Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 23

< July 22	July 24 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Hassan Kamel Al-Sabbah 2nd nomination

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hassan Kamel Al-Sabbah Nov 2006 where deletion was concluded.

Fails WP:BIO. Around 42 US patents with his name have been identified. Nothing to do with tehhisclaimed invention of solar energy in the 30s. The person is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. His inventions did not inpsire many other inverntors or the engineering community, since only twelve patents cite his work. Essentially 'nobody' knows the person. Elikahn 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was close as no longer current, article was merged to Gyūhi without objection. Sandstein 10:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matsunoyuki

WP:NN Not just a non-notable article (which isn't so harmful by itself IMO) but also unsourced, very unreliable and possibly misleading one.

It looks like Japanese sweets named as 'Matsunoyuki' are not only one, but several different kinds of wagashi are of the same name (just google it if you understand Japanese); so the name doesn't even specify its category, while the current article shows just one and it is wrong.

And, if you can list the Japanese sweets named Matsunoyuki, the article might possibly be something decent, but it looks like no one's interested to maintain the article, at least more than a year, and I think the fact suggests that it simply is not worthy. Darksider 01:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom without prejudice. Shalom ^Hello 02:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no rationale for deletion here. Why is it unreliable? Why is it misleading? I looked it up and it seems entirely factual. I've added some more sources and information. Improve it, don't delete it. Nick mallory 04:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yeah, I appriciate your attitude, since I myself dislike deletion, honestly. And pardon me I wasn't giving you enough information at the first place. But I'm afraid Wikipedia be a source of misinformation in this case. Let me explain. Firstly, I'm Japanese living in Japan, and I think I know much more about wagashi than an average person in some other country. And when we (or, I, at least) are to give some representative examples of wagashi, Matsunoyuki will hardly be one of them. My understanding is that 'Matsunoyuki' is not a name for a specific assortment/type of wagashi, but rather a common name for any of wagashi which features the snow on a pine tree, which is a traditional scenary of Japanese aesthetic view. (And thus the name is not just for wagashi.) For example, there is a wagashi made of sugar-frosted kombu and and this is called 'Matsunoyuki'. You can see it in this site http://www.shop-beniya.com/lineup/lineup04.html And this one too is named 'Matsunoyuki' http://www.kawamitiya.co.jp/osusume01.html And this sort of information I'm writing here may possibly be helpful for someone interested in wagashi, but not a kind of article on an encyclopedia anyway... Darksider 06:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Gyūhi as there's not enough to make more than a stub right now. It would make a good section in the Gyūhi article, though. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done this now. Whoever closes this can just redirect the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Granada Undivided High School

I don't think this article should be deleted, but am going through proper procedures as other editors don't want to do it properly. This article has been speedy-tagged and redirected each in the hour since its creation. Chris 00:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In what way is it undivided and how is it any less so than another school? ~ Infrangible 00:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was curious about that myself-what they mean is what in other Colorado schools are called "Junior/Senior High School". They run six grades, 7-12 instead of the usual 3 or 4. It's just the way they decided the name the thing, to show that it also is Infrangible. ;) Chris 01:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, unless their museum is notable.DGG (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The school is remarkably small (about 120 students in grades 7-12) and has been remarkably successful in statewide athletics over the past decade. The school has established a museum for a WWII-era Japanese Internment camp. The schools sports teams competed with teams from the internment camp, all of which has reliable documentation available. More details are forthcoming regarding the museum and interaction with the camp's residents, but there is enough material to establish notability using reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn 03:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article demonstrates the infrangibility of its topic. Kappa 04:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Satusfactory. — RJH (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good article on an essential topic. Golfcam 17:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I fixed one grammatical mistake. Bearian 20:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Since when is it proper procedure to AfD an article within an hour of it's creation? Dhaluza 00:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reply it was either force it here for the good folks to vote on or see it speedy-deleted unseen. I chose this way. Chris 05:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was weak keep. Daniel Case 03:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Vogt

The person doesn't fullfill the notability guideline. mms 23:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete About 500 Google hits seem to be about him. (There are other men who share the same name.) The relevant notability guideline might be WP:PROF. He has significant publications of his own, but there's not much that others say about him. Note that the article was created by an IP (who has not edited before or since) in 2005. Shalom ^Hello 02:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as he was sued by the DVD Copy Control Association over DeCSS. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Disavian. Needs more cites, say, from those Ghits? Bearian 20:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Bearian. The article needs more context. For someone knowing didley about computer security, computer civil rights, or the DVD Copy control issue, it's a who-freakin'-cares type article. --Evb-wiki 01:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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→Beauty and the Geek. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan "Scooter" Zackheim

Only notable for winning one season of a minor reality show (see: Beauty and the Geek), and has not continued a public life since then. All necessary and relevant information is on the site of the reality show. Crito2161 00:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Re-direct - This person has done notable except appear on a game show. Corpx 02:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 23:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Beauty and the Geek. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because, as much as I do not like Reality shows, winners of such Network TV shows are per se notable. Bearian 20:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Beauty and the Geek. per Disavian. Pharmboy 16:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete per above discussions. Vegaswikian 06:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 21:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panegiratikos

No assertion of notability; only talks about games on the "local" level. —« ANIMUM » 17:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per utter lack of verifiability and notability. It seems to play with other football teams in that town... -- Y not? 04:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 23:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonnotable youth footy team. It's easy to get fooled by a nice-looking infobox. Shalom ^Hello 02:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again, nothing to assert notability. Its also very POV. i ^{(said) (did)} 20:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 21:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry_Edward_Cornelius

minor, self-published, promotional Abuldiz 19:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems little more than an advertisement, and one pronoun slip indicates it could have been written by the subject himself. All but one cited publication is self-published. The main web references to this person are all on his own site. Not of enough significance to merit a Wikipedia entry. Abuldiz 19:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite: Jerry is the go to person, for Thelema.[If you need primary sources for Thelema,he either has a copy, or can point you to a copy, if it is extent.] jonathon 20:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 23:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO, no attribution of notability to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 07:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. NN publisher of a fanzine. Everybody and my older sister has done fanzines. Bearian 20:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Aloni

The person doesn't fullfill the notability guideline mms 23:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonnotable. Similar to mms's other nomination, this man has about 1,000 Google hits, and might not even be the most notable person names "Dan Aloni." Shalom ^Hello 02:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I posted a link to this AfD on the Cooperative Linux talk page which Aloni is supposed to have been involved in. —mako ๛ 03:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as it asserts notability, and he seems notable from the text, but has some unverified cites (in Hebrew and Japanese). Bearian 20:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The links are not the kind that assert notability. They aren't significant coverage by reliable sources independant of the subject. i ^{(said) (did)} 20:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significance in his field or other assertions of notability. Uranometria 21:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, the "references" do not assert notability. He may very well be notable, but I've tried briefly to back up that notability through google searches and rendered more info on Dan Aloni the talent agent than this software engineer. (Mind meal 23:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 inherently crufty list. Daniel Case 02:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References to imps in popular culture

Just a list of loosely associated topics, WP:NOT#DIR Jay32183 23:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the article says, "This is a list of imps as they appear in literature, mythology, and other cultural references, including modern day settings (such as video games)." In other words, it's a list of any mention of imps in any medium from the middle ages to today; that is to say, an indiscriminate collection of trivia loosely related to imps. --Haemo 00:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMPossible to maintain. Nobody worries about imps anymore. Mandsford 00:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also pure trivia! WP:5 Corpx 02:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but add references and clean up style/grammar, especially in terms of italicizing names of games, books, etc. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Making those changes doesn't fix the problem with WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 03:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then perhaps the problem lies with WP:NOT#DIR, because the large number of "in popular culture" articles that have been created and the tremendous number of people who have worked on them suggest that a LOT of Wikipedians see value in these articles. I'm afraid that by deleting articles that those who don't like could just ignore, but that hundreds (thousands?) of editors find worthwhile, but who might be unaware of AfDs will wind up just mass alienating editors. Anyway, just a thought. I'll focus again on some first sentence improvements in articles for now, but just wanted to offer that idea. Have a nice night! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those concerns would be better addressed on the WP:NOT talk page Corpx 03:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely indiscriminate, loosely associated trivia. Crazysuit 03:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a trivia guide. RobJ1981 04:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia. Some might see value in these lists but unless the subject's contribution to popular culture is notable and notability is asserted and verifiable then it's just trivia. --Malcolmxl5 07:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced, loosely connected, indiscriminate trivia. Most of the "pop culture" is apparently from video games and can be summed up in the main article as "Imps often appear in video games." There is no need to violate WP:NOT#INFO with such encyclopedic material. María (críticame) 12:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. —María (críticame) 12:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of these sets of scrappy un-filtered notes can ever become a encyclopedia article. Golfcam 17:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Culturelistcruft. Realkyhick 19:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above; also, not much more than a disambiguation page. Bearian 21:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this list has a good disucussion of the items, and is therefore encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No one said it was discussed poorly, the problem is that it is a list of loosely associated terms. Jay32183 02:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel Case 02:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Behemoth in popular culture

Just a list of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR Jay32183 23:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a laundry list of trivia all loosely related to Behemoth. For instance:

"Behemoth" is a huge AS (Arms Slave) mecha in the hit anime series Full Metal Panic, officially called Plan 1501 it is owned and developed by a terrorist group called A21 and is powered by a Lambda Driver, its huge construction and mechanical integrity is dependent on the power produced by the lambda driver.
The secret super-computer hidden under a secondary school in the BBC children's drama Dark Season was named Behemoth.
In the popular PC game, StarCraft, Behemoth-Class Battlecruisers are Terran command ships.

The biggest problem I have with these "articles" is that they aren't articles about the subject in popular culture. They're just a laundry list of trivial mentions across a variety of different topics. Way back when, I redirect Dune in popular culture to Dune, and wrote a proper little section which is still there -- and it doesn't accumulate trivia. --Haemo 00:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Haemo. Starts with the premise that "The mythological creature Behemoth has been depicted in many aspects of Popular culture," and then goes on (as Haemo points out) to list anything that is named "behemoth". Behemoth is something big, it's pronounced buh-HEE-muth, not BEE-hee-mawth, and that's about all we need to know about its use in pop culture. Mandsford 00:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize into an appropriate 'Abrahamic mythology' category and then delete. These pop culture offshoots all over wikipedia, and it would be best if they were done away with. CaveatLector^Talk 00:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Pure trivia WP:FIVE Corpx 02:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep', because encyclopedic, but add pictures, references, and cleanup grammar/stle. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate collection of loosely associated trivia. Crazysuit 03:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the usual suspects: loosely associated topics, trivia, etc. Shame we can't just WP:IAR delete anything that ends with "...in popular culture". Resolute 03:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a trivia guide. RobJ1981 04:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia, unencyclopedic. -- Docether 13:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of these sets of rough notes can ever become a encyclopedia article. Golfcam 17:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, culturecruft. Can we set up a task force to get rid of these articles? Realkyhick 19:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 listcruft and trivia. Daniel Case 02:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tanuki in popular culture

Just a list of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR Jay32183 23:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that significant changes have been made to the article. Please note the changes and reassess your opinion here. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is still a list of loosely associated topics. Removing less notable ones does not change that. Jay32183 16:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - again, as the article says, "The following is a list of appearances made by tanuki (Japanese raccoon dogs) in various works of popular fiction.". In other words, any appearance of a raccoon dog in any medium, no matter how trivial, with no context or discussions. Indiscriminate list of trivia. --Haemo 00:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into タヌキ. I never knew what a Tanuki was, and it's apparently a big part of Japanese folklore and popular culture, virtually unknown here. Perhaps in another 20 years, those lovable Japanese raccoon dogs with the big testicles will become part of pop culture in the English-speaking world. Mandsford 00:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging doesn't address my concern at all. It will only burden Tanuki with inappropriate content. Jay32183 00:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize those elements that are most notable into a category such as 'Japanese folklore in popular culture' or somesuch, and then delete the article. CaveatLector^Talk 01:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is something a little scary about racoons with oversize scrotums. ~ Infrangible 01:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure trivia - WP:FIVE Corpx 02:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but encourage editors to add references. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of references aren't the problem. Jay32183 03:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another indiscriminate collection of loosely associated trivia. Crazysuit 03:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Resolute 03:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of these sets of rough notes can ever become a encyclopedia article. Golfcam 17:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, culturecruft. Realkyhick 19:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, far too trivial, indiscriminate, useless, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I have restricted the listings to notable appearances, updated the list by removing non-notable listings, and updated the description at the top of the list. The new list is not trivial, and not indiscriminate. The new requirements are much more restrictive. Please reassess your votes based on these new changes. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The addition of "notable" to the intro makes it subjective, and therefore it borders on OR; who is to say what appearance is notable? The list is still indiscriminate and still unsourced. María (críticame) 17:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a directory of loosely associated topics. Otto4711 04:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article content doesn't provide anything other than a bunch of appearances. There is no critical anlysis of its role in popular culture and thus is just a trivia list. -- Whpq 21:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:NOT#DIR. Daniel Case 05:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox parishes in New York

Wikipeida is not a directory of local churches. I don't think this list is encyclopeedic. The current lead paragraph is also a self-ref. DES ^(talk) 23:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nom. DES ^(talk) 23:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list that's basically a farm of external links, per WP:NOT#LINK. Deor 00:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments - Not a directory (of churches) Corpx 02:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, directory/linkfarm. Realkyhick 19:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I would favor and keep a list of Notable Orthodox parishes in the USA or something like that. Bearian 20:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Bush transfer of Power

Another article devoted completely to another colonoscopy that GWB had, this one also causing a two hour holdover on the presidency. The Evil Spartan 23:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is barely a news item, let alone an encyclopedia article. If this was trying to be inserted into George Bush, it would be deleted as non-notable. The Reagan transfer of power article too. --Haemo

I'll leave that up to someone else. At least that was officially the first time it ever happened, that a president gave over his powers to the vice president. The Evil Spartan 00:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Already covered in Acting President of the United States. Mandsford 00:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - No historical notability for this event Corpx 02:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of the two hours spent under anesthesia, the actual medical procedure only took about 30 minutes. The first hour and a half were spent trying to get his head out so they could put the tools in. ~ Infrangible 03:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's cute. You're a real comedy knockout. I'm crampin' up here. Realkyhick 19:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP:NPOV certainly doesn't apply when we're commenting on AFD.--WaltCip 02:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Bush's butt probe is not notable, even if the news networks mention it hourly. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as the sort of thing that becomes notable only if it goes horribly, horribly wrong. (On that count, at least it's a success he can add to his legacy kitbag: survived colonoscopy!) I would also delete First Bush transfer of power but not Reagan transfer of power. --Dhartung | Talk 07:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, for consistency: Merge with Acting President of the United States. Three incidents to date don't necessarily merit a separate list but the editors of that page may decide to implement one per WP:SS. Note that the bulk of each article is a document easily linked to elsewhere. --Dhartung | Talk 07:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, covered elsewhere. Realkyhick 19:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Acting President of the United States. --Philip Stevens 19:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain. There is an article about the Reagan transfer of power, and an article about the previous Bush transfer of power. So, why not an article about this second transfer? If this article merits deletion, then I submit that the Reagan transfer of power and first bush transfer of power articles also merit deletion. Furthermore, the transfer of power articles should not be merged into the Acting President of the United States article, since that article would then become inappropriately large. The Acting President of the US article deals with the whole picture of the history of the position of acting president and the constitutional and institutional issues involved, as well as questions such as term of service, oath, etc. The purpose of the transfer of power articles is quite different. They intend to provide background on each transfer. And it is important to have an article providing such background, given that invocations of the 25th amendment are rare. So, each invocation mertis an article. Last but not least, if the articles on each of the transfers of powers are removed, then I suggest that the text of letters of transferral of power should be first moved to wikisource, so that they are not lost. And the link to those letters in the Acting President of the United States article should be then adapted to reflect the moving of the letters to wikisource. --Antonio Basto 14:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Acting President of the United States and/or George W. Bush Fairsing 16:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an event that is historically notable as it has occured only 3 times in the 40 years it has been possible. - Jord 01:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Acting President of the United States. Whether the text can be shortened will be an editorial decision on the latter article. Pascal.Tesson 21:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Bush transfer of power

An article devoted completely to, I kid you not a colonocopy that GWB had, causing him to transfer power for 2 hours. Hardly worth mentioning in an article on the Bush presidency; not worth having its own article. The Evil Spartan 23:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - see the comment I made for the second one of these. --Haemo 00:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already covered in Acting President of the United States. Mandsford 00:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, Seems somewhat notable, and definitely sourced. (There was a lot more attention paid to this then it deserved, but we are not the press. Ab e g92contribs 00:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and all like it into List of temporary transfers of power by United States Presidents or similar. Grutness...wha? 01:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's only happened three times in history, and it's all covered in the "Acting President of the United States" article. Mandsford 23:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is absolutely no historic notability for this even - WP:NOT#NEWS Corpx 02:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Acting President of the United States. Three incidents to date don't necessarily merit a separate list but the editors of that page may decide to implement one per WP:SS. --Dhartung | Talk 07:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, covered elsewhere, not notable on is own. Realkyhick 19:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge The information itself is notable, but cannot be any more than a stub. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 05:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dhartung. — RJH (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dhartung. --Philip Stevens 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Acting President of the United States and/or George W. Bush. Fairsing 16:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not really notable out of context; merge into Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and/or Acting President of the United States. Jared (t) 13:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a news site. See WP:NOT#NEWS. --Aarktica 15:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Phineas Waldolf Steel

This look like a deletion candidate, let's confirm. No notability. VoltronForce 23:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as obvious nonsense. In fact, I'm going to tag it as such. Clarityfiend 02:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as recreation of deleted material, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Steel. --Bongwarrior 03:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, reposted deletion. Realkyhick 19:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see talk page. 19:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)~
Keep, Doctor Phineas Waldolf Steel is definately worth an article.
Speedy delete per above. Also, it seems like an urban legend; nothing real on MSN [1], or Google [2], almost of which are wikis. Who is this guy? It's raining in England, but snowing here. Bearian 20:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've run the article through the deletion policy. Neither of the reasons for deletion apply. Previous deletion reasons were lack of noteability, whereas this issue has been fixed now. Dr. Steel has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. He also has performed in a television show.Trike123 22:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The cited reason in the prior AfD was the image gallery, so I'll give the article the benefit of the doubt. The text is probably only 60% original to the old version, with significant changes. The notability of the artist is borderline, though I don't see anything that clearly meets WP:MUSIC. The problem is verifiability. There's a blog post on Wired, an interview at Suicide Girls, and two seconds worth of video from a Tonight Show commercial at YouTube. Everything else is blogs, a Tripod site, or self-published. Therefore, it fails verifiability due to dearth of independent, reliable sources with articles, etc. specifically about the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the "Blog" posts Is actually the private site of Jack Rawstone a Journalist for UnderMagazine.Gunhouse 23:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorry guys, I can't see anything notable about this character/article, except for its spoof properties. Seems more like a publicity stunt for a non-notable artist. Uranometria 13:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. <editorial>For what it's worth there is a category structure that isn't well populated; people interested in this topic are welcome to help populate those categories.</editorial> Carlossuarez46 21:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel laureates by country

