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Please come up with a proper rationale that has a basis in policy. Uncle G (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did some edits to the document. the source website states that content can be used. Can you please reassess the article? Mcheblak (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the effort - but it seems to me that virtually every link is to another CTRDA subsite. There are no outside news references, which still begs WP:NOT. Therefore, my D stands for now. But I do like when people try to respond constructively, so kudos for that. ΨνPsinu 23:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PR@vantage[edit]

PR@vantage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete No notability proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete/Strong Delete. Totally biased corporate spam, zero point zero on notability scale, weasel words a-plenty. ΨνPsinu 19:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • AfD Listing was incomplete, added AfD to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 27. Improbcat (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite It's a stub, it mentions an award, if sourcing could be found for this... but right now it's an advert. Thinboy00 @857, i.e. 19:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no assertion of notability per WP:N and possibly WP:SPAM. Mh29255 (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reads like a PR agency decided to put together a page, so blatant advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.muller (talk • contribs) 23:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep as it is written too spammy, and has no cites, but may be notable based on its almost 8,000 Ghits: [19], many of which are reviews and news of rewards. (I know, that's not a strong argument, which is why I wrote Very weak.) Bearian (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spamvertisement. Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge to Manchester College (Indiana). –Pomte 05:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Department of History and Political Science, Manchester College (Indiana)[edit]

Department of History and Political Science, Manchester College (Indiana) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The Department of History at Manchester College is no more notable or worthy of an independent entry than any other department at the college, let alone the multitude of individual academic departments at thousands of colleges and universities around the world. This article should either be deleted or merged with the main Manchester College article StudierMalMarburg (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge any relevant information.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any relevant info then Redirect. --Strothra (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if there is anything worth the merging. It will take a truly world class department with undoubtedly relevant references to it a a department to justify an article.DGG (talk) 22:01, 29 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 Placebo Effect (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splendor Hyaline[edit]

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

This article is a very brief, in universe repetition of plot points and also actual plot text repetition from the Chronicles of Narnia, and has no notability or referencing of its own. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was a bit hasty, I agree there isn't much to merge there. Perhaps something could be salvaged for Narnia (world), with a redirect there instead of to the Main article? Whatever happens, I support deletion over keeping. Keeper | 76 18:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing particularly notable to add to the series article. A non-notable plot element. Pastordavid (talk) 17:33, 27 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, Hut 8.5 17:34, 27 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. WaltonOne 20:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rowbotham[edit]

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

Author of a couple of books on a subject for which he is not obviously qualified as an authority, published by a press which is so small that I cannot find its website; the publisher's address is 2 Home Farm Cottages, Sandy Lane, St Paul's Cray. I think this is a verys mall specialist publisher. There are a couple of thousand Google hits for Michael Rowbotham, but most of them seem to be alternative lifestyle forums or user-editable directories, many of them selling the book. What there is not, is any evidence of discussion of him or his ideas in the professional or academic journals related to his field. Tagged for notability and sourcing omnths ago, and never fixed. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning towards delete I hate to be wishy-washy, but this one is a tough case. He purports to be a financial expert but has no formal training. Is he an academic? If so, he fails WP:PROF on pretty much all points. Is he famous? If so, he still appears to fail WP:BIO. One reference I was able to dig up was speaking at the House of Lords [20], but does a single appearance grant notability? While not a valid measurement of the issues, his books have mixed reviews, some reviewers citing lack of data or other fundamental flaws [21]. There's simply not much external evidence to grant him any kind of status beyond possible fringe theories Yngvarr 19:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak delete. There do appear to be a few sources on this person and his work, and if people can source this I may well change my mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HisSpaceResearch (talk • contribs) 19:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For related discussions, see Debt-based monetary system (AfD discussion) and Debt money (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. I see that this is up for a PROD, as well. Shouldn't that PROD now be be deleted, in favour of the AfD process? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly a PROD on an AfD'd article with a keep vote should strike the prod tag; the point of prod is to keep things out of AfD debates. --- tqbf 21:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak keep: my only reservation is that this keeps popping up, and I'd prefer to have an article where the text is controlled and watched for POV editing rather than popping back up in two months. At least the current article makes clear his lack of distinction as a monetary thinker (and moderate distinction as an unbalanced polemicist).--Gregalton (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per new search, appears in The Guardian and Financial Times. --- tqbf 21:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment --- not a fan of the reasoning in the nom, either: notability isn't determined by who published your book, and AfD is not the cure for unreferenced articles on notable subjects. --- tqbf 21:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of notable coverage in the Guardian & FT. I also noticed in my Gsearch that he once addressed the House of Lords? May not be in WP:BIO, but it works for me! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. About the speaking at the House of Lords bit, he did not address the House of Lords, he addressed a meeting of a private organization that was held at the Palace of Westminster. There may have been MPs present but this was not addressing the legislative body itself. --Dhartung | Talk 00:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.: This meme about him addressing the House of Lords is constantly reiterated to emphasize his notability; thank you for clearing this up. I note that his mention in the FT does not appear that notable: it's in a light "business profile" of "Tim Smit, the social entrepreneur behind the vast domed glasshouses of the Eden Project"; the context is pretty clear, Mr. Smit is taking the piss (as they say) of the former head of the BoE: "He has asked Eddie George, who lives in Cornwall, to read The Grip of Death by Michael Rowbotham. The former Bank of England boss could find this polemic against the world's debt-based economic system rather unflattering." Basically at the level of sending a gift subscription to Vegan Living to the head of the sausage factory. Just for others to consider when determining "notable coverage." Article is here for reference, but it's thoroughly uninteresting and only has that throw-away reference to the subject at hand.--Gregalton (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not sufficiently notable. The only article that can be said to represent serious coverage is the Guardian one, and that isn't enough for WP:RS. 'Michael Rowbotham' only gets 6,000 hits on Google, which is fairly low for an author/academic; he seems to fail notability to me. Terraxos (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep - it makes a change to see a borderline article that is written by a critic rather than "his mum" or him. Notability can come out of controversy... but its the books and the refs that do it. Victuallers (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. The man is not notable. He has written two books, his credentials are non-verifiable, and he's espousing fringe theories. Zenwhat (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment --- an article that serves no purpose but to publish original fringe theories is a candidate for deletion. An article about a person who himself espouses fringe theories is not. Having non-verifiable credentials is not grounds for deletion --- it's grounds for cleaning up the article and stripping the credentials out. --- tqbf 21:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:HEY. --Sharkface217 21:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Useless without the sources, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 01:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsourced, weasel-worded biographical article about a real person = Delete. Dlae│here 21:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And offers little info about the guy. Dlae│here 21:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP is to document notability, not enhance it: this guy isn't anywhere close to notable, nor is there the sloghtest evidence to indicate otherwise. --Calton | Talk 02:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I looked at tqbf's Google news search list (27 Dec.), and added a few of the refs to the article. I haven't read the "subscription required" refs., but I'm happy that there are sufficient independent sources to show notability.  —SMALLJIM  17:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Placebo Effect (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spitting Llama Bookstore & Outfitter[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Spitting Llama Bookstore & Outfitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Blatant advertising for a business. Makes no claims of notability; fails WP:N and WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Seems to just be an ad for the store. Not notable. Phantomwiki (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result wasSpeedy Delete - A7

Koei Warriors[edit]

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


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Reliable sources found during this debate. Secret account 21:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta Smallwood[edit]

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

No evidence of notability given that satisfies WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Tabercil (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Epbr123 (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and salt as this has been deleted several times already.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She's an older model who was very prominent in the early 1990s. I can't imagine there's not sourcing for her-- if not currently on the Internet. Removing articles on major models from the past would result in a bias towards what is popular right now. I'm not at liberty to do such research at the moment-- maybe tomorrow, but Boobpedia's article probably has a few sourcing leads. Also, IMDB has an interview and several appearances listed HERE. Dekkappai (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I looked around on the web a bit, and there are a few comments that she may have been the first popular BBW porn star (for example [22] and [23] ), which would meet the "started a trend" criterion, but they're not anything reliable. We need a reliable source that says that. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Article titles like "Voluptuous Legends: Roberta Smallwood--Over a decade later, this FF-cup legend remains the Queen of the Super Plumpers."[24] would seem to lead credence to her prominent status in the genre... I'll see if I can find some information later today. I know I've seen her mentioned in Japanese sources, which, at least, shows she's known internationally. Dekkappai (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well, my Internet search didn't provide much... All I can say is she was pretty big in the genre at the time. We get clues like the above-mentioned article, over a decade after her retirement, and a video titled "A Tribute to Roberta Smallwood", and comments by fans of the genre about how major she was to that genre, but nothing that jumps through the "Pornbio" hoops. So, I guess, on a technicality, another subject on which Boobpedia will provide the only well-written article. And more power to them. ;) Dekkappai (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using Lanasbigboobs.com, Myboobsite/Mybbwsite, IMDB, Boobpedia and Wikiporno and trying to claim that entries on all of these together add up to some kind of notability is just totally wrong. If Wikipedia played by that standard, we could have an article on Bea Flora. As it happens, though, Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion are more strict than that.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I personally consider this porn actress to be unattractive, this has got nothing to do with the fact that I want this article deleted. I want this article deleted because there are no reliable sources that fully back up anything about her.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dekkappai. Rray (talk) 14:27, 29 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 - nomination withdrawn. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kijiji[edit]

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

Nomination withdrawn --Busy Stubber (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article began as an advert back in 2005[25] and is an expanding list of external links with no evidence of notability. I cannot verify that the company is related to eBay. Name-dropping in article (eBay and Gumtree) seems unrelated.--Busy Stubber (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - article is about a very notable company and is owned by Ebay. I added a citation from a completely 3rd party in reference to the notability and that it is owned by Ebay. Yes, the article could be expanded on a little and wiki'd... don't know why it had to come to AfD... --Pmedema (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - [26], [27], [28], [29]. And that was only a 10 second Google News search. Busy Stubber, in the time you took to nominate this article for deletion you could have performed the same Google News search and incorporated what you found into the article, thereby improving the encyclopedia rather than bogging it down in unnecessary processes. Rockstar (T/C) 18:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that -- I searched eBay and Kijiji and Google, but not Google News. Thanks! Do you want to add the references or do you want me to? --Busy Stubber (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gumtree/craigslist competitor owned by notable ebay. KellenT 20:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep --- Busy Stubber, can you strike the nom so we can close this discussion and move on? Per Rockstar, clearly notable, clearly verifiably owned by ebay. --- tqbf 22:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to strike the nom? Can you help? --Busy Stubber (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Put <s> - </s> tags around your nom, and above it write "nomination withdrawn". Someone'll clean it up. --- tqbf 02:21, 28 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. Secret account 21:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debt money[edit]

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

This term is defined by Michael Rowbotham, who is not a recognised professional economist, the article itself seems to be a novel synthesis combining what recognised authorities say with what Rowbotham says to deliver a new whole. Google is no help here - all the hits I can find to reliable sources in a search for "debt money" have a punctuation mark between debt and money. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect If the concept in the article is directly from Rowbotham, I'd say merge it into his article. There is also a Debt-based monetary system which might be able to hold the concept. I'm inept and ignorant on financial issues, I figure an expert would be able to say if those ideas are feasible or within the realm. Yngvarr 16:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not convinced his article is any more worthy, to be honest. This, two other related articles and his article appear to be here solely to promote his ideology, which is not widely accepted and not, as far as I can tell, published in peer-reviewed sources. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears that his article is been prodded. Maybe wrap them all up into a single AFD? Wider discussion might be useful. If they're basically WP:FRINGE, there's no reason to keep any of his related articles if only a few of them end up deleted. Yngvarr 17:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Debt-based monetary system? Sorry I'm not an expert on this subject but there looks like there are a good number of third party references available in that article. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep / Merge: Please see also the discussion at debt-based monetary system's talk page. There appear to be many references, but most of them are, to me, not reliable sources. Many of the references have also been grossly misused (hyperbole and claims not in the references, quoting a source in a way that implies the source agrees with the premise or has ever used the expression debt-based money, POV, etc). Most of the sources boil down to Rowbotham and a few other fringe sources. The only reason I'm for a weak keep is that I'm concerned this subject will show up again and again, and it would be better to have an article clearly identifying this subject as monetary crankism. (I would, by the way, be grateful for editors to beat back and cut back the thick underbrush by deleting text they feel doesn't meet the standards; I don't want to be the only one, but the content is mostly nonsense). At any rate, there should not be a bunch of articles on this obscure concept and phrasing. Perhaps one.--Gregalton (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge to Money The whole topic of fringe monetary theories is a difficult one. Although such theories are fairly marginal these days, they played a big political role in movements like Social Credit. JQ (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge to Debt-based monetary system or credit money. That article does have problems described by various templates, but it does attempt to describe a theory underlying credit money and free banking, just needs to be a lot shorter and less reliant on one source since there are others.