There are many problems with this article. 1) The list makes it so that each country is allocated the maximum possible number of laureates no matter how many times they are counted, what affliation they use, or what the person's personal viewpoint is on their association with the given country. For example, several laureates are listed under countries purely because they have a parent from that country (ethnic affliation), others because they are citizens (national affliation), and still others because country-borders change and their birthplaces are now under a new government. 2) The article doesn't give any information on the importance or relevance of this type of listing, and so does not work as a stand-alone article. It is merely a grouping of small lists. 3) Much of the statistics given at the bottom and implied through the map are heavily original research, again tying back into the way the laureates are listed by country. Bulldog123 23:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Introductory paragraph deals adequately with the issue of persons being included under more than one country. (Persons can have more than one nationality, and nationality often passes automatically from parent to child. People often self-identify with two nationalities, especially if they immigrate as an adult.) Grouping like this is probably better than having a category for Nobel laureates from each country. –SESmith 23:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is probably the best way to handle it because of its flexibility. The national aspects of the prizes have from the start been considered as important, and are included in almost all lists of winners anywhere.DGG (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nationality has traditionally been important in many types of award, for example sport. Cases of complex nationality are no reason to delete this useful list, though the criteria might need clarifying. If the map and table are original research or are flawed, then deal with it on the talk page of the article. Espresso Addict 02:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above points; nationality is an important part of the awards. Take your issues to the article's talk page. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an article I would expect to find, and the list of reasons given for deletion is a little desperate, to be honest. None of the alleged problems require a response greater than minor cleanup. Golfcam 17:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you see this as a minor cleanup. Please, be my guest and clean it up. You'll see for yourself the unsolvable problems you'll come across. Nationalities merely cannot be prescribed for some of these people. The categories function much better. Bulldog123 20:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good example is Lavoslav Ruzicka. Born in Austria-Hungary, in what was then to become the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, then Yugoslavia and finally Croatia. Which should he go to??? Bigdaddy1981 21:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is to categorize as reported by the Nobel committee. That's not hard and is quite a minor clean-up job. Deleting the whole ball of wax is not the answer. –SESmith 22:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless causality is argued (e.g. natives of country X inherently more likely to win prize Y) then this list is a pointless intersection of two unrelated traits of the individual winners. Since causality isn't argued (thank god), this list must go. Bigdaddy1981 20:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Nobel committee itself records the nationality and posts it on its website. Causality is not the only reason to keep track of nationality. It can also be useful in analyzing how government funding of science and the arts is "working". –SESmith 21:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not then a list of Nobels by sex - that might be useful for seeing how women are underrepresented in higher echelons of, say, physics or another field? There are lots of lists of information that are useful but that violate WP:SYNTH. Bigdaddy1981 22:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly because the Nobel committee doesn't indicate the person's sex when awarding the prize. They do indicate the person's nationality. Thus it is not a violation of WP:SYNTH if we stick to what Nobel reports. If it's gone beyond that, that's another matter than can be dealt with by editing the page and using the talk page. –SESmith 22:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are changing your criteria - first it was usefulness and now based on what the committee does. That's okay - I still disagree. Firstly, is the sex of a recipient not obvious? I assume that is why it is not reported. It is *not* the case that the Nobel committe thinks sex unimportant. To wit, there are two lists available of all Laureates on nobel.org- one by university (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/universities.html)and the other by sex (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/women.html) there is not - so far as I can see, a country list on the website. Try changing the url of either of the above to country.html or countries.html and you get a page not found. Bigdaddy1981 22:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not changing my criteria. I was merely suggesting that there may be legitimate reasons that nationality is tracked, by the Nobel committee or whomever, because you suggested tracking this may be only useful if one is concerned with causality. If you re-read my initial comment to your post you will see that I mentioned that the Nobel committee reports the nationality, which has been my consistent position. As for sex, this is a bit off topic, but it is not always obvious when all you are dealing with is a name from the past, particularly if the person is from a culture that uses given names you are not familiar with. Ask someone who doesn't know about Aung San Suu Kyi if it's a man or a woman, and there will be a signficant percentage who guess wrong. Giosuè Carducci? Pär Lagerkvist? Rabindranath Tagore? I'd be guessing. I have not searched for a particular list of nationalities on the website either, but when a prize is awarded the person's nationality and primary place of work or residence is listed. See, e.g., here: Indian national, works in UK. I believe this information is even printed on their official certificate. -SESmith 23:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point with the names. I suppose the photo is meant to suffice, but given the obvious importance of gender to the organisation (which I infer from the list I cite above) I'm surprised that sex isn't also given. I'm not sure whether the fact that the committee reports nationality is a compelling argument - for instance they also report birthdate (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2006/index.html) but I doubt anyone would think an article about prizewinners by year of birth is a good idea. Bigdaddy1981 00:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are valid reasons nationality is a good way to sort this. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 21:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hit Squad

Fails WP:NOTE, WP:BIO, WP:RS and violates WP:V and WP:NOT. Only info I can find on the group is on their blog MrBlondNYC 22:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per lack of notability - None found through google news either Corpx 02:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources, but honestly, even if it had sources, who cares? Winning a few poker tournaments doesn't buy notability. Shalom ^Hello 02:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ditto Shalom. Pharmboy 16:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with no prejudice towards translating the Italian Wikipedia article and adding it here. —Kurykh 22:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Festival of the Humor of Bordighera

Unsourced since November. The festival is really the Bordighera Festival of Comedy and Humor Films, and only ran from 1955 to 1964. Only a couple of IMDB listings under that name via Google. That puts notability in serious doubt. DarkAudit 22:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: according to the Italian Wikipedia article it:Salone Internazionale dell'Umorismo di Bordighera it ran from 1947 to 1999. The shorter-lived film festival was a only one part of it. —Ian Spackman 22:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If an award can make one notable certainly an award can be notable. The internationalness of the award/festival seems to lend some notability as well. ~ Infrangible 03:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: deserves a little article. --Attilios 10:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It only gave out two awards? Over thirty years ago? And one source is iMDB, which is not-notability asserting, and the other one is in Italian, but it looks like a website for one of the award winners. Not notability asserting. i ^{(said) (did)} 20:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Request Translation of Italian article. As it stands, the current article content does not establish notability. The Italian article has more content, but it is also without references. The suggestion here is to start with a clean slate - drop the current English Wikipedia version, request translation of the Italian version, then re-judge the article on the merits of the expanded content. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article should not be kept if it has no sources. I scanned through the Italian article, and it's mildly interesting but has no sources either. I would accept that an award might get some prestige from having notable recipients, provided the recipients mention the award. I checked the IMDB entry for I soliti ignoti, one of the films honored, and even that entry doesn't list the award the film got from this festival. EdJohnston 02:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know what you mean about sourcelessness: it is an absolute pain to edit articles which don’t have them. But would it be a good idea to delete all Wikipedia articles which didn’t yet have them? The thing clearly existed for half a century and a simple google search reveals that recipients of the awards are distinctly keen to mention the fact. And let us not get bogged down in imdb because it was not primarily to do with film. Seems to me to be a highly undeveloped stub about something perfectly encyclopedic. Why not let it remain as a stub? —Ian Spackman 11:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is persuasive. I would agree if the article had only recently been created and/or only recently tagged requesting supporting references. However, looking at the history of the article, tags requesting expansion and references have been in place since October 2006. I am generally opposed to deleting topics (as opposed to specific content) that are encylcopedic and without sources; however, the lengthy period without enhancement suggests that an alternative path is needed ... which I've suggested above in my opinion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that’s also persuasive—and I could get out my dictionary and translate the article. But it would remain unsourced and pretty much as liable to deletion as the current one. That doesn’t encourage me to get out my dictionary, particularly because the genres of animated and printed cartoons, which seem to be the main focus of the festival, are things I enjoy but don’t know anything about. I would prefer reducing it to a stub—I hope we can all agree that it existed!—and waiting for someone who is keen and knowledgable about these things to come along. They will, sooner or later, and stubs are good: they are pre-charged with a lot of the grunt-work in doing wiki-linking and categorising that makes Wikipedia a bit formidable to the newcomer. —Ian Spackman 12:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kacey (porn star)

This article survived an AfD once before, but there is no assertion of notability (that I can see immediately) in the article. Article consists of four sentences. - Philippe | Talk 21:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: The article had more content when it was first nominated (and when my vote was weak keep). --Yamla 21:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: never provided any reliable sources, any evidence of verifiability via multiple independent sources, nor even much of a claim of notability per WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Valrith 22:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. One credit does not meet WP:PORNBIO --Evb-wiki 22:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. This article never seem to cite the sources when that page had more content and what has been cited shows no notability at all. Sawblade05 22:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article fails WP:PORNBIO per all above. Giggy _U^CP 22:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 23:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tabercil 23:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Cant find much because of the generic name to establish notability Corpx 02:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as she doesn't appear to be notable. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not at all notable. Abberley2 02:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Before being cut down, the article had quite a bit of unsourced, but sourcable content. 71.113.146.73 05:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N requires these sources Corpx 05:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gellert Grindelwald

The Potter cruft never seems to stop. This is, yet again, a character with some importance to one book of the series and a series of asides in other books, but still lacking multiple, non-trivial works from other independent sources. This character has no importance or notability outside of the Harry Potter universe, and negligible notability within it. This is why the Internet has ample space for fan sites. Natalie 21:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!!! or at least merge. He is a significant character, even though his role is minor. He plays a huge part into the insight into Albus Dubledore's life and also the path of the desired Elder Wand. It deffinately needs to be kept.81.104.147.204 22:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he has become a majorly important character in HP:DH! And since this book is likely to become the biggest best seller like ever, the audience who will look for such an article will most likely be large. And therefore it should have a place in wikipedia. Plus also the blatant WW2 links!
Keep due to huge relevance in book seven.— 68.249.2.136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep because it has relevance to the seventh book. 71.246.103.78 05:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC) — 71.246.103.78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters, insufficient real-world impact. --Eyrian 21:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't the fact that he's a major part of a world-impacting series prove that the character has some kind of impact? I mean, what real-world impact does Beauxbatons have? Yet there's an article on that, and rightfully so. →evin290 20:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. It is a little too soon to judge on notability of characters in a book released just 3 days ago. I would suggest a moratorium of at least a week or two on AfDs for Harry Potter related articles, 22:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree - we write articles after people and things become notable, not before. Otherwise, why do we delete all those articles written by high school rappers and 12 year olds that still think they are going to be famous ballerinas? Natalie 22:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ~~Minor Harry Potter characters~~ Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter. Maybe a bit less minor than some others, but still minor. Quackdave 22:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC) (altered as I hadn't realised the second more appropriate article existed at the time of first comment Quackdave 18:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Merge per my comments in Rufus and Gabriella afd's below.--JForget 23:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Too big to merge. Ab e g92contribs 00:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters, per WP:FICT. That list has major problems, but this is probably the best solution for now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to the location it was originally at. The character is reasonably important enough to cover on that page. I don't feel there will be enough further information to change that, unless somebody publishes a Albus Dumbledore series for his war years. FrozenPurpleCube 00:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the harry potter wiki. Yet another character with no coverage from independent (real world) sources Corpx 02:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As stated above, this article is too big to merge. Additionally, this character has importance to the Harry Potter series and rightfully deserves its own article. While it is easy to merge the articles for smaller or less important characters into a single article, this character features heavily into the plot of the finial novel and should be given the same treatment as other secondary characters who have their own articles. Remember that Wikipedia is not paper -Inventm 02:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's too big because it's been bloated with plot summary and speculation. While "Wikipedia is not paper" is a claim Jimbo made in passing on the mailing list years ago, while "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot" has been in one of Wikipedia's core policies for ages. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, WP:PAPER is clearly there on WP:NOT and has been for a while. It's not just a single comment by Jimbo. FrozenPurpleCube 02:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that WP:PAPER is not "official" but it is still a very, very valid point. While I do believe that the article is in need of work, I can see a time when the bloatedness you speak of will be corrected and replaced by references to reviews, analysis, and other media sources mostly related to the connection between this Grindewald character and Hitler. As the book has been available (officially) for less than 72 hours, I believe that it will be expanded and refined in the coming days as more "credible" sources for its contents develop. I thus stick with my suggestion to Keep or, otherwise, merged into a page with higher significance than Minor Harry Potter characters. -Inventm 02:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not paper, but neither is it an indiscriminate collection of information Corpx 03:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to that I only refer you to the rule that "has always been" -Inventm 03:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IAR requires some sort of argument why the rules are bad. "I want my Harry Potter fansite here" isn't very convincing as a reason. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---I didn't hear anyone cite that as a reason. JNF Tveit 03:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone give another reason for an in-universe plot summary dump mixed liberally with speculation? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I have no connection to this article: I have never edited it, I run no Harry Potter fansite, nor have I ever even contributed to one. This character is important enough, however to warrant its own article. Though I do not personally like the show or character Lizzie McGuire, and care even less about what the actress who plays her has to say about how hard she "developed" the role, I believe that Lizzie McGuire deserves an article as there is enough information to justify one. Following such, there is enough information to keep the article on Grinelwald even barring so- called "media" accounts or lack thereof (and I personally do not consider the sources from which the Lizzie McGuire information was attained from to truly be considered the media). Even if it is decided that there is not enough of this "credible" information to keep the article, it would be ludicrous to group this character amongst other "minor" characters as he, while not a primary character, is at least a secondary one and not to be placed with other characters who have little to no impact on the plot of the series. -Inventm 03:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there isn't any information here at all. You've conflated "important to the Harry Potter" with "a subject of commentary in the real world". The reason notability standards, which by any measure this completely fails, exist is so that we can write an article on whatever subject without resorting to original research. This is the plot of Deathly Hallows cut down, folded, spindled, and mutilated into a chunk of detailed plot summary, with no insight, interpretation, or commentary other than original research.

It is not part of Wikipedia's mission to tell the story of every fictional character, or every "main" fictional character. If you want the story of Gellert Grindelwald, your local bookstore would be happy to sell you a copy of Deathly Hallows. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia should be able to tell me the story of Gellert Grindelwald without me going to my local bookstore. -Inventm 04:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Rowling would appreciate that. :P

There are a number of reasons we don't do that, chief among them copyright reasons and the fact that raw source material isn't part of Wikipedia's mission. (That's what WikiSource is for.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I understand that and am not by any means saying that we post this article so as to allow people to get around copyright laws, nor am I saying that we should post exact text here; this article should not act as a "shortcut" or a "cheat," but rather as source of knowledge and information for fans and non-fans alike (For the record, I greatly respect Mrs. Rowling). Often, as a frequent user of Wikipedia, I research fictional characters, places, or events from a wide variety of sources so as to gain a greater understanding of the works they originate from as a whole or merely for a better idea of that singular part. In today's modern pop culture soaked climate, too, it is often necessary to research individual references to other works from movies, TV, and books in order to understand the artist's intent and reason for placing such a reference. Wikipedia is a great tool for this purpose in this modern age. While some may strive for Wikipedia to be the Encyclopedia Britannica for the 21st Century, I feel it is important to gain perspective and realize that there are needs that a traditional encyclopedia does not meet, and Wikipedia was created to fill these gaps. Deleting pages related to fictional characters because they are not "notable" in the "real world" would go completely against this purpose. -Inventm 04:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want to do something that we just don't do here. That are projects that do this, for both fiction in general and Harry Potter in particular. But this isn't that project. Cross-referencing every single fictional character, describing their role in each story, isn't part of Wikipedia's mission. Some links on this subject that you may find useful are WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WAF, WP:FICT, and WP:NOR. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand and respect your opinion, but it is not one I share and, again, I must evoke WP:IAR.

No matter what you think of keeping the article, you must admit that he is at least not a "minor" character if you have indeed read the novel. -Inventm 04:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the novel and I think his character is relatively minor and whilst he does deserve an explanation, it should be as a section in another article. There is no need for an article - and particularly not one of this length. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 04:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To invoke WP:IAR, you have to make some sort of argument that this encyclopedia better serves its stated goals by ignoring a rule. It's not leave to just ignore Wikipedia's goal of being a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit which bases its content on references to reliable sources.