Carol Moore 02:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

I am an expert. I can't tell you how many Economics Prizes and Awards I won at university. I lost count. Debt money correctly reflects Michael Rowbotham's terminology and those who wish to delete the term should read his book before commenting further. Austrian Economists often refer to the concept as "fiat money". Rowbotham was really the first to refer to it repeatedly and consistently as debt money or money created in parallel with debt. I vote to keep it in. It is an incredibly minor entry, certainly not as important as Homer Simpson, or Wii or anal sex, all of which are proudly listed as WP entries. Surely this tiny entry can stay in for the benefit of those few who actually have an interest in Rowbotham's works. Which is probably around 8 people in the world. If this gets deleted, I have about 500,000 other "rubbish" non-encyclopedic entries that URGENTLY need deletion too.--Karmaisking (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:If it's the same thing as fiat money, and the terminology originates with and is used by Rowbotham and only "a few" other people, why should it have a separate article?--Gregalton (talk) 12:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That it reflects his terminology is not in dispute. The issue is, whjether his terminology is sufficiently important to merit quite so many separate articles. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We already have fiat currency, credit money, and debt-based monetary system; the subject of this article is sufficiently covered by those, and other articles already. It has virtually no content of its own, other than a definition; if it really needs to exist, it can be a redirect to one of the pages we already have on the topic. We don't need a separate article for a different name. Terraxos (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have any objection to this being redirected to debt-based monetary system? I estimate that is the best solution if they're closely related but again I am not an expert on this subject, I am only asking. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These comments show how confused the terminology is in relation to these matters, and how ignorant many people are of the distinctions between fiat currency, debt money and credit. Fiat currency simply refers to money that is not backed by precious metals such as gold. So, the paper money you have in your pocket is fiat currency. Debt money is the "virtual" money that exists in your bank account and is created through the issuance of debt or credit. Money exists as a pyramid structure. At the top is gold, still used by central banks for the settlement of international debts and is the most stable form of money known to man. Paper money or fiat currency can exist INDEPENDENT OF DEBT, and could (at least theoretically) be issued directly by the Treasury or central government WITHOUT the issuance of interest-bearing bonds. In fact, as The Forgotten War makes clear, the U.S. government has in the past "experimented" (briefly) with the issuance of "genuine" fiat currency directly from the Treasury (rather than the Federal Reserve) and although such "experiments" did not stick, this shows the inherent DISTINCTION between "true" fiat currency and debt money. As explained by Michael Rowbotham, the most volatile and fastest growing form of money is "debt money" or "credit" which is created through fractional reserve banking techniques and floats around as M3 in your bank account or (increasingly) in money market funds. This "money" can be CONVERTED into fiat currency when you visit your friendly ATM, but is SEPARATE from paper money and is created "virtually" through the issuance of new debt via fractional reserve banking. Hence the entry should stay - and judging by your comments, is desperately needed. The fact that this is not widely known is not a reason for its deletion - it is in fact a strong reason for its retention, to educate those who have no idea where their money comes from or what it really is.--Karmaisking (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note tat you are the creator of this walled garden of articles, and have no contributions outside of this area. It is likely that you have come across the eternal tension between truth and verifiability, and have also perhaps not understood why having three or four articles essentially on a single concept, whose principal proponent has no widespread academic recognition, gives undue weight to this minority view. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what? These comments have nothing to do with the substance of its retention. Assume Karmaisking is a psychotic maniac bent on destroying the banking community. What has that got to do with whether this little entry should stay, if it educates?--Rememberkarma (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article, along with a couple others, was clearly created to push a POV regarding the Federal Reserve. There's so little information, I don't see what there is that can be merged. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See comment above. This is (yet another) "personal attack" on the alleged motives of the contributor, not an attack on the article itself.--Rememberkarma (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and consider other fringe theories for prod. As someone who is and still is studying monetary economics in course, I cannot find any mention in any of my textbooks. And these are mainstream texts, not fringe theory books and self-stated texts that so dominate the reference lists of many of the pages affected. This article is not verifiable and all attempts to verify have been unsuccessful. Also, per Guy's comment above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There wouldn't be anything in your "mainstream" texts (obviously). No one is saying this is "mainstream" stuff. The question is not whether it is "mainstream" but whether something that is ADMITTEDLY "fringe" deserves to stay on WP. I vote that even a "fringe" entry deserves to stay, if it is backed by a reasonable argument. I consider the argument presented by Karmaisking to be reasonable - at least sufficient for the retention of this minor "fringe" entry. Put POV on the article if you consider it biased in some way. Why DELETE it??--Rememberkarma (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree in this case, and don't particularly agree with the debt theory, just want to remind you that today's "fringe theories" ("the earth is round" used to be very fringe) may evolve into tomorrow's orthodoxies. Those paid and honored by the establishment often refuse to go against the establishment theories. Monetary theory is shaped by politics, just like everything else. And even big names like Hayek have wandered all over the fringes in playing around with monetary theory. So each article should be judged on its own merits and not compared to others of perhaps much lesser merit. Carol Moore 17:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk
Sure, and once that happens we will surely reflect it, but Wikipedia is not the place to make the change happen. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In response to Karmaking and Carolmooredc, and to back up Guy's response, see WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia is not a medium to push fringe theories. Zenwhat (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The theory is definitely Fringe... however, WP:FRINGE does not ban articles on Fringe theories outright. Some are considered worthy of inclusion and others are not. The key is the notability of the theory... ie whether the theory has been noticed and discussed by mainstream sources (even disparagingly). I do not see enough evidence that this particular theory has been noticed and discussed in mainstream sources. It is, therefore, not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Should it become so, then an article can be written. That said... I could see including a brief mention of the theory as part of the broader New World Order conspiracy page, as it seems to relate. Blueboar (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - fails notability in reliable sources. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Placebo Effect (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tripawd[edit]

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

The article seems to be mainly promoting the linked website, and the only contributor has the same nickname as the owner of the website uses elsewhere. The links given are to the website itself, Youtube, and a dictionary where anyone can add words. I don't think notability is really demonstrated. Pseudomonas(talk) 15:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't look notable to me and even if the term /did/ exist notably, there seems to be undue weight given to the website (And we are not a dictionary are we?) Narson (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Evidence points toward the deliberate promotion of a non-notable neologism, and in any case, as Narson points out, this would be a dictdef. --Lockley (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete per A7.   jj137 ♠ 19:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Cupp[edit]

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

Former member of a non-notable band that won a minor award. This page popped up again only seconds after it has been speedied. A new speedy tag was removed by an anon. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 15:42, 27 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 Snowball keep. The nominator's concern about notability has been addressed below, and the fact the article is written like an ad is something that can be fixed without an AfD. I will insert the relevant tag. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 20:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes Homes[edit]

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

Was speedily deleted twice. It looks pretty ad-like and it seems to fail WP:CORP. Spellcast (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment No opinion one way or another. Some quick digs found a few [30] interesting [31] pieces about them, some local coverage [32], and apparently an award [33]. If anything, the article is WP:POV Yngvarr 15:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep clearly notable, no question. 70,000 unique hits for "mercedes homes", there is only one such company, passes WP:CORP, not to mention this search which demonstates beyond doubt that is passes the primary notability criterion "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources." Please do a news archive search before nominating for AfD. Lobojo (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to pass WP:COMPANY although it could use a little expanding and some citations. --Pmedema (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Notable without question. Is one of the 20 largest home builders in the country with over 140k unitque vistors per month. Please fix this article asap. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavaliauskas (talk • contribs) 17:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the company is notable with those Google links. It's just that it read like an ad and the external links looked like spam. A keep is probably in order, but it needs a lot of improvement. Spellcast (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Kavaliauskas Number of visitors does not make a company notable. Right now, it appears that consensus is leaning towards keeping the article, but as Kavaliauskas also req'ed this article be created in the first place [34], it might be beneficial for that user to address the concerns which caused the article to be brought up to AFD in the first place. Yngvarr 17:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article should not be stifled from expansion any further. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:24, 27 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. Those who think the article needed more sources are right - but they should have provided them during this AfD. Sandstein (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Moore (contemporary pioneer)[edit]

John Moore (contemporary pioneer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Administrator, activist and author. Several external links but do any actually refer to John Moore? Is he notable outside northwest Ohio? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This person has qualities of being notable. The article can benefit from further improvements, including more specific verifiable sources, and I would like to give the Wikipedia community time to do that. Truthanado (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LOCAL. First black guy on a particular bank's board seems to be the primary claim of notability here. No attribution of such notability to independent sources, though. The disambiguation phrase "contemporary pioneer", I'm afraid, screams "reaching". --Dhartung | Talk 00:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability can be shown. Notability as an author hasn't been shown, nor has notability as the first person of a particular race on a particular board. If the article is kept, it definitely needs renaming. --Fabrictramp (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, source and rename Seems like notability couldn't be established with better sourcing, there is a link to a newspaper quote by him. Avruchtalk 03:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any sources to confirm notability.  —SMALLJIM  18:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though his quote in a newspaper is promising, there is no source of that. The rest is minor stuff that hardly indicates notability. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! 23:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Troy Hurtubise. More content can be merged from the history if so desired. Sandstein (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trojan Balllistics Suit of Armor[edit]