You keep saying and saying that this is a major character, and never explain how or why or who cares. I've read Deathly Hallows. That's how I noticed that Grindelwald doesn't have a single line of dialogue. He's not a major character by any measure. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never once said he was a "major" character, but merely more important to the plot of the final novel and, indeed, series as a whole, than characters such as "Gaspard Shingleton," "Tom," "Bridget Wenlock," "Amy Benson," or any of the other characters in Minor Harry Potter characters. (By the way, he does have a few lines of dialogue in Chapter 23) -Inventm 04:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We ought to remember that, as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, it enables articles for topics which wouldn't normally get print space in a regular encyclopedia. Much is known about Gellert Grindelwald, and he plays a fairly important role in the Harry Potter series. It is ridiculous to assert that all article topics must exist in "non-trivial" "independent sources" (if this were followed, there would be no page for such "trivial" characters as Lizzie McGuire ). JNF Tveit 02:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it ridiculous to assert that all article topics must exist in non trivial independent sources. I'm pretty sure that one of our most important policies says exactly that. Natalie 03:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give me a non trivial independent source for Lizzie McGuire? If so, one can be given certainly for Gellert Grindelwald. If not, maybe we should be trying to delete that page as well. I feel editors should be impartial, and not follow some sort of vendetta in adding or deleting articles. To paraphrase you, this partial editing cruft needs to stop. JNF Tveit 03:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then nominate it for deletion. Natalie 03:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's no shortage of Hilary Duff commenting on her conception of the character, her role in developing Lizzie and how she acted playing as Lizzie, plus a decent amount of info on creating the character and a smattering of critical reception. (30 seconds of looking found this.) That's not a very good article, but it could become one. On the other hand, there is no commentary outside of fansites on this character, and nothing other than predictions that someday such commentary might materialize. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - How absurd. Given time, Gellert Grindelwald could easily become as non-trivial as you see Lizzie McGuire by these standards. JNF Tveit 03:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - And after that happens, we'll have an article on him. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't really get how you can argue that Grindewald isn't notable. He's in the HARRY POTTER books for Christ's sake. Maybe you haven't noticed but HP is pretty notable. shijeru 21:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the Harry Potter books are notable does not mean that every minor character in them is notable enough to warrent their own article. Neitherday 22:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters, per WP:FICT. The profusion of fiction related subpages is damaging to the credibility of the encyclopedia among non fans. Espresso Addict 03:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this character should not be considered a "minor" character. Also, it should be noted that Wikipedia is primarily a source of knowledge on a vast number of subjects, a larger variety than would ever be possible with a traditional encyclopedia. This is one of the most important differences between wikipedia and all other sources of knowledge. -Inventm 03:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's a character in the backstory of one of the main characters. He has no dialogue and is described only in backstory dumps. That's a minor character. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Try thinking about it's notability outside the Harry Potter universe... because that's the criteria we should be basing this on. Is this a notable Harry Potter character in the mainstream media? I would think not. PageantUpdatertalk • contribs 03:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As this book was published the day before yesterday, of course you would think not. You can't base your argument on something so indefinable as "the mainstream media" and what it has to say about an issue. That's hardly impartial. You can't single out an article to the exclusion of all others that don't follow this policy to its most subtle point. JNF Tveit 03:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, who other than the book or fansites has ever seen fit to comment on this character? This article isn't being "singled out"; there's a good dozen original-research- and plot-summary-heavy HP articles on AFD now, and such articles get kicked to AFD or merged all the time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Formerly, Grindelwald had been in the Minor Dark Wizards from Harry Potter article, but the article has grown a lot since the book was first released a few days ago. The article needs time to grow and improve due to the very recent release of the book. If the article still looks bad with no chance for improvement in six months or so, it can be re-nominated then. AgentPeppermint 03:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to minor characters list. I personally don't think Wikipedia should have articles to every Potter character. Especially ones that have a big role in only one book. RobJ1981 05:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't wiki set up to allow articles to evolve? Instead, it seems a select few have been deciding that articles need to be killed off as fast as possible instead of given a chance to evolve into good articles. They're going to come back, and it might be better to have the old portions there to build off, instead of razing each article to the ground. Just my two cents.Ravenmasterq 06:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evolve into what? Right now, all of the content here is speculative or interpretive, with an exceedingly detailed plot summary. Nobody has yet suggested any reliable sources we can use to write this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deathly Hallows does a good job of establishing Grindelwald's notability. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deathly Hallows can't establish Grindelwald's notability. We need reliable secondary sources for that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, character plays imporant role in final book. --musicpvm 08:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage from [3] can also be added. And yes, I consider it a secondary source, because wikipedia is not paper. Recurring dreams 08:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#PAPER doesn't enter into it. That page doesn't have any content. It's just the plot summary summarized somewhere else. How on are we going to write an article based on that? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Give the article a little time to mature. Raya 85 08:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the character is extremely important; a lot shorter character-related articles exist that are less relevant than Grindelwald is. →evin290 09:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If we're going to delete this, then we must embark on a mass deletion campaign including Albus Dumbledore, Minerva McGonagall, Ron Weasley, and Lord Voldemort. Auror 20:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that real people have written things about those characters, whether to analyze the character, critique it, or compare it to actual real people. No one has written anything about Gellert Grindelwald except JK Rowling and a bunch of fanboys. Natalie 14:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody notable has written about him yet. The book was released only a few days ago. There hasn't been any time for notable writings about him to get published. AgentPeppermint 14:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last night I went to a show and the opening band was very talented. They might become notable someday. I guess I should make an article about them now, before they're notable, because in a little while it might happen. Natalie 15:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And at what point does something become legitimate or notable enough to have its own article? I'm interested in knowing the rule of thumb you use to determine an article's notability and see how well this can be applied to cull non-conforming articles. Certainly Grindelwald has been a not insignificant point of discussion for years now, with contemplation of his defeat date (1945) to Hitler. The 7th book answered these long-standing debates of thousands of people. Besides, your user page bluntly states, "My current pet peeve is Harry Potter cruft." Why do I get the feeling that you're not simply looking our for the best interests of Wikipedia? Auror 15:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It becomes notable enough at the precise moment that an independent, reliable source discusses the article subject. This has not happened. The subject is not notable. Appealing to "yet" is speculation, and thus inappropriate. --Eyrian 15:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Independent, reliable" sources have discussed the article subject. In many reviews of the novel, journalists have connected Gindelwald to Hitler and Nazi Germany. I added one such source to the article just now. JNF Tveit 15:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auror, read our notability policy, which explains exactly when the subject of an article becomes acceptable for a Wikipedia article. That would be the rule of thumb I'm using to cull articles. If Grindelwald has been a subject of real world discussion or analysis somewhere, please show it. And yes, I added that to my userpage after I found five badly written, completely in-universe articles about minor background characters no one cares about in about twenty minutes. I'm actually quite a fan of the series, but the level of detail expected by some of the more hyper fans is ludicrous. Natalie 15:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are trivial mentions. Per WP:NOTE, an article must be about the subject in question mention the subject significantly. Corpx 15:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge How major a character is in a story is not measured by how much of an historical figure the other characters view them as, but simply by how significant a part they are in the story itself. By that measure, Xenophilius Lovegood running the Quibbler and explaining the Hallows is far more important than Grindelwald, yet Xenophilius comes nowhere close to having his own article. Neitherday 14:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Xenophilius does have an entire chapter named after him. Why don't you start his article? AgentPeppermint 14:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be inappropriate. Articles require real-world impact. Neither of those characters have it. The major ones do. --Eyrian 14:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This may be a weird sort of argument but I searched for this article, confident that it would exist. On the assumption that I'm not unique, maybe the character DOES have enough real world impact to make an article viable. That said, the article needs a lot of improvement... Helen-Eva 15:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A major character in the seventh book. --Jannex 16:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have to agree Helen and Jannex. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major character in the world's best selling book. Golfcam 17:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Large character in book 7, much better on own page rather than "minor dark wizards" Skhatri2005 18:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This character is critical to the Harry Potter series, as revealed in the 7th book. The notability of the series themselves undoubtedly transfers to Grindelwald, and many users have already searched for this character, assuming a page devoted to him already exists. 82.123.145.29 19:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wonder what book others are reading, since Grindelwald only appears in backstory exposition. That's hardly "major" in any sense of the word. Claiming he's "major" isn't enough. Where are the non-trivial, independent sources? The popularity of the Harry Potter books is irrelevant and the argument is applicable to every aspect of the plot. We're not going to make articles on Trace (Harry Potter) or Malfoy Manor. ' 19:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. You sure? --Eyrian 19:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of Grindelwald's character is not only as a minor character in backstory exposition, as anyone who understands the course of the series can tell you. His character affected Dumbledore greatly, and affected Harry Potter through Dumbledore, as well as having affected the eponymous Deathly Hallows, which are important enough to have the final book of the series named after them. JNF Tveit 20:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I say, again: if he is such an amazingly important character, where are the sources? No, your opinion and personal interpretation don't count. ' 20:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grindelwald may be in the backstory, but his actions are central to everything and for that he has notability. For that I say Keep. -- Kerowren ^{(talk • contribs • count}⁾ 20:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I say, again: you expect too much if you expect there to be many "sources" in the 3 days since official publication. The lack of sources in such a new subject does not render it unnotable. If there were to be a terrorist attack at 3PM and yet it wasn't mentioned in "non-trivial sources" until 3:05PM, it does not mean that the attack was not notable from 3PM-3:04PM.JNF Tveit 20:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite wrong, and in a way that perfectly illustrates why we have notability rules. It exists to ensure that articles are verifiable. Until such a hypothetical attack was reported on in reliable sources, it wouldn't be verifiable, and wouldn't be put on Wikipedia. Until this subject has reliable sources, it must not be here (on its own), either. --Eyrian 20:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You argument was already used and rebutted. "Last night I went to a show and the opening band was very talented. They might become notable someday. I guess I should make an article about them now, before they're notable, because in a little while it might happen." We don't keep articles on the basis that somebody might, someday, make note of poor Gellert Grindelwald. Your terrorist attack example isn't terribly relevant, since we wouldn't know about it until reliable sources reported on it. Can you imagine the leeway people would have if they were able to claim "Oh, don't worry, it's happening. You have my word on this!"? ' 20:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is why some Wikipedia policy must be changed per WP:IAR, in order that such misinterpretation of original intent may not occur any further. Just because there don't exist as many secondary sources as Lizzie McGuire may have does not render something unverifiable. Just because the argument was rebutted doesn't make it illogical (the rebuttal was nonnotable). Are we forgetting that primary sources can exist? "We wouldn't know about it"- Just because it isn't yet notable in the mainstream media does not make it nonnotable on Wikipedia, which is not mainstream media. We're not keeping this article on the basis that he might one day be notable, this is only one reason to keep it. -JNF Tveit 20:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles are irrelevant. Primarily sources are irrelevant for notability. Reliable secondary sources are a necessary and sufficient criterion. Without these, the article subject is not notable. This is the only thing that matters. Not "perhaps in the future". Right now. Unless these sources exist at this present moment, and you can cite them, the subject is nonnotable and doesn't belong. --Eyrian 20:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just conducted searches on the major search engines, Google, Yahoo, and Live. In the three days since the book came out, I have found well over a hundred sources. -- Kerowren ^{(talk • contribs • count}⁾ 20:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's also keep in mind that a number of articles link to this one. -- Kerowren ^{(talk • contribs • count}⁾ 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the article is linked to in a template used in a hundred articles. ' 20:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well over a hundred? That contain substantial coverage about Gellert Grindelwald? By all means, add them to the article. --Eyrian 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is a tribute to Grindelwald's notability that he has so many ardent defenders here, although this is not a popularity contest. The people who say Keep are the only ones with any logical arguments on this page. -JNF Tveit 20:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the worst argument I've seen. People argue somewhat about a fictional character, therefore he's notable? You have yet to actually find real sources. Hilarious how the people you agree with are the only "logical" ones. No bias there, certainly. ' 20:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say he was notable because the people argue for him. I meant that Wikipedia should be more of a democracy than you tyrants are trying to make it. If many people feel there should be an article, then why not, barring anything patently absurd. And I have found real sources, I added one to the article last night. Your argument here is fallacious. Your attack is without merit, since my support for them does not taint or affect in any way the reason behind what they say. -JNF Tveit 20:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're here to debate the inclusion of this article into Wikipedia, not what you think Wikipedia should be. All the flowery language (or accusations of tyranny) in the world is not going to change that. Nor is it going to change that you've yet to find a independent source about Grindelwald. ' 20:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia is explicitly NOT a democracy. --Eyrian 20:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not by vote, but your own linked page states "Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion" -JNF Tveit 20:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Discussion, where the outcome is determined by editors' arguments with reference to the principles of the encyclopedia, standing policy, and guidelines (in that order). The keep votes do not address any policy or core tenet, other than perhaps WP:IAR, which absolutely cannot be interpreted by itself. --Eyrian 20:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the character were insignificant in reality, then you would have almost universal votes for merger or deletion. However, this has obviously not been the case. Doing a simple search brings up hundreds of hits with in-depth discussion of Grindelwald. Yet, these are all discounted as they are too fan-oriented. I'm at a loss as to what source is and isn't acceptable. We've already shown that Grindelwald is widely known and generally agreed as an important character in this book, and individuals have been discussing him for years longer. If we're going to have articles on characters of equal importance (i.e. Cornelius Fudge and Lucius Malfoy) then Grindelwald deserves his fair shot as a singular article as well. Don't pull the "othercrapexists" card. If this tenet was legit, then 80% of the information on LotR and other fictional stories ought to be yanked. Auror 20:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, really. A bunch of nerds screaming very loudly does not mean what they like is notable. Neither does "othercrapexists" become invalid because you state so. We're talking about this article. Referring to the crappiness of other articles indicates nothing but your lack of actual arguments to keep this article. ' 21:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And name-calling does nothing to uphold your legitimacy, either. Surely, I need not redirect you to Wikipedia:No personal attacks? Your personal standards of notability clearly do not conform to Wikipedia's notability standards and more of a self-defined and fluctuating idea in your case. What will happen if an article for Gellert Grindelwald is preserved? Certainly no cornerstone of Wikipedia will be destroyed, unless you consider a crisp and clean presentation of a highly-important character is an erosion of the encyclopedic content. Auror 21:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to actually address my point? Do you have an argument beyond "But they have bad articles, too!"? "It does no harm" isn't particularly convincing, either. ' 21:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to see any crux to your argument. Can you help me and point it out? Auror 21:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: "Do you have an argument beyond "But they have bad articles, too!"?" Either you comprehend it or you don't. ' 21:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insignificance has no meaning here. Notability is all that matters. Please see above. If you're at a loss for sources, please see WP:RS and WP:NOTE. --Eyrian 20:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the equal-enforcement of these principles to all other articles concerning fictional individuals? Auror 21:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're more than free to nominate them yourself. We're humans. We can't do everything at once. ' 21:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Do we not take into any account precedent? And, no one has yet shown satisfactorily that this article is non-notable. We've cited many articles already, in the brief time since publication, that have made Grindelwald notable. -JNF Tveit 21:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name these sources. Reliable sources that substantially cover Grindelwald. Show them to me, please. And no, precedent is given considerably less weight on WP than in places such as the legal system. Inconsistency is a problem, but it is not fixed by letting other articles stay broken. Fix the others.--Eyrian 21:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is inconsistency fixed with editors going after only Harry Potter articles. I think it hardly the freshness of the subject alone which results in a disproportionate number of literary AfD articles being in the HP universe. -JNF Tveit 21:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that there are a disproportionate number of Harry Potter AfDs at the moment is because article creation spiked for the obvious reason, particularly by users that don't understand Wiki policies. The contributions should most certainly be kept, but merged into a central place. --Eyrian 21:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think most would agree Lucius Malfoy deserves his own article, however I'm not sure Cornelius Fudge should have his own (that article also seems to be almost entirely plot-dump). Regardless, both Cornelius Fudge and Lucius Malfoy both feature more heavily in the books and are more discussed outside of them than Grindelwald. Grindelwald's notoriety within the fictional wizarding world does not make him a major character in the books, where he is for the most part simply backstory. Neither does being notable within the fictional wizarding world make him notable in the real world (which is what is required for inclusion in Wikipedia). Neitherday 21:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Cornelius Fudge nor Lucius Malfoy contain any links or sources whatsoever that corroborate their notability or importance. I'm waiting for their deletion tag so that notability standard enforcement will be treated in a universal and even manner. Auror 21:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. It's a wiki world. --Eyrian 21:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it best that the notability policy's most strident defender lead by example. Auror 21:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent point. I've added an article from the National Review discussing Fudge's similarities to Gordon Brown. --Eyrian 21:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But of course, this is from a publication dealing in politics, the natural sycophant populace of Cornelius Fudge. A fan publication source does not abide by notability standards. Auror 21:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the nature of the fansite. If it's a self-published site without editorial control? Well, yes, I'm afraid. --Eyrian 21:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I'm glad you understand the Fudge link does not follow standards. Auror 21:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your Fudge link is to a small editorial column that hardly serves as non-trivial sourcing. A 12 year old on Myspace could do better than that editorial. This is the heart of the matter- how non-trivial is "non-trivial"?

It's an editorial column from a national publication. It is edited, and in wide circulation. I understand that you are frustrated, but please don't troll. --Eyrian 21:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article refers to the "just released film of Book Seven." This is the kind of factually erroneous articles we should be sourcing? -JNF Tveit 22:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This tangent has gotten quite a bit off topic. The quality of the references for the Fudge article doesn't really have much to do with this deletion review for Grindelwald. It would be better to hash it out on the Fudge talk page if you really have a problem with it. Neitherday 22:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If this article is deleted for lacking nobility then I'm afraid a significant number of articles would have to go with it. Grindelwald is a significant character in the Harry Potter series, and nowhere else, true, but so is other mind-numbingly irrelevant things you and I wouldn't care about, like the Pokedex. - Throw 21:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Almost all harry potter fans would now want to look up this character to know more background information. although i agree that there is room for improvement. — 70.164.66.49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep or Merge into an article other than Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter. He's not "minor". However, it seems that such an article will never exist because almost all of the known Dark wizards seem to be Death Eaters.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capefeather (talk • contribs) 23:16, 24 July 2007.

Strong MergeI am a huge Harry Potter fan, but this has gone way too far! I agree that he did play a big part in the book, but this topic doesn't deserve its own article. If anyone hasn't noticed, Wikipedia is turning into the Harry Potter Wiki. I also think that if people want to know more about Gellert, you would still be able to find a lot of info about it if we merged it with Minor characters in Harry Potter. I think this whole situation of Harry Potter articles has gone out of hand and it should be stopped. 71.244.100.139 03:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC) — 71.244.100.139 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep With 72 million copies sold in one weekend worldwide, any small character in the book is more important than the thousands on anime character articles that seem to be everywhere in Wikipedia. Deletionists never seem to ask for their deletion. Just the sheer weight of numbers makes it worth keeping this article --- Safemariner 06:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of copies sold don't give automatic notability to every trivial aspect of the book. In order to be notable, the character must receive "significant coverage" from independent real world sources (WP:N) Corpx 06:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep major character. Needs to be kept, and not even merged. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep major character. Needs to be kept, and not even merged. He has relevance to the 7th book and is mentioned in brief in the first. -- [[User:hangman005|

Minor characters can (and often do) have relevance to the plots of the books that contain them. Neitherday 14:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters Irishjp 12:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters - although of reasonable importance to the plotline of Book 7, he has little significance outside it. Two to three paragraphs is enough to cover this character's important points. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 13:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Once the speculative part of it is removed, there is little to say about him. Marc Shepherd 17:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I search for an article on Wikipedia, it is because I want to know more about that subject. If I had just search for Grindelwald and not found an article, Wikipedia would have failed its purpose. If I'm searching for it, its notable enough to have an article. shijeru 21:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Gellert Grindelwald is merged into Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter or Minor Harry Potter characters, "Gellert Grindelwald" would most likely be set up as a redirect to his section of the relevant article and you would still be able to find information on Gellert Grindelwald looking him up. Neitherday 22:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This character's relevance to the Harry Potter universe is undeniable; Grindelwald was a minor character only until Book 7 was released. His direct impact on more significant characters is critical to the narrative, unlike most of the characters in the page Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter. vedantm 04:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, not Harry Potterpedia. Article subjects have to have significance to the real world, not just the books. Natalie 16:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter, along with the vast majority of articles created post-Deathly Hallows. Stringing out what are single sentences about characters or just a fleeting mention in the books to an article is mad - see Victoire Weasley or Teddy Lupin for more of the same liberally treacle coated original research. As long as redirects are maintained, merging is the best optionRHB - Talk 12:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate "list of character..." page. All of these keep arguments are boil down to WP:ILIKEITs. I like HP as well, but the simple fact is that this character does not meet the fictional character guidelines. Same rationale for the Scrimgeour merge. Tarc 12:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think he's "minor" though. Perhaps we could change Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter to "Dark wizards in Harry Potter", have a section on Voldemort (with link to his article) and another on Grindelwald, and put the others under "Minor Dark wizards" or "Death Eaters"?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capefeather (talk • contribs) 14:14, 26 July 2007.

lol I never thought I'd forget to sign stuff. --Capefeather 16:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter The character is certainly important to the plot of the seventh book, but a section in Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter would cover the character sufficiently. 70.111.219.27 18:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This was my comment. I didn't realize I wasn't logged in. Clamster 18:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Allow the article to expand people. The book's only been out for less than a week! Give it some damn time to turn into something worthy of Wiki. Stop trying to kill new articles just because the article isn't up to FA standard yet! Ixistant 19:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Time for what, Harry Potter 8: the Gellert Grindelwald Saga to be released? Nothing short of that is going to make a character with very little face time into a noteworthy character. Tarc 01:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I got to the page because I wanted more info on the character. This is the best place to find things like that and I'm glad it was here
No consensus, give it a few months. The world will not end tomorrow. --Random832 01:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't keep articles on the basis that they may be notable later on. You are aware that the essay you link to suggests against immediately making articles on new stuff, yes? ' 02:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to a Harry Potter wiki. He's really a nonnotable character; any information can be handled elsewhere. Atropos 01:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - too bad if you think Potter is overhyped (I do); this is a major character in the Potter universe. --Leifern 12:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge to Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter. For a character that is only mentioned, but never appears in any of the seven books, he does not deserve his own article. --Farix (Talk) 14:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Grindelwald is as important to the Harry Potter world as Boba Fett is to the Star Wars Universe, and I don't see any of the holier-than-thou Wikipedians complaining about the notability of Boba Fett or the "Star Wars cult." Bcarlson33 15:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Boba Fett actually appears in 4 of the 6 Star Wars movies, having a significant role in at least one of them, and in several comic books and novels. Fett has also received critical commentary from a number of third-party sources and numerous cultural references. Gellert Grindelwald is merely mentioned in the books. So your comparison is apple and oranges. --Farix (Talk) 15:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The most "significant" things Boba Fett does in the Star Wars series: he watches his father get decapitated, he tries to shoot Chewbacca but is stopped by Vader; he gets eaten. Grindelwald, on the other hand, is a pretty big link in the (admittedly large) chain of events and people that figure in the struggle between Harry and Voldemort, which is the crux of the entire seven-book series. As for "critical commentary" - Boba Fett has been around for 26 years. Grindelwald has, for all intents and purposes, been around for six days. You were saying about apples and oranges? Best, Bcarlson33 16:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who brought up the Boba Fett comparison, Farix was explaining why Boba Fett is not a good comparison to Grindelwald. and why that s. By your own words now, the comparison is apples and orange. Neitherday 16:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I have phrased my argument inelegantly. My point is not that Grindelwald is the Boba Fett of the Harry Potter universe; it's that Grindelwald is at least as important to the Potter universe as Boba Fett is in the Star Wars universe. The comparisons I made above support that argument. Best, Bcarlson33 16:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't matter at all. What matters is real-world relevance. --Eyrian 16:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing "must be more notable than Boba Fett in the real world" as a Wikipedia policy. But apparently I still have not explained my argument well. Grindelwald is an important character in a notable series of children's books. Boba Fett is a minor character in the six Star Wars films - yes, people have written Fett comic books and nerds dress up as him from time to time, but purely in terms of the films, he is not an important character. He is barely relevant to the plot in any of the movies. An argument could easily be made that the character of Boba Fett - as he appears in the Star Wars films - is not notable enough to warrant his own article. Yet not only does Boba Fett have his own article, but so do Ki-Adi-Mundi, Aayla_Secura, Jor_Carton - heck, even the guy who owned the diner in Attack of the Clones has his own article! None of these characters is as notable as the character we're debating here. None of these characters is more than a minor part of the plot of their series. Grindelwald is not Aayla Secura, Dexter Jettster, or even Boba Fett. He's an important part of the plot in the Potter series, which is, after all, important in the real world. He merits an article for that reason alone. And given that he's existed in the real world for six days, it is premature to judge his importance here. Best, Bcarlson33 17:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is it doesn't matter whether Grindelwald is more or less "notable" than Boba Fett in their respective fictional universes, what matters is that Grindelwald isn't notable in real life. He's not notable in real life whether or not you compare him to Boba Fett, Grindelwald's lack of real life notability stands on its own. Neitherday 17:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter. The character may have a great relevance with respect to the Harry Potter universe, but its real world relevance is only minor and related to other HP characters (specifically: Albus Dumbledore) - Raistlinsama 16:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the main antagonists in the 7th book. —« ANIMUM » 18:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not even remotely true. Tarc 19:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter. The number of sockpuppets in this discussion is astounding. Burntsauce 22:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur radio in popular culture

Laundry list of trivial references, basically amounting to a list of times ham radio has been mentioned, or someone has operated radio without a professional license. --Eyrian 21:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. Lists espeicially Trivia list are Definitely not Encyclopedic Sawblade05 22:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per listcruft trivia. I would have said speedy, but this does not a criteria for that.--JForget 23:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the article says, "Amateur radio has been used many times as a plot device in films, television, and novels. Here is an ever-lengthening list of amateur radio references.". In other words, it's every mention of amateur radio, no matter how trivial, in those media. Indiscriminate collection of trivia. --Haemo 00:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Ham radio isn't as popular as it once was, but it had its place in history, and still has a devoted following. I imagine that most Wikipedians were born well after the amateur radio era (which ended in the mid-70s when CB radios came along), but it had a complicated set of rules and regulations, hardware, and culture. There aren't that many movies with amateur radio (Frequency is the only one I've seen in recent times), and the few that are illustrate how it worked. One of the kids in Frequency asked, "Was it like the internet?" In '67, it came close. Mandsford 00:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure Trivia - WP:FIVE Corpx 02:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Starsky and Hutch episode circa 1974 or 1975" featured a ham radio. Does it get any more vague than that? More triva/loosely associated topics. Crazysuit 03:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of these sets of rough notes can ever become a encyclopedia article. Golfcam 17:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, JForget, Corpx and Crazysuit. Could be a redirect and section of Ham radio; contra Golfcam. Bearian 21:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please don't redirect or merge this into amateur radio, as I believe it was split from there at some point (I could be wrong). I really don't care what happens to it, but it's one of those things that encourages drive-by unsourced additions, and I'd rather not see that happen to the amateur radio article. I don't mind the pop-culture lists but I guess the current trend now is to nominate them for deletion (that's a different rant), but deleting them and then shoving them into good articles is no way to handle it. If it's deleted they'll probably be shoved into the Amateur_radio#Popular_culture section. I know that's not an argument for keeping or deleting, I am just pointing some things out. daveh4h 04:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's the problem with "in popular culture" sections of articles. You can't write a brief generalization using a couple of well known examples and leave it at that. It becomes a magnet for drive-by's, who may be well meaning, but feel that their little bit of trivia belongs there. And soon, you end up wiith a huge cruft heap. So please don't redirect or merge this into amateur radio. -- LuckyLouie 20:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Content can probably be trimmed down but will likely still be too much to merge into the main article. Better to tag for cleanup and maybe help with the cleanup than just marking for deletion. StuffOfInterest 12:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please transwiki these "in popular culture" articles somewhere? It seems a shame that these useful, interesting, trivia articles to which many people contributed and which many people like are being wiped from existence simply because they might have been put in the wrong place. It also seems that the best way to prevent articles from being trivia magnets is to provide such a trivia magnet elsewhere. Oh yeah, and if we don't have anywhere to transwiki it, then keep per WP:IAR. DHowell 03:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Minor Harry Potter characters, already done by Ohconfucius. Daniel Case 13:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Delacour

more Potter cruft. Again, this character only appears briefly in the series and has no major role in the plot. The article falls far short of demonstrating the character's notability (that's met by being the subject of multiple, non-trivial coverage in the real world, in case anyone's forgotten). Natalie 21:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to MuggleNet. We don't need it. Shalom ^Hello 23:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per my comment on Rufus AFd.--JForget 23:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fleur Delacour. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Transwiki - Another fictional character with no "significant coverage from (real world) independent sources" Corpx 02:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters or Fleur Delacour, per my comment to Gellert Grindelwald. Espresso Addict 03:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters -Inventm 04:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and sectioned redirect to Minor Harry Potter characters. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters. Seems simple, eh?Ravenmasterq 06:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters, and Mention in Fleur Delacour. -JNF Tveit 20:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters. -Lemonflash ^talk 23:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the merger is quite reasonable, but the argument given for initiating this debate is suspect. The issue is whether Harry Potter is noteable and whether a particular character ought to be explained, not whether that character is noteable in isolation. It would be possible to put every character into one huge, long, unreadable article, but that would just be plain silly. The best reason I see for this article to remain is one of organisation, that having an article (however small) makes it easier for that character to be looked up by anyone interested, or to be linked where relevant, or to be cataloged. Perhaps not entirely relevant here, but I see an argument to merge Fleur Delacour with Bill Weasley, as a couple. Gabriel might then sit slightly uneasily in their company. Sandpiper 09:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem of looking someone up and finding their article is solved by redirecting to a specific section; ex, #REDIRECT [[Minor Harry Potter characters#Gabrielle Delacour]]. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close I think there is enough of a consensus to merge this to minor HP characters. I have executed it. Ohconfucius 03:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as G4 and salt. Natalie 03:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paulie Gatto

Renominating for AFD. The article has been repeatedly remade despite the fact that it was deleted per the previous AFD. It has been speedy deleted at least twice. I am renominating it for standard AFD in order to ask that it be protected from being created again. The Filmaker 21:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt per nom. Absolutely not notable, doesn't need this constant re-creation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, this should redirect to something like List of minor characters in The Godfather, but as such a list doesn't seem to exist, Delete. Carom 00:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; I wouldn't be opposed to salting, either. If List of minor characters in The Godfather ever gets created, they can go through DRV to get it unsalted and get a sectioned redirect. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to discuss a possible merge to Minor Harry Potter characters. This discussion is overwhelmingly now one between merge and keep, which is a purely editorial decision that should properly be on the talk page. Daniel Case 04:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rufus Scrimgeour

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

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

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

More Harry Potter cruft that needs to go. Rufus Scrimgeour isn't even a very important character in the books, and certainly falls short of the multiple sources of real-world coverage standard that Wikipedia holds so highly. The present article is simply a rehashing of the plot of books 6 and 7, along with two sentences about who might play him in one of the movies. Given that the character has died, it is also incredibly unlikely that his character would be expanded upon in the also unlikely event another book is written. Natalie 21:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters, insufficient real-world impact. --Eyrian 21:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I guess that every character (that are shown) should at least be in a sub-section of an article. Merge per Eyrian.--JForget 23:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Of the current slew of Potter character AfDs, this is the one that has the strongest claim to a page of his own. Scrimgeour is as important a character as his predecessor Cornelius Fudge, and plays a fairly important role in the last two books. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep* He is a notable enough fictional character to have his own, the article is strong enough to stand alone. —EdWood
Delete failing WP:NOTE - This fictional character must have "significant coverage from independent sources" - Trivial mentions dont count for notability. A transwiki to the harry potter wiki wouldn't be bad either. Corpx 02:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is notable? Then what secondary sources took note of him? Merge this back to Minor Harry Potter characters. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if secondary sources found, otherwise merge with the Ministry of Magic. Capitalistroadster 02:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters, per my comment on Gellert Grindelwald. Espresso Addict 03:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters. If we keep giving everyone who got a passing comment in the Harry Potter books their own page, we might as well turn this into a Harry Potter wiki. Scrimgeour was such a minor character in the end, and can almost certainly be relegated to Minor Harry Potter characters and no one will miss him! Vaguely 05:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite and Keep as it seems that a good reworking of this article would give it more reliability.Ravenmasterq 06:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Minor Ministry officials in Harry Potter as opposed to Minor Harry Potter characters. Although he isn't really a minor ministry official... AbA 07:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He plays a major role in series and is extremely notable. →evin290 09:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters with a link from Ministry of Magic. I think Pius Thicknesse merits the same. Milkfish 14:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not a minor character. The article includes secondary and independent source discussion and thus qualifies for notability. Auror 15:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? Corpx 15:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References no. 3 & 4. Auror 15:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are about Bill Nighy, and thus establish the notability of Bill Nighy. They do not establish the notability of this character. Natalie 15:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source 3 doesnt mention this character at all and source 4 is a trivial mention (WP:NOTE) Corpx 15:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source 3 corroborates his interest to play a character, and 4 puts a name to it. I would say such an insignificant character would not be mentioned in a news article such as no. 4, but apparently the director and Yahoo News disagree on Scrimgeour's triviality. Auror 15:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-read the notability guidelines. Scrimgeour needs to have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial works. Bill Nighy's notability has already been established, but this article isn't about him. Natalie 15:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is too important and there is too much to say about him to merge this into the list of minor characters. Golfcam 17:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a minor character, and there is too much to say about him anyway. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 16:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Minor Harry Potter characters Will ^(talk) 18:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a minor character and has an important enough role. If his predecessor can have his own page than he can too. Article does need improved however...--Austinsimcox 19:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into a new article based on Minor Ministry officials in Harry Potter which has been changed so as to incorporate ALL Ministry officials -Inventm 19:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What exactly is the point of merging into one giant article, other than to make it harder to use Wikipedia? Abberley2 02:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rewrite because all the other Ministers have articles and he plays a pivotal role in the last two books. The article should stay as SCRIMGEOUR IS NOT A MINOR CHARACTER Repmax 11:17 am, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep, notable character in the series. --musicpvm 19:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is notable -Lemonflash ^talk 00:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he plays a significant role in the final two books. McJeff 02:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate "list of character..." page. All of these keep arguments are boil down to WP:ILIKEITs. I like HP as well, but the simple fact is that this character does not meet the fictional character guidelines. Tarc 12:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Tarc. The number of HP related article that do not meet fiction notability guidelines is getting out of control, and this is yet another of them. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 12:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can't go for this one as a merger, since it is really too big to be inserted into the minor characters article, which would be its only other home. Sandpiper 20:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I came to Wikipedia to find information specifically on Rufus Scrimgeour, if it was added to the minor character list and only given a short blurb you will be making Wikipedia less useful.Mitchandre 04:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters. Nothing more then a minor character that couldn't pass the notability guidelines (WP:N or WP:FICT) on his own. --Farix (Talk) 14:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. This is a potentially confusing character, and it is helpful to have a summary about the 'facts' about this character, for reference purposes. Seems as if that is what an encyclopedia should be, a place to check facts.

A clarification, nobody here is proposing that the material be deleted. Only that, since Wikipedia articles for individual subjects generally require real-world impact, that this article be merged to a list of Harry Potter characters. The page will redirect to that list, so that when one types "Rufus Scrimgeour" into the box, it'll take you there. The content will still be available, it'll only be where it's available. --Eyrian 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters. While the original poster's statement about "the multiple sources of real-world coverage standard that Wikipedia holds so highly" is as believable as me believing in a Ministry of Magic, she has a point about this character. Write a paragraph, add a link to the Harry Potter Lexicon, what else do you need. Isn't there an article for Ministry of Magic officials anyway? Bcarlson33 16:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cher-Mere

Initial article creation was by WP:COI-influenced Cher-Mere (talk · contribs), and not much has improved. It's a nonnotable WP:CORP from Trinidad and Tobago with little international exposure. Shalom ^Hello 20:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources Corpx 02:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete; while it seems to be on the verge of notability, they're not there yet. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main reference can be found in Google's cache:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:F2-HPZT_6wIJ:www.nalis.gov.tt/Biography%255Cbio_CherylBowles_bio-chemist.html+Cher-Mere+Cheryl+Bowles&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=ca

Keep, The company is also has expanded into Barbados, and has plans to place at least two stores in two metropolitan areas in North America within the year. - These events are simply not well documented on the internet because of Cher-Mere's origin. I would argue that though there may be few sources on the company, it does not warrant deletion as it still provides a relevant (perhaps not yet for North American readers) resource for Caribbean readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.34.115.78 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 24 July 2007
Keep, I would argue that this article is of use to many people, particularly Canadian users as the company has recently expanded into Canada. As a Canadian, this article is relevant to me as it has given me more information on products I'm interested in purchasing from the company. Likewise, were it to be removed from Wikipedia, information concerning the company and its products would be less readily available. Thus I am opposed to its deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me&mia (talk • contribs) — Me&mia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional athletes who have been convicted of crimes

Delete per WP:NOT collection of indiscriminate information. Else rename to List of professional athletes who have been convicted of a felony. Gilliam 20:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:NOT#INFO includes five specific things that, by consensus, we exclude (plot summaries, FAQs, etc.). This list is none of those five, which means opinions rather than policy are being given to delete the article. That's a valid argument, but it still must be said that there is no policy mandate to delete this article.--Chaser - T 14:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if moved to "felony" it's still a non-notable juncture. Lots of people are convicted daily, not just athletes but ordinary people. This list is WP:IINFO totally indiscriminate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though it's not an obvious application of the "indiscriminate information" policy. If we compare lists to categories (which we often do), we realize that "athletes" and "convicted criminals" is an offbeat intersection of two unrelated human characteristics (see criteria at WP:CFD). So it doesn't make sense to have a list about this offbeat intersection. That being said, it should be confirmed that each individual article has the reference among its references before the admin hits "delete." Shalom ^Hello 20:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Citicat referenced most of this. He could probably tell you or either of us could check it after a deletion.--Chaser - T 02:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This one needs work, obviously, but the format is good and it is well-documented, a rare treasure in a Wikipedia article. Ordinary people are convicted daily of felonies, true; but professional athletes, like politicians or actors, aren't ordinary. It helps to have an accurate source about which athletes have been charged, convicted and sentenced; and what they were actually convicted of, since this isn't well known. I think the criteria for inclusion are well defined, with a mix of the famous and the infamous. Mandsford 01:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename List of professional athletes convicted of felony. It is not indiscriminate, nor is it a particularly offbeat intersection. It's major news when it happens, and there's no other good way to get all the info in one place. Clarityfiend 02:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is the textbook definition of a trivial intersection. WP:OC Corpx 02:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might be easier to compile a list of pro athletes who have not been convicted of crimes. ~ Infrangible 03:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously it could run into being a rather large list, but I think an article like this could prove quite useful if done right. MrSec 03:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of professional athletes who have been convicted of a felony per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to List of sportspeople convicted of a crime per Golfcam. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rename Please do not rename like this. Felony is a US-specific word with no official meaning in most other jurisdictions, and therefore would be a clear case of WP:BIAS. ~~No opinion on whether or not the article should be deleted.~~ JulesH 09:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as random trivia. If kept rename to List of sportspeople convicted of a crime. Not only is "felony" U.S. centric, but so is this usage of "athlete", and many of the most prominent sportspeople in history were amateurs (especially outside the U.S.). Golfcam 17:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:IINFO There are probably notable sources, but there's no reason to have a seperate list from the article on the athlete. i ^{(said) (did)} 21:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disclaimer - I am the creator and primary contributor to this article. I consider "indiscriminate" the most overused word in AFDs (see my comments on the AFD talk page awhile back). If you are sports fan, you know that criminality among athletes is an oft-discussed and oft-reported subject. I created this article to bring together the many pieces of information on this subject (which were usually not complete). I certainly feel there is nothing "indiscriminate" about it. CitiCat^♫ 00:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I learned of this list a few weeks ago, I instinctively understood that it was valuable, but didn't really know why. Now I think I know why. The criminal justice system's handling of celebrity crimes always attracts media attention and is an important test of the system's ability to be fair under pressure and scrutiny (think Michael Jackson's molestation case, Kobe Bryant's rape case, OJ Simpson, etc.). Celebrity criminality, whether the celebrities are athletes, actors, or musicians, also occupies a special place in assessments of whether the media can fairly cover the police and legal proceedings. While this list is a long way from an article on celebrity crimes, it could well be a valuable research tool for someone investigating this topic. It's not overcategorization, though perhaps it needs to be changed into a list of very notable celebrities who have been convicted of crimes.--Chaser - T 02:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chaser and I also wish to comment that I agree almost completely with CitiCat about the cut and paste overuse of "indiscriminate" on these discussions. Terms like this one seem almost insulting to editors who work hard on articles. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in regards to the name, I've struggled with it, weighing readability versus accuracy. Perhaps the most accurate would be List of athletes who have been convicted and incarcerated, but it doesn't roll off the tounge. Also, I think the word "crimes" is a useful search term. So the search continues. CitiCat^♫ 16:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is why this trivial intersection exists. Are athletes more likely to commit crimes? What about List of professional accountants who have been convicted of crimes or any other profession? Corpx 16:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. Here are some web pages I found in three minutes on Google - [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. Would you like me to try twenty minutes? I don't think you can find this kind of interest in accountants who have committed crimes. CitiCat^♫ 00:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep and rename This article would come in handy as a teaching tool for couches for quick research. But I also recommend a new category in which EVERY notable athlete that is convicted OR indicted be included. Again, this would be a great research tool.Hourick 22:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Citicat. This particular intersection of characteristics does seem to have generated a large amount of media attention, and can therefore be considered notable. This is enough that the list is not indiscriminate. But still, per my previous comment, don't rename. JulesH 19:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as copyvio, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert DiBlanco