Trojan Balllistics Suit of Armor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Suits for US and Canadian soldiers, as designed by a Canadian inventor. From the tone of the article, however, it looks like he hasn't been successful at selling them to either army. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 15:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notice that the article has been moved to Trojan Ballistics Suit of Armor. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It appears to have gotten some amused blog notice, but not much from legitimate news outlets; any useful information about this device would be more appropriate on the Troy Hurtubise article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Several news outlets have interviewed him FisherQueen. And by that logic, there should not be a 300-page iPhone bill wiki.The Talking Mac (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything that is not already in Troy_Hurtubise to there - where there is already a relevant section Whitstable Delete as below (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • After deleting what already is in there, there will not be much left to merge. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 15:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, changed from merge to delete. Whitstable (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Delete removes the redirect, which should remain as a navigational aid. Delete also removes the history, which should remain in case the content is split back out again if and when the suit gets the more substantial coverage needed for a separate article. The two references on the article are sufficient to support keeping the redirect and history, but not sufficient to support a stand-alone article at this time. Dhaluza (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge While I quite enjoyed reading the article on the inventor that I wouldn't have done without this AfD, this product is pretty NN, at least until it gets significant coverage, which will likely come if it gets picked up by an army, until then there won't be enough info for its own bit and can remain as a part of the inventors article. Narson (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (1) The article does not provide much of encyclopedical information about the subject, it just says "something exists". (2) The article does not suggest widespread (any, actually) use of the armor that would make it notable per-se. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The content of this article is sufficiently covered in the Troy Hurtubise article. --NickPenguin(contribs) 21:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect: With the improvements of the article it is now more informative, but I still do not think the article is sufficiently notable independantly of Troy Hurtubise, and the content is better represented there. --NickPenguin(contribs) 20:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am improving the page, please give me time. This is a notable subject.The Talking Mac (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may be notable in terms of his life as he never managed to sell the design - or even a prototype through Ebay - and it financially ruined him. But on its own? Doubtful Whitstable (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At least the suit's features are notable. The target tracking laser is a creative and useful idea. Also, the fact that the suit was built to withstand the IEDs that are killing our soldiers is definitely an amazing feat. Please take into account that this was not just him slapping something together after four beers and a night of Gears of War, the suit was developed with input from real soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afganistan.The Talking Mac (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cool ideas about what could go on a neato suit of armour do not in themselves make the article notable.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you misinterpreted what I said. I meant that all those gadgets were the result of interviews with men on the front line, meaning that this was not him making assumptions.The Talking Mac (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but what reliably sourced evidence do we have that he actually did this. His unsupported claims in a brief Web article? That's all I saw. (Even if he did talk to some soldiers, I'd still not be sold, mind you.) This latest suit of armour ended up being unsuccessfully auctioned, just like his previous "Grizzly-proof" suit. All this stuff is vividly true and real to Mr. Hurtubise, but I'm afraid that's where it ends, and why this latest suit belongs as a subsection on his personal article. only, IMO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the article before you comment. There are two video interviews with him in the suit showing the features. One is off discovery channel.The Talking Mac (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have, and what I see are deadlinks to unavailable articles, his own unsupported claims (including an invisibility ray!), a personal Website that is not operating, an old e-bay listing, etc. Nothing that supports a real-world notability for this supposed invention, outside of his fantasy world of claimed inventions. My vote remains the same. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage on the Discovery Channel and front page news in the Hamilton Spectator seem ample proofs of notability. The editor of this article seems new and so could use some help per WP:BITE. I have added a citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Troy Hurtubise. I've added another cite, and although this technically meets the threshold for multiple independent sources, they are not substantial or in-depth enough to cover the subject to the level of depth the article goes, raising issues of WP:NOR. The inventor is certainly notable enough for the media coverage of his exploits, and the section in that article can be expanded with the WP:V content from this article. The effort needed to clean up this article would be better spent cleaning up that one. If the suit becomes sufficiently notable later, the content can always be split out again. Dhaluza (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Covered worldwide by tons of news sources, see this among others. --Sharkface217 21:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That appears to be a re-publication from existing sources, rather than original reporting. The problem is that this article is longer than the source you are providing (as well as the other RS). So merging is still the best alternative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaluza (talk • contribs) 21:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Troy Hurtubise (great article, BTW), which already has extensive information on this suit and on Hurtubise's other wacky "inventions". Gandalf61 (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above.  —SMALLJIM  20:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:Tone as copyvio, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Blueman (CHERUB)[edit]

Kyle Blueman (CHERUB) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable book character that is covered in the main article for the book series. There is also a WP:COPY violation from here. GtstrickyTalk or C 15:09, 27 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 --JForget 00:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My F**ked Up Friday[edit]

My F**ked Up Friday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Using peacock terms, this article describes a yet-to-be-produced Canadian TV series. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 15:05, 27 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. Wizardman 19:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prince George Secondary School[edit]

Prince George Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A not particularly notable public high school. Delete. Lawrence Cohen 14:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep High schools are definately notable enough. STORMTRACKER 94 15:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jimbo's ruling obiter dicta, which I agree with, it is not approreiate to go around upsetting people over such trivial things, since High schools are almost always notable. Lobojo (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see that ruling--which was it? Lawrence Cohen 16:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He basicly said that people should be able to add their own high schools as it dosent do any harm, are probably notable, and that is just WP:DICKY to make a big fuss about it. Lobojo (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is for you [35]. Lobojo (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge It contains a sentence, if thats all we have to say about the school, it really isn't notable nor does it serve any purpose other than a Family Guy-esque shouting of 'Thats our school!'. Narson (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that we delete every stub in wikipedia? Lobojo (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but a stub with no sources and no assertion of notability beyond being a school? Yes. Narson (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You implyedly concede that being a high school is itself an assertion of notability with the word "beyond" and I agree with you. Why not just leave it and probably within a few months time other people will find it when they search in google and improve the article, essentially high schools are notable, and always meet the primary natability criterion, since they are often in the local press. And even if it does not improve what harm is it doing? Here it is for you [36]. Lobojo (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am merely accepting that some people seem to believe that being a high school is a claim to notability and that no claim is being made beyond that. Please don't try and shoe horn arguments into my mouth that I didn't make. It isn't my job to tell an article how notable it is, it is the articles job to tell me how notable it is. If the people who so vigorously defend schools from AFDs acctually spent their time doing the supposedly two seconds of work to verify the notability and put the refs in the article, we would all save ourselves this rigamarole. (And while I respect Jimbo, not every word he utters everywhere should be immediatly written down and accepted as strictest law. He is not the messiah, he is a very groovy boy. Even he gets the right to just, you know, talk. Without the awed hush and booming voice.) Narson (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't diagree with you more. He heals the sickly, feeds the hungry, and gives porn to the horny. He has also often denied being The True Messiah, and only The True Messiah denies His own divinity. Lobojo (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - let's avoid going around these houses again and move on. Experience has shown that all such high schools can be sourced up to meet WP:N and my research shows that this is no exception. TerriersFan (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Pretty much all high school articles brought to AFD are kept, as they are eventually established as being notable. Deletion is definitely not necessary, as if a school is not notable the article on it should be re-directed to the appropriate district article. I have done a search and found some sources which while not substantial are a start: [37], [38]. I am sure more can be found offline that would allow the article to pass WP:N. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per consensus. Must we have this same argument every single day? --SmashvilleBONK! 18:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment also note that in 1990 there was a major news story at the school when a bus with kids on was hijacked. Very notable school, there are 3 current mentions in google news and a further 8 in the archive. Lobojo (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Personally, I think someone who is voting purely based upon writing which has been authored by Jimbo should take a step back and think about what it is they are actually voting, and why they are voting (keep arguement "per Jimbo's ruling" is ridiculous in the sense that we all have autonomy and we all have the capability of making our own educated decision about the future of articles, and this more so applies to high school articles where the notability criteria is most controversial). I do personally agree with the comments made by Narson and I think dismissing his opinion is outright rude. Although the article hasn't asserted notability in its current state, in my own experience of high school articles (I have authored several to a reasonable state which I believe are sufficient to warrant their existance), they all likely do have notability in some form, it just requires someone to put some work in and find the sources; I don't think this article is any exception to the rule, and the rule certainly shouldn't be based and defended by something 1 person, however highly they are regarded (and whom I have much respect for), wrote. I can understand Narson's viewpoint, but unfortunately high school notability is one which I tend to defend in favour for inclusion. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not voting based on what Jimbo said. I was merely pointing out that our most senior contributor takes my position, which is bascily that almost all high schools are notable, and that "www is a high school" is suffiecient to asert notability. You should not mischarachterise it like this, that is rude. You really don't need to call me rude over nothing, I'm not going to start flaming with you though. Lobojo (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise if my comments offended you in any way, but I was commenting from what I was reading above, as the general impression I was getting from a few comments was that they were heavily influenced by that which I mentioned previously, which if that had been the case (which you corrected as not being), then I felt that to have been rude towards someone with their own comment. You don't need to convince me of the notability stance - I agree with it myself, albeit maybe not as strongly and maybe not for all the same reasons; it was difficult for me not to interpret it any other way when you start a vote with "Keep per Jimbo's ruling". Anyhow, the likely outcome will be keep which I would not argue with. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per A7: no claim of notability. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure it does, why would you say that? CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What, you mean the comment added randomly last week? [39] When it emerges from the revert-froth maybe I'll consider it. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since all high schools have enough available sourcing to make them notable. However, I wouldn't mind redirecting this article to its school district until someone decides to make something out of this page. Noroton (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this particularly notable public high school. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hopefully this will be a bump for someone to expand it, but it has no business being deleted. matt91486 (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to School District 57 Prince George. No content beyond what is appropriate in the target. No references, secondary or otherwise. Does not deserve its own article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]
    • As a redirect, it will remain a bump waiting for the discovery of sourced content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, based on improvements (added content and references), and improve and expand. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Improvements to the article now demonstrate notability. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GJ (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per (oh my gosh, I thought we already hashed this out) the overwhelming concensus that it is convenient to assume that all high schools are notable, (if the article is more than a sub-stub, and it can be verified to actually exist) to avoid the drama of a drawn-out AfD in every case. This article is like most other high school articles that we have already kept, each with the nearly-identical arguments. There is nothing new here as far as deletion rationale to make this article stand-out from the de facto standard. JERRY talk contribs 15:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is policy, shouldn't it be recorded at Wikipedia:Notability (schools)? Lawrence Cohen 17:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was in the original draft of the guidelines and was carried forward to the then Option 1 before Option 1 was arbitrarily removed by an editor. A watered down version is still there. If you want to beef it up again feel free :-) TerriersFan (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well just a point of clarification; I did not say it was policy. I said it was a de facto standard. That means that my observation is that all prods on high schools get removed, all speedy's get denied, and all high schools with extremely small number of exceptions get kept after sometimes long, drawn out AfD's. NOw as to your question; "Should this be listed at WP:SCHOOL?" My answer, which is my opinion, is YES. Now, a proposal has been made to end this silliness and make a guideline to stop wasting everyone's time, but this proposal has not become a guideline yet, because of minor disagreements in wording an extended policy to other classes of schools that are in the same proposal. So it stands as a de facto standard, because policy/ guideline or not, this is what actually happens. Since we know it happens, we should avoid the drama and just acknowledge that all high schools can be assumed to be notable if they actually exist, and their articles should be kept if they are more than just a non-informational listing-type sub-stub. This article and school meet that de facto standard with no problems.JERRY talk contribs 05:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It contains more than the sub-stub like listing now because of the AFD and the attention it brought, I suspect. Look at its pre-AFD form and its current, while it is still, IMO, lacking anything to justify its own article rather than an entry in the school district or town article. Perhaps AfDs can be a boon to the articles as well as a bane? Narson (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely correct. I have seen it many times over that articles get improved because they get attention while at AfD. JERRY talk contribs 04:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is nothing notable about this school. Perhaps the consensus is not as overwhelming as assumed? Springnuts (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep still this tired old debate, virtually all high schools are notable imo. RMHED (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Stephen 04:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See a man about a horse[edit]

See a man about a horse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Slang term that I earlier prodded with reason WP:NOT a slang dictionary. Another editor removed the prod and asked that the article be expanded but, frankly, I don't see that happening. I think the article will remain as a simple slang definition and has already been transwikied so no need for it here. Alfadog (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. STORMTRACKER 94 15:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete slang dicdef. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there seem to be some popular culture references, deleted earlier, which I just restored. Based on them, the title should perhaps be changed to "See a man about a dog". DGG (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then that might be another article. "See a man about a horse" is a slang phrase that means, at the risk of bring coarse, "go take a piss". --Alfadog (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC) And the restored links are either WP:TRIV or of questionable relevance to the title of the article. --Alfadog (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, really, they're the same phrase. The usage of the broader meaning has declined as there are fewer dogs and horses actually being seen about, so now it almost exclusively means urination. --Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepAt first I was tempted to suggest delete, but I looked at Wiktionary, where it has been transwikied, and there is far more detail in this article. This is not a mere dictionary definition, it is an expansion, with examples and references. Someone did a lot of research, which apparently, we will easily toss in the trash. (Quite a few editors contributed to this article, which indicates interest, which indicates notability.) If "see a man about a dog" is more common, that should be the main article, and "see a man about a horse" redirected to it. I did not confirm the links in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 20:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I favour keeping this as I use the phrase myself and am interested in learning more of its history. IIRC, I first came across it in literary analysis of The History of Mr Polly which has a humorous passage which evokes the phrase. I have changed the title to dog rather than horse, as discussed above. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep per Warden. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is sourced history of the phrase not fit for Wiktionary. –Pomte 12:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 hoax. BLACKKITE 01:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Christina Milian album[edit]