A session musician for some country-and-western acts that don't have their own articles and that google has barely heard of (the ubiquitous myspace pages and a few local gig guides, mostly). Article creator appears to be subject. Would be a speedy except he makes some spurious claims to being "one of the premier bassplayers". FiggyBee 19:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copy vio of this site. I already tagged this for speedy and it got deleted, so might as well do it again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had a nice rationale for my delete suggestion all written, but got edit conflicted... well, the copyvio makes more sense anyhow. Speedy delete - he's not notable enough under WP:MUSIC anyways. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the copyvio argument is a little disingenuous, since I'm 99.99% certain that "the contributor was in fact the author of the text that is published elsewhere under different terms". But it's gone anyway, so there you go. FiggyBee 20:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doubtful notability. Daniel Case 02:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LaBelle Community Football League

Non-notable; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tri-County Titans. Pats1 19:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonnotable local league. Shalom ^Hello 20:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "The LaBelle Community Football League is a non-profit organization meant to organize Delaware County Area football teams into one specific league for competition" from their website. Delete per WP:NOT#LOCAL Corpx 02:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx, WP:NOT#LOCAL. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per above. If the endorsements could be verified, I would keep it. Bearian 21:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, I withdraw. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civil marriage in Israel

Reads like an essay, seems to have some OR problems, would need a major overhaul. The fact that it was created with a {{cleanup}} tag is dubious as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment or maybe the creator is just honest, and they realize that the page will need work to make it an appropriately encyclopedic article? I see no reason to presume there's a problem solely on that base. The subject of marriage is itself worthy of an article, and since the institution of marriage depends on the laws of the country (and the religion), it's hardly a subject that can be considered inherently not encyclopedic. This page is certainly not sourced, but don't you think it might have been worthwhile to give the editor more than two minutes to make improvements? Or even ask them? There are subjects that merit quick action. This isn't one of them. Take a look at Category:Marriage, unions and partnerships by country. FrozenPurpleCube 19:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of the English translation for this article which originates from the Hebrew Wikipedia. The article as itself is a very important and hot debated topic in Israel. this topic has a lot of interest to world wide as well - becuase the state of Israel forces its citizens and inhabitants to marry within a recognized religious denomination - a situation which is forced upon all of the people to keep the monopoly of the Jewish weddings and divorces in the hands of the Orthodox Rabinical courts - not allowing for Jewish Reform weddings or Jewish Conservative weddings within the country to happen within the country, as well not allowing people to marry with different religions. the thing which the article aims at doing is to explain why these arrangemnts have been created in the first place and list the pros and cons of keep the situation as it is as well as stating all the current development trying to solve the situation. I have put the cleanup template becuase I would need any help I can get in order to fix up the article and make it as good as possible. Acidburn24m 19:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Legitimate topic for an article needs cleanup and referencing but thats not a reason for deletion. Davewild 19:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as noted by Acidburn24m this is an important topic in Israel. It's not an essay but a history (at least in part) and covers the topic fairly evenly (not saying it's perfect). Obviously needs sourcing and cleanup. --Dhartung | Talk 19:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, this is an error on my part to be AfDing this. I withdraw. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Gatien

Appears to fail the notability guidelines for creative professionals as laid out at Wikipedia:Notability (people). SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claims to notability. Possible A7 candidate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the film won no awards (well, it could win some annual awards, but it did not win Sundance, which was probably its best shot). Article actually fails to mention the most interesting thing about her, which is her father -- which isn't a claim to notability in any case. --Dhartung | Talk 20:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec #2 today!) I'm torn. The movie she's produced, Hounddog, has generated a lot of buzz - but she herself gets minimal coverage along with it, and is one of three producers on the project. Maybe, if she wins an award for it, she'll be notable enough, but right now delete as failing WP:BIO. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, unless she gets more coverage for Hounddog, her only notable film to date. There's a side story about her being the daughter of Peter Gatien, whose nightclub was featured prominently in the story behind the film Party Monster, but that doesn't exactly denote notability on her part, either.--Sethacus 20:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This has to be our most kludged together policy. Significant part of creating/co-creating a notable work, and multiple reviews. Hounddog qualifies as notable, and [12] articles indicate she was the one who arranged most of the emergency funding to allow it's completion. She was also producer of Shampoo horns which seems borderline. Big issue is that producers don't really have a commonly agreed upon job description, so it's not a good idea to assign them significant part status automatically. I'm leaning towards week keep.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Horrorshowj (talk • contribs)
Comment Deerjen (talk · contribs), who is apparently the subject (same name as production company), has contacted editors including me on their talk pages, saying that "more interesting" bits have been added to the article. Deerjen, my comment above was offhand, not a suggestion of what the article needed to be kept, and I'm sorry if it appeared otherwise. What the article needs is to satisfy our policy on biographical notability, meaning multiple independent sources at least some of which deal with the subject substantively. At this point I can find several articles about the film that mention you, but only in passing, mostly recounting the same two points about the emergency funding and the underwear controversy. My judgement is that this falls short of our guideline. Although we wish you well, this does not at this time justify an article in our encyclopedia.--Dhartung | Talk 19:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I, too, was one of the editors contacted by the subject. Let me qualify my vote. I voted to delete without prejudice of recreation for a few reasons. Ms. Gatien is one of three producers on the film. However, like my fellow editors, I saw nothing substantial, source-wise, per our policy, to indicate notability, even with such a prestigious film under her belt. I am not opposed to recreation as it appears as though Ms. Gatien will, in the future, produce more films with notable talent, as well as make her directorial debut, which may, if I may be so bold and special as to look into my crystal ball, denote notability in the future. And, as I said before, the addition of the information about her father does not denote notability, either.--Sethacus 20:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral per Horrorshowj, because the policy does not say what to do with movie producers. Bearian 21:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. If there were multiple third-party articles written about her, then perhaps a keep would be warranted. Fairsing 16:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination, also fails WP:BLP with lack of any sort of reliable sources. Burntsauce 22:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 22:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statesboro First United Methodist Church

Article about an average church, making no assertion of notability. Nyttend 18:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claims to notability. Possibly an A7 candidate (unremarkable group). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as bigger than average church, giant staff, major outreach. Bearian 21:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources, please. --Fang Aili ^talk 03:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW and WP:CRYSTAL. Daniel Case 15:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! 68 (U.K. series)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 68 (U.K. series)

Contentless substub and flagrant WP:CRYSTAL violation that cannot possibly be improved for at least three months - as per CRYSTAL, entries based on a predefined sequence are not notable until the individual entry becomes so. Kinitawowi 18:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, pure WP:CRYSTAL job, no info available yet. Nothing more to say. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "The contents have not been announced yet". Says it all, really, doesn't it? --Steve Farrell 00:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 07:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nn. Daniel Case 02:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Pirkowski

Page is simply a copy of Hawaii United States Senate election, 2006; when looking through the page's history, it is noted that the article as been simply a copy of that page since its creation. Also, person was a non-notable candidate for office, having finished in last place in the primary election, receiving only 1,480, or 6% of the total votes [13]. 青い(Aoi) 18:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, failed congressional candidates with no other claims to notability fail WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I think the person's historic notability could be in question here. He ran once for office and failed. I don't think that gives historic notability per WP:NOT#NEWS Corpx 02:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Also, violates cystal. Bearian 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (kept by default) - Nabla 16:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double Shot (Ride)

Doesn't seem to be a notable type of amusement ride, fun as it sounds. Possible spam or COI at work here too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the author of this page I can assure you I am not a spammer. This page is just as relevant as other ride model pages. There are a total of 15 Double Shot rides around the world - as can be seen on the S&S website linked to in the article. Ridleym (20:34, 23 July 2007 BST)
~~Delete~~. Might consider a keep if there were reliable sources confirming notability. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Keep after edits by Sawblade05. Notable enough for me, and the sources are a good start. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am currently working on getting notable sources for this right now as I don't want to see this one deleted. Sawblade05 23:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real notability at this time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~Speedy Keep I have happened to be around this type of ride and know about it tell me how to fix it so It wont be deleted. Sawblade05 22:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have all lines Referenced on the article even though some are liinking to the same page over and over again. I think I got this one where it can be kept on Wikipedia without deletion. Sawblade05 23:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The references in the article is not whats in question here. To be notable, something must have "significant coverage from independent sources". This could be reviews of the ride by reliable sources. Anything from the parks or the manufacturer wouldn't qualify as they wouldn't be independent sources. However, these sources can be used to cite the article once notability is established Corpx 02:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't know why you don't consider Amusement Park Websites to be a realible source on notiability of the ride, they are indpendant from the Manufacture of the rides and the page is not about a specific park at all, only mentions where some of these are located. IF I have to I would list all 15 instalations to prove it but this would violate the Wikipedia is not a List policy. Anyway I feel that the page meets some of the requirements here at WP:Notability in which the original proposer was looking for. Sawblade05 04:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Amusement parks have a definite conflict of interest because they own the ride, so of course they'll only say the good things about it. Corpx 14:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sawblade05's sources. At least two of these are reliable independent sources, the sites nojespark.net and theme park insider, which are providing reviews of the ride for people who might install it. JulesH 10:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nojespark.net gives a directory listing and the other one is a user-submitted review. Corpx 14:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Corpx. The sources aren't very reliable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 14:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree to the fact of you referring to nojespark.net as a just a directory it is also a independent review of each of the different types of Tower Rides built by S&S. Sawblade05 15:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldnt a 1 line "review" qualify as a trivial mention? Corpx 17:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge→Drop tower (ride). I did some hunting and was not able to find reliable secondary sources for which the primary topic is this ride; that does not mean they don't exist, of course. Some of the existing references are good for fact verification, but not as reliable secondary sources, unfortunately. The specifications can go into a new table in the Drop tower (ride) article and merger would facilitate the compare-and-contrast which provides context to this class of rides. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, withdrawn nom. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop That Laughing At The Back

Non-notable comedy sketch that only appeared on one series. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it was a whole television series[14][15], not just a sketch on a series. One season ("series" in UK) but I believe precedent is that series (i.e. multiple individual programs over a period of weeks) that appeared on major broadcast channels are notable.--Dhartung | Talk 20:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I was misinterpreting the words there. I withdraw. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Jackson

Non-notable band. Article was written in October by a band member with no independent references and no improvement since. --Finngall ^talk 18:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, possibly an A7 candidate. No notability asserted, no reliable sources to be found online. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it tries to assert notability through association with bands like Bright Eyes, but doesn't seem to achieve the goal. Can't find any good sources. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete with Simon Joyner per above. Also, "Notability is not inherited." Bearian 21:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Sr 13 03:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cmyblogs

Non-notable blog platform. Turns up relatively few GHits for a supposedly notable blog platform -- reads somewhat spammily (is that a word?) too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I am adding two similar articles, which were written by the same author, and whose subject belongs to the same corporate entity.

Shalom ^Hello 20:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources - None mentioned and I couldn't find any myself Corpx 02:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have added the DMOZ reference as a credible indipendent source. I believe that this article is a valuable resource for people and enhances their knowledge and understanding of this blogging platform.
- You have put this AfD tag on the article and it is an article that I wrote, so I would like to know how to improve the article to close this AfD discussion. This will help ensure this article and other articles that I edit and write in the future remain as valueable resources for people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxeboy (talk • contribs)

You need reliable sources that verify Cmyblogs' notability. Just saying that it exists isn't enough.

Forums/directory listings etc dont count as reliable sources. You must have "significant coverage" from independent reliable sources to be notable Corpx 19:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think DMOZ is quite a reputable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillF (talk • contribs)

Not according to WP:RS it's not. DMOZ is a directory. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable third party sources - dmoz submissions are only barely less open than the wiki itself, and nothing else is mentioned in the article. Substantial cleanup required if real sources do arise - References are out of place and "runs in the browser" makes it sound more like Pyro than a web application. MrZaius^talk 17:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 - spam Will ^(talk) 18:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, They actually break the GPL license and are in copiright violations with eyeOS Open Source Project.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related Nebraska Cornhuskers Football Players

Trivial intersection in that they are brothers + played football for UNL. I think this could also be looked at as trivia Corpx 18:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, nothing but a trivial intersection. If the players are notable enough to warrant an entry, mention of the relationship can be made there - but there is no need for an article devoted to the topic. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jeff Foxworthy: "If your football practices look like a family reunion..." ~ Infrangible 03:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel Case 14:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

V1 Gallery

This article claims that many "notable" artists graced this gallery, but most of said artists are redlinks (which of course, doesn't necessarily mean that they're not notable). Article also reads like vanispam...whatever and contains a few too many external links. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how most of the artists are Red Links when I only see 4 red links on that page. Sawblade05 18:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. There were way more redlinks, they must have been deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the first time I've created a page and I hope that it now meets the standard required from Wikipedia. Some of the redlinks are due to the fact that I don't know how to link to the Danish Wikipedia where for instance HuskMitNavn is featured. If you have any more criticism I am open for it. All the best 666pirates 18:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks better now but it still doesn't seem to have any real claim to notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per lack of "significant coverage from independent sources" I searched google news and came up with nada, but I'm not sure if that's the best place to look for it. Corpx 21:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC) I hope those Danish sources are legit :) Corpx 14:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have now explained why the gallery has claim to notability: being the first gallery to introduce several huge street artists to Scandinavia. As far as I can see there are several other gallery entries about groundbreaking galleries that resemble V1 Gallery's. eg. Deitch Projects, Rivington Arms and more. V1 Gallery and several of its artists are also mentioned in lauded Danish art book Manual Til Dansk Samtidskunst (in English: Manual to Danish Contemporary Art, written by Ph.D. Mette Sandbye. However I find this difficult to link to since the text is not online. Or would it be sufficient to refer to the book if the reader wanted more information on the subject? I am not sure that Google News is the right place to look for V1 Gallery. The reason why I am writing about V1 Gallery on the English Wikipedia in the first place is to expand the English speaking readers' knowledge of pioneering internationally oriented galleries in Scandinavia. I doubt that there is just as much information on a Danish gallery on Google News as there would be on an American because of the language barrier. Please let me know your thoughts. 666pirates 22:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this looks like a case of Wikipedia's systemic bias. This gallery's press portfolio demonstrates notability via heavy coverage in Danish newspapers. As 666pirates says, there'd be no problem if this were a gallery of equivalent size and style in, say, London or New York. Best move would be to ask at Talk:Copenhagen if someone who can read the Danish sources could help with tidying/expanding the article. That said, Wikipedia is not a place to pioneer. It would probably be easier to create an article on the Danish Wikipedia first, and then ask for translation. Gordonofcartoon 14:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Banksy is one the world's foremost street artists. I'll help 666pirates wikify it.--Victor falk 13:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Viktor falk! That would be great. Just to expand on the problematic nature of relying on Google-hits I didn't know until last night that the Danish newspapers aren't featured on Google which is why it is quite difficult to find old 'proper' news articles on Google. One has to find them on a special database which requires a password etc - not exactly an ideal wikipedia external link i could imagine. That said I'm both surprised and happy about the great feedback one gets here on Wikipedia. I have an MA in arts and Wikipedia has been one of the greatest academic research tools I have ever come across. So it's great to see that it actually works behind the scenes as well. So here's a huge thanks to all of you who's written on this page! 666pirates 10:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel Case 03:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power Systems CAD

Reads like possible spam. Doesn't seem to be a notable CAD (rather low amount of Google hits). Speedy was contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (with some cleanup/expansion) or Merge into another article (Computer-aided design or Power engineering may be appropriate, someone else may be able to suggest somewhere better). It's a highly specified field granted, but the information would be of use to anyone interested in Power engineering. --Darksun 18:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a specific area of engineering expertise, recognized by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE.) According to IEEE, there are 21,000 power systems engineers worldwide focused on improving electrical grids, eliminating blackouts, and reducing electrical accidents. This page will be enhanced by the creator -- and hopefully others -- in coming weeks. Jrneumann 21:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Jrneumann[reply]

Comment. I see a couple sources now, but I don't think they're enough yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Keep~~ Thanks for the input, Hammer. More refs added. Think we're good now. Jrneumann 21:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Jrneumann[reply]
  - Note:' The comment above should not have appeared as a "keep" vote, as the editor had already voted once. Also note that user is the original author. Realkyhick 17:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. Author needs to change his external links from generic home-page links to those that are specifically about the subject. He or she also needs to learn proper internal Wikipedia linking, and Wikipedia style in general, particularly concerning citations. Verification is weak at best. The subject itself passes notability, but barely. Realkyhick 17:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Services of the Hudson Valley