New Christina Milian album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seemingly crystalline album. No title, speculative fansite/blog "sources", titles only rumoured. Prod removed by another user. tomasz. 14:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried adding some sources, but I know they are not very reliable. I would like to keep the page, as the album will probably be released soon, and we will just have to remake it. Щіκі RoςкЗ(talκ) 14:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crystal-ballery; WP:BAND: unreleased albums may not yet be notable without substantial coverage from reliable sources, but the sources listed as a little flimsey. If and when this gets released, and if it meets the rest of WP:BAND, maybe it can be reconsidered. Yngvarr 14:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. STORMTRACKER 94 15:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no title no independent reliable sources = no article. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : no album title, no independent reliable sources per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If and when the album is released, we can create an article at that time. There's no rush. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. There is rough consensus leaning towards permitting this article a place on Wikipedia. As expressed below, signs of notability are evident, but they need to be set in stone with reliable sources (not an easy task for somebody for whom sources may be in a non-English language). In addition, I recommend a rewrite: the article still reads a little like a résumé, which is contrary to the standards of encyclopedic material we hold on the project. Anthøny 14:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sava Grozdev[edit]

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

This is a resume, not an article, and it isn't at all clear that the person meets WP:BIO. Prod removed without comment by creator. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Author just copy-pasted their resume; speedy would be WP:BIO; beyond that, WP:NOT#WEBSPACE Yngvarr 14:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak keep Based on the current incarnation, I'm going to lean towards keep. I'd prefer to see some inline cites for his works, and more information on the awards he's received. Given that context, it's possible he could satisfy several of WP:PROF. Yngvarr 21:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This man has solid credentials, but no asserted notability, and even if he did have some, much of the information on that page should be savagely deleted. Personal info does not belong in Wikipedia. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 14:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and gut (gut and keep?) Seems a notable academic in his country and perhaps elsewhere. See [40] and [41]. Certainly as notable as many US academics whom I have seen with articles (please don't point me at WP:ATA). Stubify. --Alfadog (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just a resume, belongs on Monster. STORMTRACKER 94 15:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A number of editors want this deleted because of its content. Content can be easily changed (that is what we do here). When I read the CV, it was clear to me that this person might (might) meet notability guidelines here if only the most minimum requirement. But each editor must draw his own line as regards notability and, for me, this fellow is likely on the keep side of the line. Or at least close enough for me to give the article a chance as a stub. --Alfadog (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to above I'd be willing to strike my delete in favor of a keep if the issues with the article can be addressed. Right now, it's just a resume. Yngvarr 15:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I will gut it a bit later today, maybe this evening as I cannot do that now (work calls). Anyone else is also, of course, free to stubify it and I have a couple of decent links in my vote above for a bit of content. Thanks. --Alfadog (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable scholar - [42]. Lobojo (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no real assertion of notability per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless rewritten with a reasonable outside reference(s). Notability of a living scientist should be always decided from an independent assesment of the subject by the scientific community, not guessed up here by number of ghits. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: With 77 hits on the Bulgarian Google [43] it doesn't look as if this fellow is as notable as all of that. Obviously some references for the article's numerous assertions would be helpful. Are there any?  RGTraynor  19:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why do you think a search in the Latin alphabet would give a sensible result for a Bulgarian? There are plenty of potentially reliable sources to read through here before you can claim that this should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Seems to me that the 2003 Sign of Honour-thing is listed twice accidentally. It's got to be the same award. But it reads like an important national honour -- presented by the President and all -- and if so would meet the WP:BIO criteria for an important national honour. However, all of this is unreferenced, so... I don't know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Major award from a national academy is prima facie evidence of notability. Need for references is handled with templates asking for people to produce references; it's not a reason for deletion. --Lquilter (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of resumes, or a Who's Who. The only even apparent claim to notability is the subject's chestful of national medals, which could be rivaled by any moderately successful Stalinist apparatchik. What's he done? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the record of the team he coached is real, it may be entitled to an article, into which this could be merged; but notability is not contagious.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep the notability as a coach of the world-leading math team is substantial. DGG (talk) 22:05, 29 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 Placebo Effect (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Vivaldi[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable musician. Provided sources are self-reflexive or trivial (myspace etc.), or trivial media mentions (a picture caption). Creator declined prod. Quite possibly some WP:COI involved too. tomasz. 12:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep He's a local NJ musician who's been featured in several local papers. WP:BAND criterion #1 does not specify if local newspapers are trivial. Playing at The Stone Pony (and at Starland Ballroom) is a measure of success for NJ musicians (yes, I'm born-and-bred, so consider my participation with WP:COI or WP:POV if you must). Yngvarr 12:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – just not there yet but getting close. As Yngvarr pointed out some local coverage, but nothing to make it notable. Shoessss |  Chat  13:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe in a few years they will be notable, but not now. STORMTRACKER 94 15:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, coverage appears not to be substantial.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Any obscure garage band can get a one paragraph review in the local civic paper; I've done it myself. (Certainly the intent of the criterion is clear when it specifically discounts school or college newspapers, however much the college paper at a land grant university has to have many times the readership of the Aquarian.) Any other elements of WP:BAND seem to be missed by a country mile.  Ravenswing  19:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:45, 30 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 Placebo Effect (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelscoil Bhaile Brigín[edit]

Gaelscoil Bhaile Brigín (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Speedy tag for lack of notability declined by User:Jerry, deferred to AfD. The article does not indicate any notability whatsoever, unless all schools teaching children from the age of 4 to 11 are inherently notable. Another recent AfD for what I assume was a similar article is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaelscoil Chill Dara. Dreaded Walrus t c 12:16, 27 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 & redirect to dithering. Keilanatalk(recall) 00:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riemersma dithering[edit]

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

I have found no serious reference to Riemersma dithering in the litterature. The article was making claims about Riemersma performing better than both ordered dither and classic error diffusion, which is trivially shown to be false (see the Riemersma results compared to more classical methods). The article still makes this claim about performing well on delta-encoded animations, which I only read about in the author’s original article, and which I do not believe to be true either (proving it would be original research, but the burden of proof should not rest on me). I'm close to calling this method a hoax. Sam Hocevar (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge – To ditheringwill fit well into the article. Shoessss |  Chat  13:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Shoessss. STORMTRACKER 94 15:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the algorithm appears somewhere else than in DDJ (original article is [44]) - e.g. in some actually used data format. Deleting it won't make much of harm to WP - the text more-less says "something exists". I see nothing to merge - my bad perhaps. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Shoesss. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! 23:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep, consensus is that enough notability can be established. Davewild (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rural Ramble[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable local event. Ridernyc (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment also a conflict of interest since the name used by the editor that created thae article is "RRCoord" Ridernyc (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep minimally notable local event. [45], [46], [47] ("8th annual award-winning"). Article certainly needs work but in view of the fact that WP is not running out of paper it does seem to achieve annual coverage of the event. JJL (talk) 18:10, 21 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, Hut 8.5 11:52, 27 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 Return to Castle Wolfenstein for now. Sandstein (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Castle Wolfenstein 2[edit]

Return to Castle Wolfenstein 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Uncertain future game, WP:CRYSTAL -- Dougie WII (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect and merge I'd redirect this to Return to Castle Wolfenstein and add mention of a possible sequel; other than that, there's no real information in the nominated article. Yngvarr 11:42, 27 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. slakr\ talk / 19:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eddsworld[edit]

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

A series of flash animations with no indication of meeting web notability criteria. No sources in article and almost all of the first 100 hits are videos or website usernames. Prod by another editor removed by an IP editor. Kateshortforbob 11:30, 27 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 --JForget 00:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Crawlover[edit]

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

Probable hoax. I can't find anything on this guy other than rip offs from this bio, and "Sirhc Ohlavrac" is 'Chris Carvalho' written backwards. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'd tend to agree with the hoax assessment. Even if he is real, he's just not notable. The only real reference I could dig up was at [50], which merely mentions the name, once, about 25% into the article. Every other reference is just wiki mirrors and the like. Yngvarr 11:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – No hits at all other than Wikipedia and mirror sites of Wikipedia Shoessss |  Chat  13:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a hoax. TGreenburgPR (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone, unsourced since mid-2006 amazingly, although wouldn't the name be different in the Cyrillic alphabet?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the likely hoax assessment. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like a hoax, 0 hits on google for news presenter called Chris Crawlover. Sunderland06  12:49, 29 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. Adding Shoesss' references might help avoid another AfD.--Kubigula (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maravilla[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Maravilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There are apparently no google references (news or web) to this gang. Now, normally Google hits aren't alone enough reason to nom something for AfD. But none at all, for a gang that supposedly has been around for decades? So, delete as no evidence of its actual existence in reality. Avruchtalk 22:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, did not realize it had been nominated twice before. Looking at those discussions, it appears that mentions of "Maravilla" in the books cited by Qworty refer to the neighborhood in LA generally, and small gangs that operate in that neighborhood. I would still say that these collection gangs fail to satisfy the notability guidelines, and that this page (despite having been recreated from deletion) is still unreferenced. If it fails AfD, I'd support moving it to Maravilla (Los Angeles) with the gangs as a subset. Avruchtalk 22:24, 21 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, BLACKKITE 11:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the search results there refer to different gangs (Juares, Lopez, Arizona Eastside) that aren't connected - unlike different groups of Bloods or Crips or MS13, these are completely separate gangs that have taken the name of an LA neighborhood where they usually live. Avruchtalk 17:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – To be honest, that is how I read the article as a loose, but not totally disenfranchised, group of gangs. I also found 3 specific news articles from very reliable and verifiable papers that also seem to supstaintate the same as show here:

[52] San Jose News, [53] LA Times, [54] Herald. Shoessss |  Chat  19:27, 27 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 consensus. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Nemenyi[edit]

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

Non notable: no assertion of notability except that he was the possible father of Bobby Fischer; but being the father of a famous person does not make one notable - see WP:BIO. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep – Could make a small claim to notoriety as shown here [55]. In addition, a couple of hits in Google Scholar and Google News Shoessss |  Chat  13:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No problem with sources: several mentions in issues of American Mathematical Monthly, 1942-1952, and obituaries in Science, 29 August 1952, Vol. 116. no. 3009, pp. 215 - 216; and Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 1953, 43, pp. 62-63 (I only have access to the bibliographical references, not to the obituaries themselves, so can someone with access check them and reference them as appropriate?). One odd thing, but perhaps a result of him being a "secret scientist", is that the positions ascribed to him in the WP article don't quite match those in the AMM: e.g. "Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Hanford, Washington" in the former, "Naval Ordnance Laboratory, White Oak, Maryland" in the latter. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Scientific career alone is sufficient to keep. Quale (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that Science considered him notable enough to publish an obituary makes him notable enough for Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 28 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 Hydrino theory. Sandstein (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randell Mills[edit]

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

This article has a fundamental and I believe irremediable problem. Mills is known only for his hydrino theory, which by common consent is complete bollocks. This article addresses that, referring to the tiny number of people who have actually tested the theory, and all agree that it is bollocks. His company is an object of derision, being founded on the theory. So the principal thrust of the article is to describe, in some detail but from very few sources, why this man is considered a kook. If we were to tone that down, we'd have virtually nothing, because the guy gets under 5,000 Google hits, and the only reliable sources are the ones saying he's a kook. I think this is very unfair; the guy is terribly obscure and we seem to be the top source on him. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Hydrino theory. No biography is needed or wanted but this would serve as a sensible redirect to the theory which appears to be at least vaguely notable (perhaps an AfD on that article will be forthcoming but that would be separate to this). I'd support the deletion of this article and recreation as a redirect if the history is not worth keeping. violet/riga (t) 10:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Violet. MilesAgain (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect - while I personally would prefer that this entire business be purged from the collective memory, Mills has managed to get 50 million from his bollocks and enough press attention to be notable. Now, there used to be two separate articles (hydrino theory and Randell Mills). This is obviously too much, but I think one is necessary. The question is if it should be hydrino theory or Randell Mills. I think putting it under Mills' name is better, since Mills has facts associated with him (that is, he developed the bollocks). But if there is consensus, I won't oppose a move. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:BLP I'd say that it should be at hydrino theory. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has Mills done something other than this hydrino theory that is notable? If so then there would be an argument to keep the article, but I don't see anything notable enough to warrant that. violet/riga (t) 22:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is his history of nonsensical claims (e.g. the hydrino business, a non-effective cancer therapy, etc.), and his actions outside of hydrino theory but related to it (the company, the getting money, the plagiarism). The question is does 'Randell Mills' capture his activities better than 'hydrino theory'. Re. BLP - I'm not sure how to handle the BlackLight Power, plagiarism, etc. material in an article titled 'hydrino theory'. It seems these are tangential to the hydrino nonsense, but relevant for Mills' notability. Michaelbusch (talk) 01:45, 29 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 Placebo Effect (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shades of Pale[edit]

Shades of Pale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Keep. When I first learned of this band's existence, I found I wanted to learn more. Thus, I went to the place I usually go when I want to learn about a rare band: wikipedia. Unfortunately, to my dismay, no such article existed at the time. So, I took the initiative and created one, so that future perusers of wikipedia would have access to that which I, at first, did not. The service I provided was one that should last forever. Allixpeeke (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to confirm, as it sure confused me for a moment, despite !voting "keep", Allixpeeke above is indeed the user who initiated this AfD..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, actually fails WP:MUSIC, only some self-released tapes. Punkmorten (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless some evidence of secondary coverage can be added or the cassettes were issued on a recognized label. I couldn't find anything significant on the web.--Michig (talk) 10:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Could find no information. Shoessss |  Chat  13:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Self-released cassette only titles, no professional reviews, only Google hit comes back to this article. Fails all notability requirements. - Hal Raglan (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sorry... just can't seem to get my mind to cross the Notable line... --Pmedema (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Band appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Their casettes appear not to have been released on a notable label.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment...I am so utterly confused by the fact that this person would write the article a year ago and then take it to deletion today, despite not wanting it deleted... --SmashvilleBONK! 22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it doesn't seem to make too much sense, I agree, but I think he/she was simply confused by the Proposal for Deletion tag that had been placed on the article a few days ago. Instead of simply removing the tag, he/she created the AFD. I don't believe that was the actual intent, but since the subject does indeed seem to be lacking in notability and therefore, in my opinion, the article should be deleted, I think we should keep the AFD open.-Hal Raglan (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree...also, with all of the arguments being delete and based in policy, I don't think it can be withrdrawn. --SmashvilleBONK! 22:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC criteria. I don't seem to find any reliable sources either. --SmashvilleBONK! 22:57, 27 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.


  • Because people are confused, allow me to make it clear. The reason I did this was because I did not want it to be deleted, and it would be (I think) auto-deleted in one week had I not. This was the only thing I could do to save my beloved article. Unfortunately, my noble attempt failed. Allixpeeke (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. east.718 at 10:18, December 27, 2007

Cockfest[edit]

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

Questionable notability, unsourced, maybe also somewhat defamatory. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 09:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Completely non-notable per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 09:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Absolute rubbish. WWGB (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'll add that it would be odd to have an article on an album in a situation where there's no article on the artist.--Kubigula (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Testimony (album)[edit]

My Testimony (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No reliable secondary sources, and does not satisfy WP:N or WP:MUSIC. Article is orphaned. Torc2 (talk) 08:03, 27 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. Mitch32contribs 20:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of music from episodes of Chuck[edit]

List of music from episodes of Chuck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory; neither is it an indiscriminate collection of information. This seems to be a dumping ground for lists of songs because the individual episode articles do not exist (anyhow, that would be something to avoid). •97198 talk 07:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, violates WP:NOT#DIR, is a listfarm, gives no context why we should care about songs that have been on a show, is probably original research, has no primary sources for verification, and also has no sources showing that the topic is notable. AnteaterZot (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, include the music inside the individual episode capsules, when they exist Mr mark taylor (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was nomination withdrawn, no current votes to delete. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 06:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Terminal Mall[edit]

Atlantic Terminal Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I nominated this article for deletion because other than one single third-party source, it doesn't seem notable and if other similar mall articles have been deleted in the past, why should this one stay?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ~NeonFire372~ (talk • contribs) Edit: Can you withdraw a AfD? I've actually changed my mind...— Preceding unsigned comment added by ~NeonFire372~ (talk • contribs)

  • strong keep - this area of Brooklyn is undergoing rapid and contentious change/urban redevelopment, this urban "mall" is part of that process. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This nom was improperly formatted and unfinished (no header, no sig, wasn't listed in the log). I fixed all that. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, nominator's reasons aren't terribly convincing, but the lack of sources has me believing that this is indeed a non-notable mall. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Okay, who added references to the article when I wasn't looking?... Seriously though, it does seem to meet WP:RS and WP:V now, and as proven by other users below, more sources do exist. Possible snowball keep? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Is the nominator using a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST argument ? That is the flip side of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and is not a good basis to argue for deletion. I see 2 NYTimes and 1 brooklynpapers.com, that gets it past WP:RS and WP:V in my mind. Being a keystone in ATURA gives it Notability. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 06:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sourced, pictured, topic at least as good as some of are other mall articles. Mbisanz (talk) 08:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while the article could certainly be further developed, what is here is well referenced and meets WP:N / WP:RS.Garrie 11:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Keep – Has several articles in the New York Times alone with one shown here [56]. Additional sources from reliable and verifiable sources as shown here [57] Shoessss |  Chat  14:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, could I reccomend that before people nominate soemthing for AfD they search the Google News archive for the topic under different spellings and so on? Lobojo (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's a busy place, I go there all the time. -- Dougie WII (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the New York Times coverage and other references. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, consensus is that notability has not been established. Davewild (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sriram Das[edit]

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

Per WP:N and WP:RS. Non-notable film producer. Has not gained significant coverage by reliable sources. Only reference is IMDB. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Couldn't have said it better. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Sorry to be in the minority here, but unless I am looking up the wrong "Sriram Das", I could find multiple independent, verifiable and reliable sources as shown here. [58] The article does need a rewrite, but could easily be expanded. Shoessss |  Chat  14:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. No need to apologize. However, most of the links that Google churns out is the same profile shared by all the news-outlets. The profile is just a list of the movies where he got some some sort of minor production credit. That's not considered "significant coverage." This Hollywood Reporter article might help him though, but I still don't think that it makes the coverage significant. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. There are some reliable sources but in order to establish notability, there must be significant coverage, which means according toWP:N that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. Listings of film credits is trivial. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the above that this time the article does not, and from the search can not, establish notability with verifiable references. SorryGuy  Talk  08:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie Compton[edit]

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

Non-notable. Two sources listed in the article - one a mention in a book of lists, the other on a Geocities page.

Re-Nom - last one was, as stated, a train wreck. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple sources in Google books. http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Lizzie+Compton%22 I can stick them into the article and improve it so its notable. Sound good? Asarelah (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She gets a whole chapter in this book "Women of the Civil War" [59]. Nick mallory (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep historical figures are pretty much by default automatically notable. People who are not notable tend to not be remembered after 150 years. Ridernyc (talk) 07:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article about notable individual. Mh29255 (talk) 08:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above. Numerious sources. Shoessss |  Chat  14:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plenty of sources. Hut 8.5 16:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plenty of notability, too Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the better documented women who served as soldiers, though the article could use better sourcing. Edward321 (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, consensus is that the sources are sufficient to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Bernerström[edit]

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

Non-notable bio - no reliable sources. The one source listed mentions Bernerström once on page 10 of 12. Cross-dressing to go to war is not notable by itself.

Re-Nom - last one was, as stated, a train wreck. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The nomination makes no sense. How can you say there are no reliable sources when in your next sentence you admit that she's noted in an article? You assert that women who dressed as men to fight in wars are not notable but quote no wikipedia policy or other evidence to substantiate that claim. The sheer number of books, articles and press material on the phenomena would tend to indicate you are wrong. Nick mallory (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Hold up there, Nick! First, just because there's a reference doesn't mean it's a reliable source. Second, I never said that "women who dressed as men to fight in wars are not notable". I said that doing that isn't notable by itself. I agree totally that the "phenomena" is interesting and notable - but that doesn't mean everyone who does it is notable. Not everyone who climbs Mt. Everest is notable just because they did it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – In that I believe the category is notable, hence the individuals involved are notable. However, I could understand why SatyrTN (talk / contribs). Nominated for Afd. Very little material and what there is, is in Swedish. I see no bad faith nomination here. Shoessss |  Chat  14:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:V requires multiple reliable sources, not just the one cite. I don't know about a "sheer number" of books, articles and press material, but of the just 41 hits I find on the Swedish Google [60], almost all of them are this article and various Wiki mirrors.  RGTraynor  16:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's awfully hard to get any information about female soldiers in history; for some reason history books tended to gloss over such embarrasments. So anything that has survived a couple of centuries is worth keeping. Re sources, the pdf file referenced by the article isn't clear about which information it's taken from there, but it does list a decent bibliography so I think it's reasonable to assume that there's at least one other source for the information about Elisa Bernerström, even if it is in Swedish and in print. --Zeborah (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think this passes any reasonable interpretation of WP:BIO, unless someone turns up verified offline citations. As stated in the nom, simply being a female crossdresser in wartime is not notable. All we have are about three lines of information about her, and what it documents is interesting, but not by itself notable. Mind you, if there were a stronger assertion of notability in the original text I'd give this more consideration.--Dhartung | Talk 06:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For the same reasons as Dhartung. This just doesn't seem notable enough. Women have served in many wars, we don't make a page for each of them. If additional notable information is uncovered, I'd be willing to switch to Neutral. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57[reply]
  • Note Someone has just added a line to the article asserting notability in that "She is one of two confirmed women to have been decorated for bravery in battle in Sweden before the 1900s." I don't know the source of the "two confirmed women" part, but even if this phrasing were deleted, the original source does say she was decorated for bravery in battle ("Med anledning av detta tilldelades hon medaljen för tapperhet i fält.") Certainly many women have fought in wartime but few indeed, particularly in such an era, have been decorated for it, and this seems a reasonable fact on which to base notability: see WP:BIO "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." --Zeborah (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep I believe the added sentence about being one of 2 confirmed women before 1900s to be decorated clearly establishes notability. The only problem is that comment isn't exactly sourced. I personally am willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but I can't ignore that the article is still shy of wikipedia standards. A little more work towards sourcing and I'd definitely support a keep.-Andrew c [talk] 23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just clarified the references in the article and done "a little more work towards sourcing" - just with no conclusive results. <wry smile> I think there'd be more information in the Warnstedt article on medals, in Släkthistoriskt Forum, but this magazine isn't held in any libraries in my country and the author is dead. I can email the author of the Kvinnorna och Kriget paper, in the hope that he understands English (my Swedish is hopeless) and can give more information; otherwise I can see if I know anyone who can get hold of the Warnstedt article for me; otherwise I can request it as an interlibrary loan. But most likely this will take longer than the AfD process typically allows. --Zeborah (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Have just had an email from the author, who's provided two more references. One is a book (not being able to get a copy easily myself I've listed it on the talk page), the other a website which I've added to the article itself. It doesn't mention Elisa by name but calls her "fru Servenius" (Mrs Servenius) and "hustrun" (the wife) and generally corroborates the story. --Zeborah (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless more sources can be provided. The article certainly makes a claim to notability (being one of two Swedish women to be decorated in battle before the 20th century), but it really needs more sources to show it. Can anyone from the Swedish Wikipedia help with this one? Terraxos (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the decoration, particularly for a woman in these circumstances, is in itself notable. As for sources, given the language and lack of currency of the issue it's not surprising that grubbing the Internet hasn't turned up much. But a historical figure who appears in a 12-page gloss (a "tertiary source") has other primary/secondary sources supporting; these need to be adduced, certainly. --Lquilter (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to be notable, but as for sources - Wikipedia:There is no deadline. I agree with Lquilter's point above. --Solumeiras talk 22:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Lquilter. Edward321 (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, the sources seem adequate enough for an article.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Benjiboi 00:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rt. 18:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to be sufficiently unique to be notable and is sourced adequately - Dumelow (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Placebo Effect (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Mollanazar[edit]