Possibly a speedy candidate for no context, but I just want to be safe first. This article seems totally unsalvageable, and couldn't possibly be merged in my opinion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory. This is a purely local entity and is unlikely to have a notable profile outside its area of operations. --Dhartung | Talk 20:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Dhartung states - local groups aren't inherently notable outside their own areas. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete -- merge into Legal aid. Nice bunch of people, but sorry, not known north of Saugerties, New York nor south of Yonkers, New York. Bearian 21:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE This article should stay in because it has useful information relevant to many people. The second edit for the entry broadened the scope of the information.Knowledgeinfo 17:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I changed the article to hopefully make it more suitable for Wikipedia. I added sources. I think the work of the group is important and notable since it is the only one in the area doing what it does, and it reaches out to a large community. This organization is very important to the New York area, and they have been very helpful to me. I'm confused because I have seen other wiki entries that, I believe, have less relevance, and I do not think that it would be consistent to delete this entry. Wplains 14:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as copyright infringement. - KrakatoaKatie 03:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copper price volatility

Reads like an essay, includes some first person, and a whole buttload of OR. The fact that a phone number and address are included has me thinking that this is a copyvio. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR, and either copyvio or self promotion depending on if the uploader is the author or not. Improbcat 18:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of being OR alone, although it does appear likely this is some kind of promotional material. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR essay Corpx 21:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G12 (copyvio) - article so tagged with link. -- MarcoTolo 23:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio (so tagged as speedy). The original text has been significantly reformatted and reworded to some degree. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom as a copyright violation. Big top 01:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW and WP:NOT#DIR. Daniel Case 15:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurants in Bangalore

This "article" does not actually contain any information on its putative subject. Much of this is simply a fork of Restaurant. The rest appears more like a wiki=project page inviting people to contribute articles on specific Restaurants. That is not a proper purpose for a wikipedia article. As to the topic itself, unless Restaurants in Bangalore are in some notable way distinct from restaurants elsewhere, there is no obvious purpose to such an article. DES ^(talk) 17:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nom, and suggest that the creator move his efforts to WikiTravel. DES ^(talk) 17:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#TRAVEL - Not a travel guide and I dont really see how restaurants in Bangalore are that much more unique than restaurants in other cities (other than the local cuisine of course) Corpx 21:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Former articles by the same author on the same subject have been speadied. I don't see why this one shouldn't. Malc82 21:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This one doesn't fit any of the speedy deletion criteria. i haven't looked at the previous articles, but it is perfectly possible that they were improeprly speedy deleted. DES ^(talk) 22:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Portions of it are written like an advert and travel guide--JForget 23:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Confused mess, hard to see how to fix it. WP:NOT#TRAVEL. Dhaluza 23:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#TRAVEL. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:Philippe as nonsense. Shalom ^Hello 20:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gleeson

References are missing. High on a tree 17:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as nom Sawblade05 17:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Missing references isn't a reason for deletion. This guy's IMDb profile suggests that he's very notable, having been a part of several notable films. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete or rewrite from scratch. Pure nonsense, even though its subject is notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They aren't the same subject. They're two different people with the same name. Assuming the nonsense person actually in some way exists. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but much cleanup is needed. NW036 17:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Article is pure nonsense - "He is the only surviving child of Keanu Charles Reeves and Carrie-Anne Moss" and the filmography is completely wrong. I think this is a joke Corpx 17:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as complete nonsense. Yes, there are indeed a couple of Paul Gleesons on IMDB, but their vitae curriculae and this quasi-hoax of an article match up in no particular, from the film lists to being Keanu Reeves' and Carrie-Anne Moss' love child to being credited with conjectural movies and an erroneous date of birth. The fact that the creator created the article with NPOV and the tone tags is mindboggling enough, and all that took out just a couple minutes to suss out. Before anyone else proposes keeping this, could they take a look at the background first, please? RGTraynor 17:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - absolute nonsense already described. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - hoax article. StudierMalMarburg 19:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got through the first two sentences, and that was all I needed. Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel Case 18:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa McGovern

Not a person of encyclopedic significance. If anything a small section might be added to her father's page with this information. NW036 17:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as nom Sawblade05 17:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO. Were she named "McGillicuddy," the harsh and bitter truth is that she would have been chalked up as another dead wino, the newspapers would have had two column inches about it on page 37, and no one would have ever noticed beyond that. RGTraynor 17:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merged and redirect to her father's page. Received coverage as early as 1968 for drug charges, and after her death her father wrote a book about her, so may as well retain the search term. --Dhartung | Talk 20:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of that book--held in over 1000 libraries, according to Worldcat, & reviewed by the NYTimes and multiple other sources. (Terry: My Daughter's Life-And-Death Struggle With Alcoholism, Plume Books, 1997. ISBN 0-452-27823-6.) The attention from the book and its reviews is sufficient attention to a quasi-public figure for notability.DGG (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sadly, I believe the book is more notable than the person. --Dhartung | Talk 05:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of amusing line of logic there. If the person wasn't notable, why would the book about her be? It is obviously because something about her as she is the subject. Postcard Cathy 14:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested above.--JForget 23:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without the last name there is zero notability. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. While notability is not inherited, she does have a center named for her. Bearian 21:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:Philippe per CSD G4, repost. Shalom ^Hello 20:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Pearce

AfDs for this article:

Non notable local politician. Was previously deleted, and now recreated. Still does not establish notability. "References" included are not valid. Reference #1 is an interview about an upcoming election, Reference #2 is a short blurb that mentions his name in passing, Reference #3 shows election results where he came in 5th place for his local district. Reference #4 is someones personal webpage. Reference #5 and 6 are not linked at all. -- sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as nom Sawblade05 17:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the earth: AfD and deleted less than a month ago, this fellow is still nothing more than a local minor politician from a modest sized town on a small island. RGTraynor 17:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Won't be back. Daniel Case 05:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terminator 2 in popular culture

AfDs for this article:

Also nominating The Terminator (character): references in pop culture

Delete - these are directories of loosely associated topics. The listed items have nothing in common beyond a reference of greater or lesser substance to the film or the character. The lists tell us nothing about the film, the character, the fiction from which the references are drawn, how they relate to one another or the world around us. To answer the inevitable merge suggestion, I strongly oppose merging any of this information into any other article about the film or the character. It is a laundry list trivia dump on its own and would be no better cluttering up any other articles. Otto4711 17:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FIVE - Not a trivia collection Corpx 17:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Trivia Sawblade05 17:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Terminate 'er, too as a highly useless trivia list of WP:TRIVIA and loosely associated stuff. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep or merge, because article concerns the significant cultural impact of a major blockbuster film that has inspired everything from video games to amusement park attractions (at Universal Studios). Plus, a list of this nature is convenient for anyone doing research on how great of influence a given film series can have. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There may be something to be said about the impact of "I'll Be Back", as it is a catchphrase that has earned significant currency in modern culture, however it's the sort of thing that is better suited to a small section in Terminator (character). ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Or in the I'll be back. article (which is misnamed, it should be I'll be back). Crazysuit 03:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per another trivia-filled article.--JForget 23:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not categorize or recreate. In contrast to my other suggestions for categorization, this article does not deal with a subject that has had a notable impact on society. CaveatLector^Talk 01:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate trivia. Crazysuit 03:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Get. Out. (AKA delete). One of the poorest popcul articles I've seen, certainly not encyclopedic. Lugnuts 07:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of these sets of rough notes can ever become a encyclopedia article. Golfcam 17:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 03:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of kunoichi in popular culture

Just a list of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR Jay32183 17:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FIVE - Trivia collection Corpx 17:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:FIVE. Otto4711 17:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Trivia Sawblade05 17:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now it is List and IPC in the title and no sources. --JForget 23:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So what's a kunoichi? Mandsford 01:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a female ninja, but that shouldn't be how to determine "keep" or "delete". Jay32183 01:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize and then delete. Having a category would aid navigation of those interested in the topic, but the list really doesn't have a utility. CaveatLector^Talk 01:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization is an excellent suggestion. Under Fictional Ninjas perhaps. Canuckle 17:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Abberley2 01:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 22:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel Case 13:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Darlin

Sorry this person is not notable per Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) and has been outstanding without sources for 8 months making it a WP:BLP failure as well. Burntsauce 16:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominated for XRCO best 3 way, Won AVN Best 3way sex scene, (PDF) Nominated for 2004 AVN female performer of the year among others. Definately passes WP:PORNBIO Corpx 17:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per notability Sawblade05 17:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to IMDB she has been in 202 films, plus the awards Corpx mentioned. Garion96 (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Corpx regarding the awards. Cap'n Walker 21:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of film credits and sufficient awards, passes WP:PORNBIO. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. No assertion of notability made, none found. Additionally fails WP:V due to having no coverage in WP:RS. Valrith 21:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Corpx. I've started to build the article up with citations for everything that will be added. It's kinda sparse for now... Tabercil 22:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 23:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Corpx. Also, The Violation of Jessica Darlin won a 2004 AVN award for Best All-Girl Sex Scene. Epbr123 00:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well known pornslut, she takes it up the ass regularly so she's used to our process here at AFD. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per AVN award. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another bad faith nomination by Burntsauce. How many more notable biographies do you plan to put on AFD? — Moe ε 08:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel Case 02:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Mac OS window

Fails to assert any notability, also don't see how this subject matter is important in any way. This is also an indiscriminate collection of information, for which Wikipedia is not. (→O - R L Y?) 16:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable function of the Mac OS. The article is definitely indiscriminate in nature too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of "significant coverage from independent sources" for this window Corpx 17:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, TenPundHammer, and Corpx. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 17:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom Sawblade05 17:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now this is an example of a trivial matter. It may well be documented in official Apple material, or even descriptions of running MacOS, however, the appropriate way to cover this would be something like the OS version, or possibly Mac OS startup process instead. More preferable would be if it has some sort of documented name as used by Apple, in which case you could make something like Apple Keychain or Sherlock (software). Of course, this may already exist, but you'd have to ask the folks at WP:MAC. I'm not familiar enough to say. However, I wouldn't refer to the policies on WP:NOT as none of the examples truly apply. Just say "This is too minor a subject to merit coverage in its own individual article" instead. FrozenPurpleCube 19:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This just documents a splash screen for a now semi-obsolete version of the Macintosh Operating System, says where you see it. I think anyone who has used OS9 on a Mac knows where they'll find it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Click the close box Probably merits a blurb in Mac OS, but that's it. Blueboy 96 20:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to LGBT rights in the British Virgin Islands and delete redirect, which I will do now. El_C 17:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage in the British Virgin Islands

As a quick reading of this article will confirm, it is completely unnotable. Same-sex marriage does not exist in the British Virgin Islands, homosexual sex is illegal and there appears to be neither any prospect nor proposals for change. In short the article exists only to say that its subject matter does not. Caveat lector 16:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ~~into Politics of the British Virgin Islands Corpx~~ 17:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe create a Social Issues of the British Virgin Islands or something? Corpx 01:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of what appears to be a series of articles on same-sex marriage in North America, or, failing that, merge along with other similar articles into Same-sex marriage in North America. The legal status of same-sex couples in various nations is certainly encyclopedic. Otto4711 17:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom Sawblade05 17:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see nothing sacred about a "series" on much of anything that propagates beyond what actually exists: that's what led us to articles like Mali in the 1998 Winter Olympics and such other gems. That the legal status of same-sex couples in various nations is becoming encyclopedic is arguable, but when even small colonies are considered, it's far better handled with a table in the main article with a "Yes" or "No" entry. RGTraynor 17:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which strikes me as an argument for a merger, rather than a deletion. Otto4711 17:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there already is a table in Homosexuality laws of the world. An entry for the British Virgin Islands should be added. Caveat lector 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A merge per Corpx into Politics of the British Virgin Islands doesn't look practical, since that article is really about the governmental structure (and should probably be renamed), not specific issues. I don't support a merge to Same-sex marriage in North America because all of the existing articles of this type would also have to be merged there, and this is not a group nomination. (But I would definitely support merging all the articles there, because the article's current state is pretty silly; it's just dozens of redlinks to articles about same-sex marriage in countries that don't recognize it.) As it is, since the nominated article essentially just says "There is no same-sex marriage in the British Virgin Islands," I don't see much added value in keeping it in any format. Propaniac 18:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am all for the series of "Same sex in X" articles - however when it's a stub that basically says "Same sex marriage is illegal" with no other information, no court cases, no attempts at altering legislation, nothing else to mention - there is really no need for the article. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:STUB. There is no basis in policy for deleting an expandable stub. DGG (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are quite a few of them, in fact; there is nothing about an "expandable stub" immunizing it from any of the other policy and guideline grounds governing deletion. That being said, upon what factual basis do you consider this expandable? Do you know about an organized movement to change the laws in the BVI? Have there been prominent court cases, or a celebrated martyr to the cause? RGTraynor 23:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question to ask is not whether there is a movement for change in this location, but rather, is there any documented coverage of the issue within this location. FrozenPurpleCube 02:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I created the article a while back purely because I saw that there were a series of other articles on same-sex marriages in North America and I thought I was probably the best qualified Wikipedian to put something down about the position in the BVI. I don't pretend that there is anything terribly illuminating in the article. There are no proposals to change the law, and no particularly famous martyrs that I am aware of. The only reasonably controversial thing that has happened was a few years ago the British government (as it has power to do) pushed through laws decriminalising homosexuality generally against the wishes of the legislature; there was further controversy when the Governor at the time (a staunch Catholic) refused initially to sign the legislation into law (almost unprecedented for an appointee of the British Governement). But I haven't taken the time to locate hard sources for that to cite (LGBT issues is not something that really interests me to be candid) so I didn't stick it in. No strong personal views about whether the article lives or dies; being as neutral as I can I'd probably keep it under WP:STUB, although I see the force of RGTraynor's suggestion of a "Yes/No" table in Same-sex marriage in North America and just putting redirects in for the smaller countries. --Legis (talk - contribs) 12:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Frankly, I don't see a problem with letting the article stand; it explains what the current situation is there in a few words. And Wiki is not paper. If I were planning a trip or a relocation to the Caribbean, I'd find it very helpful to know that the government of this place or that place has an announced policy of discrimination against LGBT folk! However, as Legis admits, there are no hard sources to back up that statement in the article, which is a real weakness.

But whether the article stands or gets deleted, I do think somebody with better wikiskills than I really ought to start a table for LGBT rights in North America--providing lots of helpful, well-sourced information like the beautifully formatted, excellent table at LGBT rights in Europe.--Textorus 22:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Otto and DGG. Contrary to the nominator's opinion, this article is already informative. And, as pointed out above by Legis -- it is not only expandable, but he has stated what information it can be expanded with. Here are two sources, the second unimpeachable, btw, that should establish the "notability," (though I contend the guideline was probably not intended for such articles as this in the first place):
Island Sun article about decriminalization
Los Angeles Times article
I urge the nominator to reconsider. --JayHenry 23:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Errr ... the second item would be an unimpeachable source concerning the Cayman Islands, the sole subject of the piece. RGTraynor 04:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge on the grounds that this is a notable subject in and of itself, the information is sourceable and possibly expandable. At the very least a table in Same-sex marriage in North America would be helpful and definitely encyclopedic. CaveatLector^Talk 02:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I had not idea there was another user also called caveat lector on Wikipedia!!! I hope no one's confused)

What these would actually appear to be is enough material for a article on LGBT right (or perhaps one on LGBT rights in British overseas territories). There is clearly no debate on same-sex marriage in the British Virgin Islands. I don't think not being a paper encyclopaedia defeats the notability criteria. Neither does being part of a series. (An expansion of the templates at the bottom of the Same-sex marriage in North America reveals their pointless) I can't imagine how you could expand this stub other than by adding a large amount of speculative material or non-same-sex marriage related material. Caveat lector 17:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (2). If the article was moved to LGBT rights in the British Virgin Islands that would give the article greater scope for expansion. That would also give room in the article to exploring the tension in the British Virgin Islands between its "no sodomy" laws and the legalisation of homosexuality. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could also add an entry to the table on Homosexuality laws of the world. On the basis that it will be moved to LGBT rights in the British Virgin Islands, I withdraw the nomination. Caveat lector 21:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge→new Culture section in British Virgin Islands and Law of the British Virgin Islands. The majority of the content appears to focus on the legal status of homosexuality rather than that of marriage. Another alternative would be to create an article Marriage in the British Virgin Islands and address all aspects of this topic, including same-sex marriage; this would go into Category:British Virgin Islander society. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources. It uses terms like 'extremely religious and homophobic,' that certainly need a source. I *would* support Legis and Caveat lector's idea of a merge to LGBT rights in the British Virgin Islands, if sources could be found, but don't see the point if not. Note that this article uses the Template:SSM to track the status of same-sex marriage in various countries, and that template looks very useful and compact. The information provided in that template would be more helpful than a huge number of stubs that just say that same-sex marriage doesn't exist in country X. As others have noted, the tables provided in LGBT rights in Europe are very well done, since they present many legal nuances in a compact way. So another way to present the information would be in a new article called LGBT rights in North America, as Textorus proposed, with tables like those in the Europe article. I don't object to also having an article called Same-sex marriage in North America, but the present article by that name is set up to have a zillion sub-articles on individual countries, which is not a good way to navigate the information quickly. EdJohnston 03:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Ed, I have started such a table, but with 50 states, 13 Canadian provinces, and 20-something other sovereign nations, it's taking a while to fill out. You can see what it very tentatively looks like in my Textorus/Sandbox.--Textorus 10:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge or delete. This is an article about something which does not exist, and which likely will not exist anytime soon, according to the article. There isn't even any mention of legislation having been introduced to change the existing state of affairs. The information in the article would best be a section or table entry in another article or two. Argyriou (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. They are notable in their country, as EliminatorJR pointed out. Non-admin closure. Boricuaeddie 16:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nitro Mega Prayer

AfDs for this article:

I am only fixing the AfD as nominator did not fully do the AfD. Nominator is Guroadrunner and did not leave a reason for deletion. I hope he comes back to this to give a reason sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination reason -- I am nominating this because of lack of notability and failure to meet WP:MUSIC. Guroadrunner 21:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom Sawblade05 17:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a definite trend in your votes. Did you even read the nom? --Action Jackson IV 18:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
per what nom, exactly? ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 20:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the most-informed and well-reasoned "votes" ever. </sarcasm> —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Need to keep WP:CSB in mind here because I suspect most sources will be in Japanese here. Nevertheless, they've released at least one album on a well-regarded Japanese record label; they've toured extensively in their own country; at least one CD has been re-released by a US label; and they've toured the US [16]. I'd say they're a keep. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 20:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've incorporated the link you provided into the article as a reference. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per EliminatorJR. Thanks for spelling it out for us. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the WP:CSB argument up to a point, that point being determination if there is an article on the Japanese Wikipedia for the band, which might be more developed or contain references. I've put a question to this effect on the article's talk page ... though perhaps there is a better way of soliciting assistance of this kind? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW as OR. Daniel Case 15:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academic racism