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

Biography of deceased folk singer. No sources, no ghits, no info on album sales or notable legacy. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete This closely resembles an obituary with no information about the subject's notability. I think speedy delete is also possible for this article. миражinred 04:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete No informationother than the Wikipedia hit. Speedy under A7. Shoessss |  Chat  14:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: Non-notable.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:13, 30 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 Placebo Effect (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sneezing fetishism[edit]

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

Has anyone ever heard of sneezing fetish? The article does not cite any source to assert its notability or to confirm that such thing exists. This may be a joke that has gone unnoticed for months. миражinred 04:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A google search reveals a smattering of anecdotes and random stories, but absolutely nothing resembling a reliable source. No notability or verifiability. Tanthalas39 (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, unverifiable, as funny as it sounds... •97198 talk 07:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article does provide a reference to a reliable source confirm that such a thing exists as one can readily see by reading it. And the reference checks out. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does indeed. I've found several books and papers that cite it. One, de Silva (Padmal de Silva (March 2007). "Sexual disorder and psychosexual therapy". Psychiatry. 6 (3). Elsevier Ltd: 130–134. doi:10.1016/j.mppsy.2006.12.009.) is mentioned on the talk page. The problem is that the report by King is a report on a single case, a single person. So it's impossible to support an article that discusses "sneezing fetishists", plural, what "most sneezing fetishists" do, and what "they" are, as this article does. No sources actually generalize from this single case. We can reliably say that one person has a fetish for sneezes, just as de Silva does. We cannot reliably say anything about more than one person. The sources don't. Uncle G (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As is well known, the wikipedia is not a list of all things that are true, and a single source does not make something notable. Yes this is "True" read the forums, there are thousands of posts, which I dont think we can credibly call a joke. But that is not the point, a few hundred people with phpBB does not make an encyclopaedic entry. 82.43.171.222 (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is to be kept, then the assertions made in the article should be properly referenced, not just to show that the fetish exists, but that this is a reasonable description of it. I can show you good citable evidence of the palnet Mars, that does not entitle me to write about the men who live there. 82.43.171.222 (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, everything is a fetish to someone. Sole source on page is primary, a report by a shrink on a case study. We would need secondary sources to establish notability for a fetish. AnteaterZot (talk) 09:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the ref is Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy? One mention in a journal hardly makes this notability. As previously mentioned, everything is a fetish to someone (that would be an interesting person to meet, that person to whom everything is a fetish. Actually, I think I will pass on the meet.) Fingernail fetish is probably more common. --Alfadog (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all nonsensical made-up fetishes and paraphilias. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While Google throws up a few apparent sources backing the term, there is probably a fetish for everything. Next we'll be hearing of a sex fetish for people who get turned on by sex...! Whitstable (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge the citation to another article. Probably fails WP:N as a standalone topic per precedents like spitting fetishism.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Read the talk page, people have been talking about the need for citations, and the probability that it should be deleted for at least a year. The only support it ever receives is from the fetishists say Hey guys this is for real, come look at my forum. The article is an opinion piece probably constituting original research, pretty much uncited, lacking in clear notability. Even when external links to forums were provided, the assertions made are were not referenced to clear posts even on the forms. A seriously bad article. 82.43.171.222 (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I have no issues with recreation is reliable sources are provided beyond the minor mentions we have here but for now there isn't enough for an article. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:12, 31 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 Deleted as copyvio. Also, a non-copyvio version of this article was previously deleted at AFD. -- JLaTondre 04:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Baker (Home and Away)[edit]

Peter Baker (Home and Away) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I think this might be a short story, need a consensus. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original works. Mr Senseless (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is creating bio pages copy pasted from every single Back to the Bay page. See http://www.backtothebay.net/cast/bio/baker_peter.shtml. *Speedy Delete. -Carados (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it just got SD'd. -Carados (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge to retrocomputing. Neıl ☎ 15:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage computer[edit]

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

Article is not encyclopedic, and topic doesn't need its own page. Fails OR and RS. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 03:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't really see the exhaustive references you mention, but I concur that it could in part be covered here as well. However, as I point out below ... Vintage computing has a rather large following not exclusive of Apple Inc.--Mac128 (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what I actually said. In any case, this article is not really referenced either. As to your last point, that is in fact exactly what I was saying. THe term applies to all personal computing, but the only specific discussion is of Apple products. This article is, at best, woefully incomplete. --Dhartung | Talk 08:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is incomplete which is why merging it into Retrocomputing makes the most sense as it too is incomplete with only one reference to an IBM. It was my understanding WP was a continual work in progress.--Mac128 (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article only scratches the surface of my own experience with such groups and as such briefly mentions Apple Inc. only. The reality is the vintage computer community is enormous, spanning all makes and models, even predating personal computers. While I have not conducted personal research into the numerous news articles surrounding this niche community it often surfaces as a newsworthy item and therefore seems worthy of note here. My hope in starting the article was to encourage others to flesh it out. While I don't disagree this is an offshoot the History of computing hardware (1960s–present), the potential wealth of data that may accumulate under this sub-topic could easily lead to an excessive and unnecessary primary article length. However I will accept the verdict of the Wiki community.--Mac128 (talk) 04:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also based the article on a similar Apple-related article, Apple rumors community.--Mac128 (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Vintage Computing, as Vintage Computer has a specific connotation that is perhaps best redirected to History of computer hardware and since the vintage computer community involves vintage software as well.--Mac128 (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've given two opinions here - to keep, and to rename. Do you want to merge those? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, thanks.--Mac128 (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was a bit unclear on that. What is your opinion - to keep, or to merge? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 05:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, to merge.--Mac128 (talk) 07:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I could go along with a redirect to that title. --Dhartung | Talk 08:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just didn't do my homework.--Mac128 (talk) 07:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to retrocomputing - seems like the most sensible option.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I do not see much to merge - that fan club of Apple II exists? So what, there are people collecting Amigas, Be-boxes or Vax machines. Technical museums did recreate a really old systems - Babbage's or Zuse's. Should WP became directory of such activities? Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may be mistaken about my intent. The article is designed for ALL vintage computers, I just started it with Apple. I think the existence of [61] websites like this (vintagecomputing.com)] [62] and others] support the notable inclusion of these collectors and enthusiasts in WP.--Mac128 (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(two external links fixed). One link does not work, the other points to someone selling old Apples. IMO vintage computers are notable topic but the current text is not what one would expect from encyclopedia. In my experience this type of article needs to be created (almost) complete, otherwise it will stay untouched for years useful only for spammers. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The merger recommendations made above indicate that yes, they are noteworthy, and they are covered in existing articles. --Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The individual computers are notable, and so is the class of objects and the activities surrounding them. By the reasoning above, we'd delete the article on "computer" DGG (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to retrocomputing per Hisspaceresearch. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! 23:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The johnstones[edit]

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

Non-notable band, since it doesn't provide links but a MySpace link. Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 03:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete but not speedable as I first thought when I read the nomination. Their MTV appearace(s) are enough of a notability assertion to avoid speedy, problem is, they have nothing else going for them. Even the author seems to be insecure about this band's notability, at least whether it is notable enough for Wikipedia, when he wrote, "This band should be kept on Wikipedia, because it has been described in the Ajax, Ontario section of the site." --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 04:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Not notable. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:MUSIC unless their two albums were on a notable label in which case it would have to be a keep, although the article is a total mess.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Rewrite Aside from not appearing to be notable per Wikipedia guidelines, this article is very poorly written. At the very least this article should be stripped down and rewritten from scratch.--Jeff Johnston (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history of this entry I noted that it appears that the article was created by The Johnstones in self-promotion. The biographical section is very amateurish with comments like "He wears glasses and yells into the mic[sic] during the song "L.A.D.I.E.S".", "parties hardy", and "wears a really awesome Globe hat". The article provides no internal or external links or citations. Embarrassingly bad article. --Jeff Johnston (talk) 17:06, 30 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 keep per WP:SNOW. Avruchtalk 23:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durban Strategy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Durban Strategy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"Durban Strategy" refers to an alleged strategy of alleging Israeli apartheid, so this page is a POV fork of Allegations of Israeli apartheid. The only sources are opinion pieces, and almost all uses of the term come from Gerald Steinberg and others of NGO Monitor. It's not even notable as a neologism, as there are no reliable secondary sources for the phrase per WP:NEOLOGISM —Ashley Y 03:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per a lengthy article from an article entitled "The Centrality of NGOs in The Durban Strategy" from the Summer, 2006 issue of the "Yale Israel Journal": http://www.yaleisraeljournal.com/summ2006/steinberg.php, as well as many other articles found when googling for "Durban Strategy". Mh29255 (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That and almost all the other articles come from Steinberg and others of NGO Monitor. —Ashley Y 03:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The term "Durban Strategy" has an encyclopedic definition at http://www.reference.com/search?q=durban%20strategy. While I understand there are strong political views surrounding the article, I am not convinced that the term is a neologism as described in WP:NEO and the number of references on the Internet, IMO, make the article notable per WP:N.Mh29255 (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The "reference.com" article is a word-for-word copy of the Wikipedia article as it was then. It even says "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Cite This Source" on it. —Ashley Y 03:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have a look at references on the internet. They're almost all Steinberg, with the occasional one by Sarah Mandel, also of NGO Monitor. —Ashley Y 03:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment The decision to keep or delete the article is not mine alone; it is based upon consensus. Since I am not convinced that the article should be deleted based upon the arguments for deletion at the present time, my vote remains as "keep". Mh29255 (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's fine, I'm just addressing the issues you raise. —Ashley Y 03:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, subject is notable and not a POV fork. It certainly is not a POV fork of Allegations of Israeli apartheid, which did not exist until several months after this article was created. I notice, however, that this Durban Strategy article doesn't even really exist at present; it has been moved to a different title, and the "strategy" is not even mentioned until the third paragraph. Sort of a self-help deletion, it would seem. 6SJ7 (talk) 05:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page move to World Conference against Racism 2001 was done after I created this AFD. I think it's irregular to do that? —Ashley Y 05:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It sure seemed irregular to me. That is why I moved it back to Durban Strategy but the move was almost immediately reverted. 6SJ7 (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it isn't. Read the Guide. This is a discussion, not an election. Articles aren't frozen in order to hold a vote on them.