Delete the article itself is basically an essay, the subject matter could be covered in the racism article. Jersey Devil 16:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. --Targeman 17:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Covered already by articles such as bias in education. --Dhartung | Talk 20:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article was added two months ago by an account which has made no other WP edits - at all. WP:OR-o-meter is high on this one. -- MarcoTolo 23:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Malay Speaking Circle. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 16:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Malay speaking circle

AfDs for this article:

there is another article with the same content this only make it a duplicate Suhaibjb 16:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the AfD as in it's original state, it linked to "Pagename" so I fixed it for you. You might also want to input why you feel it should be deleted, as currently it's just the standard "input your reason here" shown. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been WP:BOLD and redirected this article to Malay Speaking Circle, and closed the AfD. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 16:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 current text as copyvio per Ceyockey; no consensus on the inclusion of the subject matter as such. Sandstein 19:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken by-product meal

This article is a thinly disguised promotion for the external links. aBSuRDiST -^T J ^C- 15:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The page does not link to or from Dog Food even tough some of that information cited should be merged in somewhere on Dog Food. Sawblade05 17:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know which is more disgusting - the subject matter, or the notion that it might belong somewhere in Wikipedia. It's irrelevant to the positivist definition of dog food... Shalom ^Hello 20:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and expand - though this article kind of sums it up as to just what the stuff is. Kinda gross, and I wouldn't eat it or feed it to my cats. Or dogs, if I had them. I call weak keep because it's questionable as to whether it belongs here, but keep no less because it is something that can be expanded upon. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Disgusting. Can a food product could be a hole? Bearian 21:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in thinking of it, would a merge and redirect to Mechanically Separated Meat or Meat slurry be a more appropriate move here? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Remove the links if they're not appropriate. The information, itself, is useful and should remain - possibly with links to other similar and/or related subjects. Joclynuo 16:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge→Dog food. As the article exists, it appears to be a copyright-violation of http://www.dogfoodproject.com/index.php?page=badingredients, the reference provided. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A prolific actor is notable. Daniel Case 18:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Krause

I'm not completely sure about this actor, but it seems that WP:PORNBIO applies here, and she doesn't seem to pass it, despite an extensive filmography (B movies, for the largest part). -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 15:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She seams notable. Callelinea 16:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no obvious notability (one link of uncertain content and uncertain reliability isn't really enough here). --Dhartung | Talk 20:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:PORNBIO doesn't apply. B-movie actresses generally fit under entertainer.Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. 58 movies, especially when the subject is still active seems to qualify. Although the article needs serious work. Horrorshowj 19:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her filmography alone is enough to assert notability. (Mind meal 22:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Weak Keep for now. The article definately needs additional work done on it; if in several months she gets renominated and nothing's been done, then I'd say delete it. And while I do agree with Horrorshowj that WP:PORNBIO probably doesn't apply in this case, I'm going to list this AFD on the PS deletions since it has been invoked here. Tabercil 03:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 03:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 back into University of St Andrews#Student organisations, at least for the time being (see below). This was a tough call and I read this whole discussion, read the article over as well as the University of St Andrews article, then slept on it.

This has not been the ideal deletion discussion. The original nomination is of questionable faith (but, as pointed out, that's no barrier to an assessment of the article's inclusion-worthiness independent of the reasons given for its deletion) and there's some pushing and shoving going on in the long indented passages. The keep arguments are basically, as noted, WP:WAX. The delete arguments are, similarly, responses pointing that out, and we have a couple that come largely from apparent single-purpose anon accounts (albeit very well-informed ones).

Student organizations, even statutorily-mandated ones at large, esteemed and ancient universities that count important political figures among their alumni/ae, are neither inherently notable nor inherently non-notable. There are no guideliness to that effect at the moment. Nor can we assert notability simply because other Scottish universities have articles on their student unions (many of which, in fact, are very stubby and even better candidates for merges back to the original article). So we have to fall back on WP:N. And, as Mister Manticore keeps pointing out, no independent secondary non-trivial coverage exists. The Saint's being kicked out of the building is more relevant to a claim of notability for it than the Student Association.

I am, however, convinced by the keep arguments that the organization is notable enough within the context of the university that our coverage of the university would absolutely demand it. It is said that the article was spun off because it was getting too long ... well, it seems to me that most of the length in here is non-encyclopedic material such as the coat of arms, the committee structure and the organizational bylaws. Even the keep voters admit it's gotten too long. And I think about a paragraph or three back in the main article would cover what needs to be covered: the basics of the organization such as its legal mandate, history of creation in 1983 and the recent controversies over The Saint.

Or, the article could be converted into another daughter article: Student organisations at St Andrews University, split off from the current section, as has happened with many other university articles. In fact, I really think this would be the best option. I will tag the articles appropriately. Daniel Case 15:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of St Andrews Students' Association

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/University of St Andrews Students' Association

This article fails to establish itself as notable. It provides no independent secondary source information to verify its claims about its history or its purpose, or its national or global relevance. Independently, the article fails the notability test.

It is properly relevant to the University of St Andrews, and mergers to that article have been enacted--- only to be reverted by a certain editor (Morhi) who has affiliations with the organisation. The Association has a web-site and that web-site is the appropriate venue for this information. Wikipedia is not.

Editors who are affiliated with the organisation have attempted to control the views of other students, silencing well-known criticism of it with citation burdens and reversions without citing any of their own facts presented with impartial third-party secondary sources. The section "criticism", which has been proposed for deletion by M0RHI, actually DOES provide an independent, verifiable third-party source, which the rest of the article does not.

By preventing the article from being merged, and by keeping the article within their narrow parameters of what they believe it should contain, they are selectively applying their version of the truth and using Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote and advertise their organization without allowing the true, encyclopedic purpose of Wikipedia to shine through. It is vanity on the part of the organisation that the article continues to exist, and (being citation-free) it is being tailored to present a skewed perspective on the organisation and its importance. Student observers are watching this exchange and it will be noted in the autumn.

If M0RHI persists in ensuring the article presents a skewed view of the Association, and will not merge it with the St Andrews Uni article, it should be deleted, and swiftly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Discostu333 (talk • contribs) 14:07, July 23, 2007 (UTC)

Keep — There are plenty of precedents for this type of article under Category:Students' unions. Edit conflicts should be resolved on the article's talk page or elsewhere. The length of this article is sufficient to justify keeping it separate from the UoStA article. I am unclear whether this nomination falls under WP:POINT. — RJH (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete -- I have no clue about this organization. However, it seems to me that if it was notable, the author could come up with some sources other than the group's bylaws and website. Cap'n Walker 15:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — As User:RJHall points out, per precedent of other Students Associations being included. It does need to be cut down, but the section I tagged as to delete are unfounded, which Wikipedia is not the place for. Further, I believe the AfD is being filed for the wrong reasons and not in good faith (hence the threat to bring up this issue when term resumes). Further, if the 'allegations' section can be verified, and conforms to WP:NPOV, I'm more than happy for it to stay. M0RHI | Talk to me 16:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Furthermore, the University of St Andrews article has already been split in the past, as the article was becoming too long. This is why I don't believe a merge is appropriate. M0RHI | Talk to me 16:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — As per RJH, many other articles on students associations, I see no reason this one should not exist. orudge 16:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Heriot-Watt has a page for their SU so why not Andrews.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Quick_Reference (talk • contribs)
Keep This is an organisation that is not a part of the University, but by it's very nature is seperate. As the organisation that speaks for the students, to merge with the University article would be inappropriate and imply a greater organisational relationship than exists. It is clear the motivation for deletion isn't based upon anything other than personal reasons, not concern for article quality or relevance. Steveo h 17:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Boy, there's a lot of WP:WAX comments already. I'm sorry folks, but simply saying "But these articles exist" doesn't mean all that much since many of them probably should be deleted as well. It's possible some coverage of this association might be appropriate on the university page, but I'm not convinced there's anything to merit anything beyond a brief mention. Certainly not the level of organizational detail present on this page now. Skull and Bones is an example of a society with established notability, this is so far not. FrozenPurpleCube 19:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge absent a showing of some particular notability of this organization. See also previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of St Andrews Liberty Club FrozenPurpleCube 19:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as above. The only arguments that have been put forward thus far are (A) "Keep the article because there are other SU articles" and (B) "The article is really long so we should keep it separate." Neither length nor the fact that it is a SU makes it notable; simply because other SUs have websites does not mean that they are notable, either; of the millions of articles on Wikipedia the SU ones need to abide by the notability rules just like any other article. I suggest this page be deleted and the very brief relevant-to-students information (what the Union is, basically what it does, and where to find its website) is included with the University of St Andrews. It is certainly not worthy of its own article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.238.156 (talk • contribs)
Keep and improve. A notable institution representing the students of a notably ancient and world renowned institution. Also has a number of notable alumni - the current First Minister of Scotland and second in line to the British Throne are two recent examples off the top of my head. Do not merge, as the Students' Assocciation is distinct and independent from the University. I do not see how the Liberty Club example can be used; the latter is a minor and specific organisation run by and for a select few students. The Students' Association is run by all students at the University, for all students. Emoscopes ^Talk 22:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, individual notable members means nothing unless their notability is somehow related to their membership. I don't even see any indication as to Alex Salmond or Prince William being significant members in their articles. Is there something important to what either of those persons did while in this Student Association? The most I get is a quote by the president in the articles describing Prince William's attending the college. Not something I'd consider definitive demonstration as to importance. FrozenPurpleCube 00:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- comment I have made some major style improvements, and attempted to make a more concise article that better asserts its notability. Emoscopes ^Talk 23:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said. I just don't see a good reason to delete it. Novium 00:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps you might wish to examine the arguments mentioned above? Are you familiar with the concept of notability as applied to Wikipedia? I don't think you are familiar with the concept of AFD, which isn't a raw vote, but rather a discussion.(UTC) FrozenPurpleCube 01:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did in fact read them, Mister Manicore, but I did not find them convincing. (so much for "assuming good faith" on your part). This organization exists. It may not be important to everyone, but what is?. Notability is so arbitrarily applied, and with such vague definitions, that I am forced to conclude that it is little more than a stalking horse in this case. Novium 11:12, 24 July 2007

Um, no, I believe it's quite right to be concerned about whether or not a given Wikipedia editor is familiar with the policies and practices of Wikipedia, especially on AFD. Therefore, I quite politely asked you to examine the arguments already presented, and inquired whether or not you were familiar with the concept of notability as applied to Wikipedia. There's nothing wrong with that, and responding with an accusation of assuming bad faith on my part is not something I consider a good idea. Your comments reflected ignorance to me, not a disagreement with the application of notability. If you disagree with that, perhaps it would have been better to say so in a more outright fashion? You may be correct in your concern that it is an arbitrary standard, but none of that concern was apparent in your initial comment. I'm not a mind-reader, I can't know everything that goes on in your head. FrozenPurpleCube 16:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Maybe if it was improved, it'd stand a chance, but as of right now, it reads as if it were an 'About Us' page on the Student Association website. Despite numerous requests, the maker and main editor of the page has failed to prove notability, instead riding on waving Wiki rules at everyone who tries to get the page into working order. It remains non-notable, at least not notable enough to warrant its own page, and should be merged into the St Andrews page. Vaguely 05:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment The funny thing is, since Emoscope's improvement, the only thing that's become verifiable is the criticism of the organisation rather than the organisation itself. I continue to supposrt Deletion or a Merge paired with a serious edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.216.210 (talk • contribs)
Keep Looks to me like a bad faith nomination - the nominating reason is a long winded rant about a content dispute and ends with the very unsettling threat that "Student observers are watching this exchange and it will be noted in the autumn." - That is not how an AfD discussions should be framed - take the student politics elsewhere, this is an encyclopaedia. SFC9394 12:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while there may be issues of a troubling concern, and I do agree, the nomination probably needed to step back a bit, that doesn't mean this organization meets the existing standards and practices to be found on Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 16:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The main student body at each university is notable. It is specific clubs and societies that are not. Golfcam 17:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm following your argument, as this article isn't about the student body as a whole, but about a specific organization of the university. FrozenPurpleCube 18:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'body', used in this sense, is interchangeable with the word 'organisation', and the Students' Association is not an 'organisation of the university', it is a separate, legally-defined entity. Lordrosemount 19:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may mean student body to refer to this organization, however, I use student body to refer to the students as a whole of the university regardless of any organizations. For example, describing the number of students at a university? That would be clearly about the student body. Describing the actions of this group? Not really about the student body. And the point that it is a separate entity is exactly why there is a concern here. FrozenPurpleCube 19:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you or I may mean by the word in any given context is irrelevant: I was explaining to you what the user who posted the comment meant in this context, for clarification. Lordrosemount 19:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do realize that you were trying to explain the statement, but that doesn't mean the statement was any less unclear or inaccurate. The main student body is one thing. This organization is another. Thus the one assertion doesn't validate this article. FrozenPurpleCube 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. First of all, I love all of these comments about how the article fails to assert its own importance. If that were the case (and if it's so much more troubling a problem for this article than for half the other articles on Wikipedia), the good-faith action to take would have been, in the first instance, to seek out such a source and add it, and failing that to tag the article and give other editors a reasonable amount of time to seek one out. Given the number of editors who have worked on it, and what is stated in the article about its size, length of standing legal basis (this is, in case anyone has forgotten, an institution whose existance is mandated by Act of Parliament), this shouldn't have been hard to rectify; the good-faith assumption would have been that this is a notable article, but just one that at the present time lacks a source for its notability. Instead, what we have here is a situation where the editor who proposed the AfD nomination had previously been involved in an edit war over the article, following his previous attempts to insert an uncited, POV criticism section, which he spuriously tried to legitimise by maintaining that it was as important for the pre-existing objective facts, such as dates relating to its establishment, to be cited, as it was to provide objective sources for the opinions he claimed that some un-named students held about it. This is not good faith. Lordrosemount 19:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wonder if you realize how accusing another of bad faith is itself a failure to assume good faith on your part? Bad faith accusations should be reserved for actual actions of real misconduct. Not just a difference of opinion about what to do, which is all that I see here. AGF is not just a stick to use against others, but a practice you should endeavor to follow yourself. In most cases, the best way to convince people that an article should be kept is not to attack the nominator, but rather to demonstrate how the subject of the article meets existing Wikipedia criteria, or how those criteria may not properly apply. And please don't waste time by accusing me of bad faith, that'd just further the problem. If you truly believe there was a problem with the actions that occurred regarding this page, I suggest you try WP:ANI or WP:RFC or WP:RFAR if you must. But I honestly believe if there is a problem with good faith here, it's at the least mutual. FrozenPurpleCube 19:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but it is my belief that the editor I was referring to is guilty of real misconduct. AGF states that one should assume good faith in the absence of good evidence to the contrary, and my post there included an attempt to provide such evidence. If you disagree with me than you are of course perfectly entitled to your opinion, but I note no rebuttal in your response either to that claim, or to the rest of my argument (which, I believe, does demonstrate why the article meets the criteria). Do you, for instance, disagree that the correct response to a lack of notability-establishing sources is a request for some to be provided and a reasonable period of waiting for that to happen? Or do you think it's better, in those circumstances, to stick it straight on AfD? Lordrosemount 19:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't see any real misconduct here. At worst, there's some fractious behavior, but that sort of thing is why AGF exists. I don't see any reason to refute your accusations, since you haven't provided any specific examples of inappropriate action. I'd actually say your representation of the situation is somewhat different from how I observe it, so I believe there is no actual real concern. But if you do, go to WP:ANI or WP:RFAR if you feel strongly about it. I really don't want to try to prove to you who did what, that'd be missing the point of my real concern that you see the value in assuming good faith yourself, and instead of making accusations of bad faith, you work harder to trust other users and address their concerns directly. For example, let's imagine there was a question about Skull and Bones. The way to show its notability is through providing examples like the many books and even television documentaries about the organization. It's easy to make a bad faith accusation, it's harder, but far more important to take another editor's concerns as valid. And while I see your hypothetical as inaccurate to the situation here (since there was an attempt to discuss it beforehand), I'll answer it this way: There is no possibility of a single answer to your question as to what the appropriate action is. Any action taken must be decided upon in the individual situation, which will vary highly. In some cases, a clean-up tag may be appropriate, in others, discussion on the talk page, and in some, a CSD, PROD, or AFD discussion may be appropriate. There is no single answer as to what to do, but instead, an editor must examine the situation and act appropriately depending on the circumstances. I'll give you an example. Recently, an editor nominated a page for deletion, Civil Marriage in Israel in what I consider a hasty decision. I don't consider it a bad-faith action, just a mistaken choice. I don't see any reason to punish TPH for it, I see no malice there, I just see he made a mistake which he corrected after thinking about it. Now in this case, it's not so clear that the nomination was wrong, and I wouldn't say it's a bad faith action at all. Instead, I strongly argue that the best way to handle this is not by accusations of misconduct, but acts that address the concerns such as by providing examples of third-party sources about this organization. FrozenPurpleCube 20:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep --MacRusgail 20:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a reason for making this argument? AFD is not a vote, thus raw numbers are not convincing. Instead, it is appropriate to provide a reason for your position. FrozenPurpleCube 20:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it is the student association of one of the so called "ancient universities". Because St Andrews is such a small town, it plays an important economic role in it. --MacRusgail 20:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem with that argument is that it applies to the University as a whole, not necessarily to everything associated with it. How has this organization contributed to the (hopefully documented already) role that the University of St. Andrews has had in the economics of this town? Where are the sources for that assertion? FrozenPurpleCube 20:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, the university as a whole does play an economic role, but then again so does the association. The student association itself is an employer, owns a good chunk of the town, and is responsible for most of its more youthful nightlife. --MacRusgail 18:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That's a nice assertion *BUT* where are the sources that back up this claim? You do realize that Wikipedia requires sources, not just your bare word, right? FrozenPurpleCube 18:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Either you believe the above editor's claim, or you don't. If you believe it - and as someone so keen to encourage others to assume good faith, presumably you most - then I repeat, why are you supporting the deletion of the article instead of trying to help other editors find sources that would be acceptable to you? Lordrosemount 22:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ahem, there's a difference between saying "I have no basis on which to believe your claim and neither does anybody else, that's why Wikipedia has a WP:V policy" and "I believe you're outright lying in order to vandalize Wikipedia and are a bad person" . The one is a statement of expressed Wikipedia policy and a valid concern that enjoys wide support. The other is an accusation. I am making the former. Not the latter. Do you see the difference or not? I don't think anybody else would be confused, but if you'd like, you can ask elsewhere and get feedback. And why would I help you with this? Do you need instructions on how to use a search engine? Do you expect me to go look up newspaper archives? I'm sorry, but there are things I'm interested in doing and things I'm not. Now this isn't to say I wouldn't look at any sources you cared to supply and give them a fair examination, but I'm sorry, I'm not going to go do something for you when I don't feel a desire to do so. Some things I just don't think are a good use of my time. FrozenPurpleCube 05:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:V relates to information that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Now, a person could challenge anything, but in doing so they couldn't just state their unjustified disbelief - they would have to provide some reason why they believe the information is untrue (and therefore unverifiable). The claim that a students' association with a membership of over 7,000 at a time, a dedicated volunteering arm and official status in regard to town/gown relations makes contributions to the social and economic life of the town it sits in, is not likely to be challenged by a reasonable person, as it would seem to follow by necessity. Given that no basis for any such challenge has been provided by yourself or anyone else, we can only conclude that there has been no legitimate challenge and there is no prospect of one - hence WP:V does not apply in this case. Lordrosemount 11:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I suggest you look more fully at WP:V instead. Limiting your reading to just individually quoted selections is missing the point. Verifiability applies to almost everything, not just exceptional claims. The smallest things can turn out to be untrue, which means well, it's best to have sources for everything. This especially applies to things which are asserted for notability. FrozenPurpleCube 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- Mais oui! 19:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete or Merge. I agree with Manticore--- the Students' Association is not relevant to the town, let alone the nation or the world, without the University and is only appropriate for mention in the context of the University. It has not made any contributions of local, let alone regional or national scale. The association plays almost no economic role in the town--- it is essentially a bar for the transient student community that lives there for six months a year. The absence of independent secondary sources to show that it has any other relevance to the world is telling. These sources should be found if the article is to stay. This is a good faith action--- it's just trying to give potential readers the appropriate view of the Association, which is important only in the context of the University. Also, listing individual Association "elected officers"--- students who meet in committee once a fortnight--- adds an element of vanity to the already un-notable article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.217.151 (talk • contribs)
- Not relevant to the town? That's rubbish: the Association sends represesentatives to the Town Council, runs volunteering projects in the community and co-ordinates town/gown events - I should know, I used to do most of it. And before there's any more sanctimonious preaching about the citation of sources, I'm hoping within a few days to have a whole slew, and you can expect a new section on this very point within the next couple of days. It's not as though this article is realistically going anywhere; a child of two could figure out that there's a strong consensus to keep. Lordrosemount 22:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The numerous harangues by deletion advocates alone provide almost reason enough to keep, but a student organisation about 7000 members associated with a world famous university is sufficient to indicate encyclopedic notability barring good evidence to the contrary. No evidence has been provided that this organisation is less notable than other similar student organisations, and I consider them in general to be encyclopedic topics. WP:V and WP:RS are the only concerns I normally have with this class of article, but I didn't notice any serious problems with this page. Quale 21:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- the only reason there are 7000 members (debatable) is because all students are automatically made members on entry; the same is true of the University's debating society. However, most of the students use the place as a late-night bar and little else and don't get involved with activism or representational activity. Less than one-fifth of them vote in elections, and that number (depending on which election) can be as low as one in ten. Fewer still know what's going on. The notability test is whether the organization can be shown by secondary source articles. So far, the only notable things that have been added are critiques of the Association, and insignificant references to statutes and association rules; nothing demonstrates its wider importance to the world. The burden of proof is on the author to PROVE the Association is notable; it is not for those supporting deletion to disprove its notability. Unless notability is established it should be cut down, merged, and the original page deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.217.151 (talk • contribs) ad
Keep per consensus. There is no burden of proof of notability. It's snowing in Scotland. Bearian 22:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC) (Fixed 2 typos.) Bearian 17:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a burden of proof for notability. You can argue as to whether or not it should be applied, but policies like WP:ORG do have significant support in the community.