        Note that you could have fixed the article yourself. The roadmap was laid out for you in the last AFD discussion. All that it took was hitting the rename button and the edit button, both of which tools every editor with an account has. AFD is not a hammer that editors get to repeatedly hit articles with, as a replacement for actually editing them themselves, nor is it the only tool in the toolbox. Uncle G (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

        • What "road map"? There was a comment by one editor (you), over a year ago, suggesting this. Others simply voted "keep" under the existing name. Even now the move is contested. —Ashley Y 06:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • False. At least one other editor wanted a move. Read the discussion again. And no, no-one has given an actual reason for contesting the move. No consensus formed on the article title at the last discussion, although at least three editors thought that the article should be renamed or refactored somehow. 6SJ7 only moved it back, as xe explained in as many words immediately above, because xe didn't understand that renaming and refactoring articles during AFD is allowed. Uncle G (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, I do disagree with the move, so now it is contested. And I am a "he", by the way. 6SJ7 (talk) 07:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment I also disagree with the move because consensus was not achieved. Mh29255 (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Who had the authority of removing the "Durban Strategy" page? The only votes on this page were both for "keep", but the page is now nothing more than a redirect with zero content. (Nothing to undo.) Administrative assistance please. Mh29255 (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Somebody moved it while the AFD is going on. Not me. —Ashley Y 05:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mh, you may not get administrative assistance in a timely manner if you only ask for it here. You might try WP:ANI. (Of course, you might not get assistance there either, but that's a different subject.) 6SJ7 (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've already got it. I'm showing you how to fix the article, the same way that I showed how to fix the article the last time around. Uncle G (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, Uncle G, what you are doing is move-warring, making a contested move without following proper procedures, and short-circuiting an AfD. 6SJ7 (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • False. The move wasn't contested. The reason that you moved it back wasn't because you actually disagreed with the move. It was, as you stated above, solely because you didn't think that articles could be renamed during AFD. I'm here to tell you that they may be. As I said, read the Guide. AFD isn't the forum for discussing page titles (because it doesn't involve an administrator hitting a delete button to rename an article), and it isn't "short-circuiting an AFD" to rename an article whilst it is being discussed. Indeed, if one can rename or refactor an article during an AFD discussion to address concerns, one is encouraged to do so. This, too, is stated in the Guide. It's there to explain all of these things. Please actually read it. It's linked to by the AFD notice and by every AFD page for a reason. Uncle G (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, procedural issues aside, I do disagree with the move. So now will you move it back so you can make a proper move request? And by the way, your condescending attitude is not really helping anything here. 6SJ7 (talk) 06:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • To Mh: Actually, at the moment it appears that you could just move it back, as I did, without administrative assistance. However, Uncle G moved it again. If you would like to give him another opportunity to move-war, be my guest. 6SJ7 (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I have no interest in getting into a "war" over this article, but I do believe that moving the article while it is under consideration for deletion defeats the purpose of the AfD, especially when the two people who actually voted both voted to "keep" the article. What is important here is the notability & verifiability of the article; not whether the article is offensive. The administrative move of the article (which effectively deleted its contents) was done, IMO, before an adequate consensus could be achieved. Mh29255 (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment moved by Uncle G Dlohcierekim 05:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please. Does it matter what the article's name is? Please don't start an edit war over the name of the article. Assuming it survives the AfD, then you can seek an RfC on what the name is o be. And may I be so bold as to suggest saving this page for the deletion discussion and discussing the article's name on its talk page? Apparently feelings run high here, and it may be best for everyone to step back a bit and work on something else for a while. Hope that helps. Good night. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 06:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with 6SJ7 and Mh29255 above that moving the article to a rather different name while it is under AFD is inappropriate. Nevertheless I am not against redirect to World Conference against Racism 2001 (which I consider to be a new article) as an outcome, though I would prefer delete or redirect to Allegations of Israeli apartheid. —Ashley Y 07:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mooted Since all the content was kept, and a lot of extra work was done, and the new article is an acceptable title, I see no objection to the rename/swallowing. Someone searching for "Durban Strategy" on Wikipedia will find as much on it as existed before, and if someone wants to develop the subject further there is no obstacle to their starting a new Durban Strategy article. Andyvphil (talk) 09:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I don't even know what this discussion is about anymore. The original article titled Durban strategy was indeed notable, as is - clearly - the infamous World Conference on Racism. I propose that this AFD be put on hold as an administrative matter, and then we can actually start a productive discussion. --Leifern (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mooted by expansion to broader topic This should be WP:SNOW closed at this point. If the material is re-split out later to it's own article, this can be re-nominated. -- Kendrick7talk 21:23, 27 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 Redirect. --VS talk 06:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Savalas[edit]

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

Daughter of an actor = very questionable notability at best, and the article shows no trace of said notability. Wizardman 03:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. IMDb only lists a single 2006 acting role for Ariana Savalas, which does not indicate strong notability. Mh29255 (talk) 03:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to her father Telly Savalas and mention her acting aspirations in passing there. JJL (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per above. When she has more credits, and is more notable herself, then she should have her own article. TGreenburgPR (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to her father's article. Only a single acting credit, in an obscure indy film, and no sources. There is zero biographical information available on her, not even a birthdate, and she would be just another pretty wannabe starlet without her surname.  Ravenswing  16:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect who loves ya, baby? Guy (Help!) 17:36, 27 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 & redirect to Son nom est Dalida. Keilanatalk(recall) 00:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bambino (single)[edit]

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

Single that shows no reason to deserve its own article, fails WP:N, WP:RS. Wizardman 02:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. The single may have sufficient notability to be kept. Mh29255 (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It might, but what I'm saying is that as it stands the article does not contain sufficient notability. I'm without prejudice to recreation should it be deemed acceptable in the future. Wizardman 05:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Son nom est Dalida. The single doesn't need a page, but the album might. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Mh29255. Singles generally are notable.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mh29255. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Bambino (Dalida song). Most (all?) singles here are discussed at the article about their song; I don't see a reason for an exception. That article makes clear that this was a long-charting hit and thus quite notable. Rigadoun (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Rigadoun. That definitely seems like the most logical course to follow. matt91486 (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep, consensus appears quite clear. Wizardman 16:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La violetera / Le torrent / Gitane / Fado[edit]

AfDs for this article:
La violetera / Le torrent / Gitane / Fado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Single that shows no reason to deserve its own article, fails WP:N, WP:RS. Wizardman 02:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. The article may contain sufficient notability per the singer Dalida. Mh29255 (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It might, but what I'm saying is that as it stands the article does not contain sufficient notability. I'm without prejudice to recreation should it be deemed acceptable in the future. Wizardman 05:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for the same reasons.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:45, 27 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, Rt. 18:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 15:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madona / Mon coeur va / Flamenco bleu / Guitare flamenco[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Madona / Mon coeur va / Flamenco bleu / Guitare flamenco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Single that shows no reason to deserve its own article, fails WP:N, WP:RS. Wizardman 02:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete concur with nom. that there is no evidence of WP:N and no WP:RS. Unlikely search term so no need for redirect. JJL (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article is in the same shape as the other two with the same notability. If the other two are kept this one may as well be. Wizardman 00:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rt. 18:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability isn't inherited; just because the other song was a hit doesn't mean this one should get an article because it was by the same artist. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! 23:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This apparently was not a hit (or not a big one, anyway, according to the article), but the debut single by an artist that had many huge hits afterwards...the others are more clear-cut because they were substantial hits, but as a debut single, and the first volume of a series that included many notable releases. I'd say some of the criteria for albums apply here, because it seems that these releases were larger sellers than the albums, and may rightfully deserve the "inherited notability" that applies for albums. Rigadoun (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lunchroom scene[edit]

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

Where to begin? This is a stub for an article that should never be, a list of every scene where high school students sit down to eat lunch. The Saved by the Bell segment alone would be enormous if anyone ever cared enough to complete the article. Kww (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete original research essay. Ridernyc (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article appears to be original research in violation of WP:NOR and contains no notability per WP:N and no references per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator's description of the article is incorrect. It's not a class of scene (film) in a television programme or a scene (fiction) in fiction. It's a scene — a situation or a set of circumstances. And no, it's not original research, either. Journalist and anthropologist Moss documents it on page 25 of ISBN 0812218515, saying some of the very same things that this article does. Psychotherapists McCune and Traunstein write about it on page 83 of ISBN 0890878811. Uncle G (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete should've been WP:SNOW Doc Strange (talk) 03:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete it wouldn't surprise me to learn that there are academic WP:RS out there for this common phenomenon but none are in evidence. JJL (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Complete WP:OR -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but WP:OR is not a candidate for speedy deletion... --Badger Drink (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, misspoke. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Very Strong Delete. Not notable, term not used commonly, no references at all, etc. At least a social situation like this one must be documented as an external source. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah VANucks|19-12-4 06:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, leaning towards weak delete Faulty nom. As previously stated, this is not List of lunch room scenes in popular culture, but rather a psychological term. It may, however, fall under the category of neologisms, and while the concept is usually discussed briefly in developmental psychology books (in the context of group dynamics within adolesence), the results for the term itself on Google Scholar and Google Books are paltry to the point where it's probably best considered a non-notable neologism. A single reliable source, though, would be enough for me to flip-flop - someone with access to ProQuest should probably step in. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I get Uncle G's suggestion about how to salvage this along the lines of our woeful coverage at Youth_culture#High_school_subcultures, but I'm not convinced the term is really the best one or that the experience is uniquely notable enough to deserve an article. (For one thing, the presence of this scene in movies is evidence that it's really a more common phenomenon to be the outsider in high school, something few of us realize at the time. There's a link to brain development of adolescents there as well.) As for the critical aspect, it's simply not a widespread enough term or evidently much studied in any serious way. We could have an article about youth subculture in film as that's a whole nother ball of wax, but again this isn't a good start in that direction. We are not a directory of every "TV trope" somebody notices. --Dhartung | Talk 08:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Funny thing is that the "Lunchroom scene" is ubiquitous in most teen movies and is definitely a notable part of our culture. Hell, it is even a part of many prison movies. Hard to believe that no RS has taken note of this. --Alfadog (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this, as being a very poor thing, but if it gets one of Uncle G's rewrites please consider this !vote struck. Guy (Help!) 17:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete because of the lack of sources, and the fact that google search gives a somewhat different meaning to "lunchroom scene" than what is written here. Nom may be right that this was intended as a stub for the pop culture references to be added. There is some discussion in books about the concept of a lunchroom scene as a literary device to bring together diverse characters in a common setting. However, the author here is talking more about a real life, every day event (in high school), almost like a "bad hair day", rather than a metaphor used by Hemingway or Thomas Wolfe. Mandsford (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right, the article is mainly about adolescent angst, not about the common movie plot device I was thinking of. --Alfadog (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research and neologism.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what the hell is going on here Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote to give a big hug to the author of the article. Watchsmart (talk) 00:05, 28 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 into Angus Young#Guitars and parts to Gibson SG as well. NN enough for its own article. 19:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Angus Young Signature SG[edit]

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

Article about a specific guitar! Is it notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --- I don't know, did you try asking... the Interwebs? Here's a start. --- tqbf 03:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, redirect Angus Young#Guitars (or redirect Gibson SG) might be the best solution. This short article does not manage to make it clear that the guitar is a commercially available product - I thought it was about one specific individual instrument. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:55, 18 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, TerriersFan (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Angus Young. It could also be listed as a special edition under Gibson SG, although I wonder if it's really appropriate there to list all the special editions. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:20, 27 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 Placebo Effect (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bugatron[edit]

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

Prod contested with no explanation. Non-notable fictional character. No real-world relevance. Fancruft. No assertion of notability. Evb-wiki (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lets see it fails all the normal point like WP:Plot and WP:RS, but this article has the added bonus of being written totally in-universe and has no context at all, is this a bout a game, a tv show, a comic book, something made up, I have no clue. Ridernyc (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google finds no reference to the place "Dula-nui" this toy/character is said to be from. Not notable or verifiable. - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable soruces to establish the notability of verify any of the extensive in-universe information -- Whpq (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When I nominated this article for speedy-nonsense, there was nothing in it to indicate that this was a fictional character from a well-known series. The admin who declined my speedy was familiar enough with the subject and made the necessary cleanup. Nevertheless, I would say merge the most important stuff with Bionicle and delete the rest. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 04:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : article fails to assert notability and is not verifiable per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See also: WP:CRYSTAL. Skullers (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, not notable --Stephen 04:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neverland - Crônicas do Fim da Inocência (Fanzine)[edit]

Neverland - Crônicas do Fim da Inocência (Fanzine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable self-published comic/manga. No wikilinks to the article except from disambiguation page. Article seems to have been created by the publication's creator. Most of the handful of Google hits are for mirrors of this article. JasonAQuest (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images included in the article should probably be deleted as well. - JasonAQuest (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 16:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we transwiki to foreign other language versions of Wikipedia? Hiding T 16:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm doubtful this would qualify for an article on the Portuguese WP either. - JasonAQuest (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Possibly we need an article on Portuguese comics where a mention could be made of this, but whether it merits a whole article... Hiding T 12:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even mentioning it within an article would require establishing more independent notability than we can for this. - JasonAQuest (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it wouldn't. An overview of fanzines and the like would allow mention of this by name sourced to primary source. Hiding T 11:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Only if it were a significant example or an instance that happens to illustrate the essence of a "fanzine" (and this is neither). Otherwise any number of people would remove it as a vanity link (and this article is that). Just because something exists doesn't mean it warrants mention in an encyclopedia article, which seems to be the standard you're arguing. Creating an article just to house a link to something that will almost certainly be removed from that article as a trivial example is a bad idea. - JasonAQuest (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Certainly not the standard I am arguing for, so please don't imply otherwise. I believe my words speak for themselves, possibly and could aren't the definitive absolutes you appear to be portraying them as. I'd rather attempt to point possible editors to more productive areas. Thanks for your time. Hiding T 20:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thanks for wasting it with your hypotheticals. - JasonAQuest (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, made a fast search, it was pretty unsuccesful in finding anything reliable.--Aldux (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete G3 Vandalism by Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closure.

--Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 04:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict-- third deletion Dlohcierekim 04:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Strider Phoenix[edit]

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

completely non-notable self-created bio per WP:N with no sources per WP:V Mh29255 (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING TO VOTERS!!! The individual "Strider Phoenix" has copied the contents of another wrestler, Oscar Gutierrez, into his page to make it appear notable. Please use the "history" on the Strider Phoenix page to see the original phony content. Mh29255 (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The attempted sabotage was reverted to its original content. Mh29255 (talk) 04:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When someone removes a speedy tag from his own article, you may put it back. Let him use the {{hangon}} template instead. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 04:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete it's a WP:HOAX. He's 15 years old and he's a "16 Time World Champion." --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 01:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per Brew. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. So tagged. This man seems pretty young to have racked up all those titles (by my calculations, he began his pro career at age 2). Plus, what's that about an editor vandalizing his own article? --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 04:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Tone. -- Longhair\talk 22:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian John Converse[edit]

Brian John Converse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This non-notable article was speedily deleted, but the original author immediately brought it back to life. I am listing it here because the author apparently considers the deletion controversial. I find no reason for this person to be notable and no third-party references are cited. SaveThePoint (talk) 00:57, 27 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.   jj137 ♠ 21:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Jackson,Book 5[edit]

Percy Jackson,Book 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article about a forthcoming book was originally prodded for lack of content, the only content being an info box. An IP has removed the prod and added a long piece of text, which is crystal balling and original research imo. Nominated for deletion on those two grounds. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 27 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.   jj137 ♠ 21:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Willcox[edit]

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

Non-notable English prisoner in Thailand. He's one of many foreign people imprisoned in Bangkok, and no claims of his notability is provided in the article. Google, meanwhile, doesn't turn up any press coverage of Wilcox. Watchsmart (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirected to Roller coaster#Height specific --Stephen 23:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megacoaster[edit]

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

Unreferenced neologism possibly derived from a video game; strongly appears to be original research. And it's "strato-" not "strata-", unless the roller coaster is traveling through sedimentary rocks. <eleland/talkedits> 00:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. There are references for these terms; see [63], [64], [65], [66]. Some of them seem to point out that there are "specs" for being a mega-coaster (it really is never one word in the references, it's either hyphenated or it is two words), but if that is the case, the specs in this article are incorrect (one had a height of 188 feet, which is below the range stated in the article). It seems that this specification might exist, but the author needs some serious references in order to keep it. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • I know the term is used occasionally throughout the 'net, but I don't see any source about the term, or any coverage beyond the trivial. Per WP:NEO, finding blogs and articles that use the term or mention it in passing is insufficient to support writing articles about the term. That is original synthesis of primary source material. <eleland/talkedits> 00:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect gigacoaster and stratacoaster with/to Intamin. These terms are widely used on enthusiast forums but you'd struggle to find reputable sources for them. Intamin actually market their 300ft+ model as a gigacoaster, though I doubt it's worthy of its own article as only one exists! Seaserpent85 04:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Seaserpent85 comments. Mh29255 (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above Mr Senseless (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on the merge proposal: I'm fine with it, except that Roller coaster#Height specific already has all the information that we would want to merge. Can we just close the AfD as a redirect to that section? <eleland/talkedits> 20:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has anyone asked the roller coaster project about this? I believe these are designations they use. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably the most active contributor at the WikiProject and I wouldn't say that's the case. A lot of contibutors are enthusiasts, hence they use these terms which are essentially jargon. These terms are already mentioned in the roller coaster article and I see no need for them having their own articles. Seaserpent85 14:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Seaserpent85's arguments. They're not really notable enough to have their own articles, but should be mentioned on the main roller coaster article. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Eleland. These articles do not really stand up on their own (if they do, then only over in Wikitionary), and redirecting to within the Roller coaster article seems like the more sensible place to go. - 52 Pickup (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 04:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arrested Development running jokes[edit]

List of Arrested Development running jokes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is not encyclopedic and stands very little chance of ever being so. It seems to be simply a list of jokes that have been made more than once in "Arrested Development." With articles for every episode, this list seems redundant. SaveThePoint (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Definitely not encyclopedic. See what Wikipedia is not. More subjectively, this list is way too specific to be appropriate. "Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the 'list of shades of colours of apple sauce', be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge." Tanthalas39 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Arrested Development (TV series) Doc Strange (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki if an appropriate home for this content can be found, otherwise delete. This is an incredibly discriminate list, the subject of which is likely to have received no third party attention. Not the sort of content for Wikipedia. --NickPenguin(contribs) 00:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki - I second NickPenguin's remarks. This has to go--Cailil talk 00:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even though ILIKEIT, this is not fit for Wikipedia. No need to transwiki or merge or anything, there's more content at the Balboa Observer-Picayune than this list will ever have. --Closedmouth (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Find a new home for it - The Transhumanist 02:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Closedmouth. Didn't even know about that site... — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Closedmouth. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki - sounds like a case for TV Wiki --Badger Drink (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with fire. A canonical example of fancruft. Great for fans, impossibly POV and trivial for an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic fancruft.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unencyclopedic. Addhoc (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete someone should go create an Arrested Development wiki for this crud. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : article fails to assert notability per WP:N and is likely the work of original research in violation of WP:NOR. Mh29255 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - Wikipedia book and movie entries have sections on recurring themes. Why not Arrested Development? Wikipedia is meant to spread knowledge, and this entry definitely does that to viewers who don't catch the humor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.103.59 (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP IT this article is great for true fans of the show because the show is founded on running jokes. The show constantly has references to jokes made in prior episodes. It is great that there is a way to chronicle and reference these jokes. Keep the article. BeniWins (talk) 27 December 2007 — BeniWins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Response to the last two "keep" votes: Wikipidia is not about everything. Specifically, "Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, it should convey information on all branches of knowledge. However, "all branches of knowledge" is not "everything". Wikipedia is specifically not an indiscriminate collection of information, which means there are standards for what constitutes information that should be in Wikipedia. This is to prevent Wikipedia from becoming unmaintainable. Imagine how large an encyclopedia on everything would be: everything would include every particle in the universe, every idea that has existed or will exist, every person who ever lived, every organization that has existed or exists, every copy of an object that has existed or exists, every website that has existed or exists, etc. It is impossible to document everything, and that's why Wikipedia has established notability guidelines on what should be kept."Tanthalas39 (talk) 15:53, 28 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 point that this list is redundant next to List of Primary Schools in the Republic of Ireland and List of Primary schools in Northern Ireland is very persuasive. Neıl ☎ 14:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of English medium Primary schools in Ireland[edit]

List of English medium Primary schools in Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As the vast majority of schools in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland use English as their language medium (as do the respective countries) the article will contain a list of pretty much every primary school in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland and is as such not notable. Perhaps the original editor can provide a cite that shows a significant number of schools teach use Irish language Alastairward (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This list is unlikely to be useful to anyone at all. SaveThePoint (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Primary schools are unnotable, so we don't need a list of redlinks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - some are and some are not - please do not make generalisations. TerriersFan (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to something broader, like List of medium Primary schools in Ireland. English schools only is too specific, I think; perhaps there could be english/gaelic/other language sections in the new article. Also, change redlinks to regular black text, since we don't need a million nonnotable middleschool articles to be created one day. (see proposed WP:SCHOOL) --NickPenguin(contribs) 00:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Looks like this might be a coatrack since, as of right now, the article predominantly features schools in Northern Ireland, and while they are both geographically part of Ireland, I would imagine the schooling system in Northern Ireland is separate from the Republic of Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NickPenguin (talk • contribs) 00:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable list per WP:N. Primary schools are not generally regarded as being notable. Mh29255 (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but Rename - not sure what the nominator is getting at by saying "Perhaps the original editor can provide a cite that shows a significant number of schools teach use Irish language" Gaelscoileanna (schools teaching all subjects through the Irish language) are quite common in Ireland (158 in the Republic[67] and some in Northern Ireland[68]). I do agree that the title is too broad and many of the schools in the list are not notable - Nick's right it looks like a coatrack. But a blanket statement like "primary schools are unnotable" is wrong. The all girls primary school of Holy Cross is very notable. I recommend the page be split and renamed as List of notable primary schools in Northern Ireland and List of notable primary schools in the Republic of Ireland or something similar, and the list be restricted only to notable schools--Cailil talk 01:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if there are Republic of Ireland schools on there - The two countries on the island should have their own lists. Lists for the whole island would be superfluous. If there are Republic of Ireland schools on there, they could be used as the basis of a list for the Republic. (Northern Ireland already has its own lists). The Transhumanist 02:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, generally redundant to List of Primary schools in Northern Ireland and its ROI counterpart. If we take Cailil's figures above, there will be 160 primary schools not on this list but on the others. Per SaveThePoint, this list is unlikely to be useful to anyone at all. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you want to argue that it isn't important there are plenty of school articles that are three sentences. If dozens of those articles can survive, then why should you delete an article that has a thoroughly developed list?bigvinu
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - lists are useful because they go beyond categories both by organising the information and red links help to guide article creation TerriersFan (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Will this list be anything more than a simply repetition of the existing lists of primary schools in Northern Ireland and primary schools in the Republic of Ireland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastairward (talk • contribs) 17:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as this is better served by a category. I have no objection to keeping the article beyond the inappropriateness of the medium, though; if it is kept I recommend renaming it and blacklinking per NickPenguin.
I would prefer articles for each of the districts or regions, since those would be small enough in scope to allow rich articles. This avoids the issues of notability (most would cede that a district is notable, and sources could easily be found) and allows a fair article without overmuch repetition of basic facts, in addition to keeping facts in context. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the list looks advantageous over categories hence my motion to keep it around Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment COccyx, can you explain its advantage over the existing lists of schools in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastairward (talk • contribs) 16:35, 29 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 --JForget 00:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NTSwincash[edit]

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

This reads like an advertisement; This is a non-notable company; This is an orphan article; Written from non-neutral POV (it even states that the company's employees wrote this!) Timneu22 (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD G11.   jj137 ♠ 02:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypercom[edit]

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

This reads like an advertisement; This is a non-notable company; This is an orphan article; same reasons as NTSwincash Timneu22 (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agree with nom regarding advertising and seems un-notable - Dumelow (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rewrite as needed. Hypercom is a major manufacturer of credit card terminals. One of the top two or three, I think. See http://www.hypercom.com/about/ Certainly a notable firm. --Alfadog (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\talk 22:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a multi-national company and a leader in their (admittedly, niche) field. Could use a bit of a rewrite, but it's not that terrible as it is. Lankiveil (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per Lankiveil and Dumelow. Entity has reasonable case for notability, just needs a re-write. Thewinchester (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a major multinational corp; notability asserted. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 10:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No references to back up notability claims, links only to company's own website (and "accessory partner"). Fails WP:V and is borderline spam. Precious Roy (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with Precious Roy. If this is such a notable company as everyone here is claiming, why is the only link to the article from the list of point of sale companies article? Shouldn't this be a more "linked-to" article if it is so noteworthy? Timneu22 (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to be a major internationally trading company. The article needs sources not deleting.Garrie 11:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8 Bucks Experiment (band)[edit]

8 Bucks Experiment (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Simply one short paragraph and the names of a few albums, EPS and compilations (with one external link). Doesn't seem to meet WP:N.   jj137 ♠ 19:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All albums self-released; fails WP:MUSIC. No references—also fails WP:V. Precious Roy (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete my main point of contention is that this cannot be independently verified. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails to assert notability per WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Mh29255 (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:Music unless claims to notablity are verified by secondary sources before the end of this AfD. A1octopus (talk) 22:39, 30 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_27&oldid=1081099003"