FrozenPurpleCube 00:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the guideline at WP:ORG, "This page is considered a notability guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." I am an attorney, and thus love to follow rules, but sometimes you have to break the letter of the law to fulfill the spirit of the law. I can not find explicitly about such a burden, unless you combine two rules -- notability and verification. Reasons for deletion include "subject fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines", which I take to mean the former, and "attempts to find reliable sources ... which ... can be verified have failed", which I assume refers to the latter. Bearian 17:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you seem to be quite diligently to argue the rules rather than embrace their spirit to me. Maybe if you focused less on all the links and what they say, and instead took a step back and examined the situation it'd be different, but I honestly don't think you are sticking to the spirit, but are rather trying to seek a technicality. Anyway, I see no common sense reason to make an exception in this case. Sorry, but I simply don't. Common sense tells me every university probably has a similar organization, there's nothing particularly distinctive about this one in particular, thus there's no reason to make an exception for coverage of this one, and more of a reason to not make it. The appropriate level of coverage is in the main article. FrozenPurpleCube 18:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry, but the premise of that argument is diametrically opposed to the truth. You say that it would be wrong to make a 'special case' of the University of St Andrews in having an article about its Association, when almost every other university has a similar organisation associated with it. Erm, hello, Category:Students' unions. Guess what, almost every other students' association/union has an article. Why are you making a special case out of St Andrews, by arguing for the deletion of this one? Lordrosemount 22:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not so! You are assuming from the existence of those articles that I have some feeling of acceptance for them. But the truth is I don't necessarily support any of those other universities having articles about their student associations, and besides your statement is factually untrue. There is no way almost every other university students association has an an article on it. The category you refer to has only 47 entries for English schools. How many institutes of higher education are there in England? There are certainly well more than that at List of universities in England. It's even worse for the United States, with 16 pages out of lots more. There's more colleges in most of the states than there are in that whole category. Now you might say that's because there's a lot of entries left out of the category by pure neglect. But so what? I am still not required to support those articles, and I don't. There are many of them which probably should be deleted. However, Wikipedia is a work in progress. It's a lot of work, and things often get done haphazardly. It is highly unfair of you to expect folks to nominate any and every article with the same problem, and thus I suggest you refrain from doing so. Really, nothing you're saying is new, and none of it is especially convincing in the way of an argument. If anything, it just tells me you might want to look at The arguments to avoid so as to familiarize yourself with the existing situation. FrozenPurpleCube 04:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, so if (as you claimed above) these articles hadn't existed, it would have been a valid argument that St Andrews shouldn't be a special case; but as they do, it is not a valid argument to that consensus exists among the large number of editors who have contributed to these articles that they have every right to be here? Wikipedia is founded on consensus; and both this page and the category I've referred to show that the consensus is that your opinion that students' unions and associations are not valid subjects for articles, is wrong. Lordrosemount 10:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying right out, the existence of those other articles has no weight whatsoever in regards to the appropriate action to take for this article. Sorry, but they don't matter one bit. Really, stop worrying about them. WAX arguments can work, sometimes, but in this case, they're simply not going to convince me of anything. And if you want to see what consensus really means, take a look at some of the recent Harry Potter related AFDs. FrozenPurpleCube 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you claim that not deleting this article would be an exception? And, moreover, what makes you think that I (or any of the other countless people who've argued for keep) have the slightest interest in convincing you, personally, of anything? I can assure you I'm not the least bit worried about these other articles, but I still maintain that a consensus exists among a large number of editors that STUDENTS' ASSOCIATIONS ARE NOTABLE. You haven't given anyone the slightest reason to believe otherwise. Lordrosemount 20:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to WP:ORG, actually, as to what the exception was being asked for, not an exception among student associations. I guess you didn't realize what I was saying. And I don't see anything resembling a large number of editors, and I especially don't see a large number of editors with valid arguments having been made. You're confusing the numbers posting here with an actually relevant sampling of Wikipedia users. Sorry, but that's not the case, and more to the point, the substance of many people's arguments is lacking. Wikipedia isn't governed simply by numbers (see WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY]]. You'd come across a lot better if you worried less about the numbers here, and focused more establishing the article within the existing policies and guidelines. That's the best way to get something kept. FrozenPurpleCube 01:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you seem to be quite diligently to argue the rules rather than embrace their spirit to me. Maybe if you focused less on all the links and what they say, and instead took a step back and examined the situation it'd be different, but I honestly don't think you are sticking to the spirit, but are rather trying to seek a technicality. Anyway, I see no common sense reason to make an exception in this case. Sorry, but I simply don't. - Yeah, you're damn right I couldn't understand what you were saying. And my comment, if you'd read it, referred to the number of editors who had edited the sum of all articles on Wikipedia about students' associations - I didn't say a word to indicate an erroneous belief that AfD discussions are democratic votes. If that many editors, acting independently, think students' associations to be worthy subjects for articles, don't you think that may be a teensy little indication that they are? Actually, probably not - I'm sure you'll come up with yet more sophistry to claim otherwise. Lordrosemount 01:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you didn't understand what I said, perhaps you might want to ask for a clarification? And no, I don't see where you added any kind of disclaimer that you were limiting your remark to editors of Student association pages. Is that what you meant? Well, if so, I'd point out to you that many large groups of articles get found on Wikipedia(there were many many articles deleted on radio antennas not so long ago), and as I see it, there wasn't even a real organization to these things. Just haphazard examples of individual people throwing up articles because that's what they were interested in doing. That's not a bad thing, it's what Wikipedia is about. But there's more to Wikipedia than just people deciding they care about something, which is why we have things like WP:AFD and the various policies and guidelines that exist to decide what content is encyclopedic or not. Hence, that's why it's best to make arguments based on the merits of the individual article with references to existing policy, not on things that may not mean anything other than some individuals decided to act. They may have. So what? It doesn't mean as much as you seem to think. I certainly don't place much weight on it. FrozenPurpleCube 03:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, if you're not trying to convince me, or anybody else, then you're missing the point of consensus. FrozenPurpleCube 01:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what possible reason could you think you, personally and you or anybody else mean the same thing? Next time, I think I'll just set the straw men up for you, to save you the bother. Lordrosemount

And I think this demonstrates why it's important to comment on the content, not the contributor. If instead of focusing on me, you'd focused on the page itself, I feel you'd be much more likely to be persuasive. Your statement above, however, does nothing to persuade me, in fact, it tends to ruin my impression of you and make it even less likely you'll convince me of anything. I'd say it's borderline uncivil, though not quite a personal attack. You may wish to consider modifying your arguments in the future. FrozenPurpleCube 03:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - definitely. It is an interesting article and would be best not cluttering up the University's main page.--Breadandcheese 01:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in the article. Really, I don't care about it one way or the other. In fact, there are many thousands of articles the subject of which I don't care in the slightest bit about. I'm sure the same applies to you. None of that is a good argument for deletion, the same as you being interested in a subject isn't a good argument for retention. The reasons for this are complicated, but you may wish to look at WP:ATA for an examination of them, in particular the ILIKE and INTERESTING sections. The question of cluttering up the main page is somewhat more reasonable, but not if the content of this page were reduced to one or two sentences as might be appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 05:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly count 'it's interesting' amongst the great Wikipedia faux pas of all time, however shall I rephrase: it's an informative article, dealing with a subject that despite what someone said above I believe is certainly notably and significant within the town of St Andrews and the University. Also, as St A's isn't in the NUS and CHESS is dying out, a burden of representation to the various government education departments often falls these days upon individual students' unions - hence giving it a wider significance. --Breadandcheese 06:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Informative is not the question, the question is where are the sources to back the claim of notability and significance within this town. FrozenPurpleCube 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, students' unions are separate from the institution and are notable; no reason for singling out St Andrews'. Timrollpickering 13:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Not all Student Unions are notable, but I'm satisfied that this one is. Scrub for trivia, like the nominations procedure for Honorary Life membership and the deathly-dull committee structure. — mholland (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm sorry for writing so often but I have to refute the absurd arguments being made... "it's interesting," "no, seriously, it's notable." It is neither, and it falls well within the scope of the Notability guidelines and doesn't establish itself according to them. (Quality Control in Wikipedia: constant battle). I'm going to give you the guidelines, and then I'm going to give you what the Association has cited--- it's very clear that we do not have a consensus on the issue. Also, replying to the "snowball" remark, this isn't a snowball--- it's an uphill battle and it's winnable. And if Wikipedia notability guidelines are going to stand up, this and every other Student Union should be put up against the guidelines for scrutiny. Read on:

Notability requirements for organisations are as follows:

1) "An organization... is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources." ...None of the secondary sources cited have had the Association as their SUBJECT-- only as a passing reference. The subject matter is related to different things entirely (e.g. kicking a newspaper out for insulting the Welsh, or Alex Salmond).

2) "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." As above. The Association's business is not only LOCAL but deals with a sub-segment of a locality: University students in a small, nowhere Scottish town. Wider relevance to the rest of Scotland is tough--- relevance to the rest of the UK is hard to imagine, especially as all of the Association's notable members (Prince William, Alex Salmond) have graduated. For the record, try as I might I am unable to find any article on-line placing "William" and the Association together, aside of course from this Wikipedia article.

3) "Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article." ...this should be widely read. The Association is a segment of the University, it gets a large portion of its funding from the University and it is built on University land. It is inseparable from the wider organisation of "St Andrews University," without which it would have no relevance at all (and indeed would not exist).

In an effort to cite sources, the Association manages to establish three facts:

1) The Association was instituted in 1983 under the Constitution and Laws of the University of St Andrews Students’ Association[1]. 2) It comprises the Students' Representative Council (SRC), established in 1885 and legally defined under the Universities (Scotland) Act 1889[2] , and the Students' Union (which was itself a merger of the Students' Union and the Women's Union). 3) The Students' Association is registered with the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator as charity SCO19883 [3]

None of the other material, save for criticism of the body for being ineffective and/or incompetent, establishes the group's relevance according to the notability criteria. Heraldry and the Crest might be nice, but the Association is not a notable organisation by any standard--- not like Oxford or Cambridge (debating) Unions, which deal with high rollers, big-shots and count among their alumni a great host of notable and active members.

comment

University students in a small, nowhere Scottish town. Wider relevance to the rest of Scotland is tough--- relevance to the rest of the UK is hard to imagine

thankyou for demonstrating your ignorance of the subject matter. Oldest university in Scotland, 3rd oldest in the UK, an ancient and prestigious institution that is world renowned. The home of golf and vitally historically important to Scotland with regards to the Reformation, religion and as a seat of learning...

especially as all of the Association's notable members (Prince William, Alex Salmond) have graduated.

well, that tends to happen with students. They graduate. Time moves on. And sometimes later they become famous.

The Association is a segment of the University, it gets a large portion of its funding from the University and it is built on University land. It is inseparable from the wider organisation of "St Andrews University," without which it would have no relevance at all (and indeed would not exist)

The Association is categorically not a segment of the University. It gets a grant from the University, no reference is made in the article as to what proportion of its income this is, you therefore seem to be reading things that aren't even there. Yes, the Union is built on University land, but parts of the University are built on Union land. So what? The ownership of the land of an institution are absolutely irrelevant. No University union or organisation would exist without the fact that its alma mater also exists. What is the argument here?

not like Oxford or Cambridge (debating) Unions, which deal with high rollers, big-shots and count among their alumni a great host of notable and active members.

Seems to me like all of their notable members have graduated... You can't use your agrument one way and then expect it not to work the other.

Emoscopes ^Talk 19:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment despite the irrelevancy of the Union and its non notability in the press, as claimed above, it is worth demonstrating that a large number of world media publications have saw fit to consult the Association President on a range of issues over the past 6 or 7 years ( http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?q=St+Andrews+Students%27+Association&um=1&sa=N&start=10 ) - I think I count all of the predidents in there in fact. The press has clearly sought the views of the Association (speaking for the student body that elected it as a whole), rather than directly that that of the University. Emoscopes ^Talk 19:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One-line quick quotes are not a good way to demonstrate notability. All it means is that they needed text to fill something. Besides, your search includes many things that aren't relevant to the association at all. To be honest, the only quotes from the association were to do with Prince William's Enrollment. Not very convincing to me. FrozenPurpleCube 01:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But surely that line contradicts itself. WP:N suggests that if a work warrants the production of a news story, then it passes. As sources have been provided or can easily be found, and the organisation has been referred to in newsbites, WP:N should be satisfied. The fact that Mr. Manticore and several unregistered users need to contribute a rebuttal to every comment indicates at least a too involved, unobjective stance, and at the most, who knows. M0RHI | Talk to me 02:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on the contributor isn't usually helpful. Some people like to discuss things. Have any of my comments been rude or uncivil? I don't feel they have, so I enjoin you to assume good faith, and instead of making comments about me, you concentrate on the issue at hand, which is the article itself. It would be more much effective an argument. I see these statements about people all the time. Usually, it's frivolous. In response to your other statement, the problem is, this association has not warranted the production of a news story. Take the story about Prince William. It's about him. Possibly about the college. Not about the association, not even Prince William's activity within it. This: [17] is an example of an article about an organization. Try finding something like that, instead of fretting over people's non-offensive actions. It'd be much much effective. Or are you going to make a claim that I, or somebody else has made a personal attack or been uncivil? If so, please point me to what it is with a diff. FrozenPurpleCube 03:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, but then, assuming my reply was in good faith, you wouldn't even begin to assume so ;). M0RHI | Talk to me 03:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to make comments about me, and place a negative weight upon them, then you should expect a response. Trying to make counter-accusations of not assuming good faith on my part because of that only demonstrates the problem in making comments on the individuals involved. I hope that you consider the value of sticking to the actual content versus commenting on the contributor and try to put it more into practice. It would be much more effective and less disruptive. But if you don't believe me, perhaps you might want to ask on WP:WQA for an examination of your statements? FrozenPurpleCube 03:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't accusing you, but I'm of the belief that once voting on an AfD, to leave it at that. Anything more, in my opinion, means you become too involved in the argument itself and "can't see the trees for the wood". Admins know all the arguments to avoid and will see through them. But hey, that's only my opinion. M0RHI | Talk to me 09:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Alex Salmond Point is not well explained in the article but the election for president remains the only election that Mr Salmond has been personally defeated in.

- That doesn't make the Association relevant: the place for that bit of information is in the article about Alex Salmond. 86.135.217.151 14:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)observer[reply]

Keep, merg or improve Unfortunately it is difficult for anybody else to get hold of information for some thing as local as this but lots of student union branches have articles. I would like to see more references and more citation on the page. There must be documentation about this student union branch and its activities some where in the area. At the end of the day there is only one student union, the National Union of Students but the individual activities and history of one is interesting for large unversities and ones in London with good access to demonstrations Delighted eyes 02:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - St Andrews is not a member of the NUS. M0RHI | Talk to me 11:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

which is really case-in-point. It's like one of six or so that isn't, isn't it? Novium 12:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a new section on the activities of the Association, which should hopefully address some of the concerns that have been raised about notability and citations per policy; its contents show that the activities of the Association have relevance beyond the immediate student community, and are sourced to a popular and reputable local community magazine which meets Wikipedia's requirements surrounding editorial oversight, etc. Lordrosemount 18:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close - My own research shows that there are a significant number of reliable sources from which to write an article on this topic. The topic meets WP:N and the article can meet Wikipedia article standards policies. As for the nomination, the answer is WP:SOFIXIT. AfD is not the place to resolve such content disputes. Please try Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 09:00, 30 July 2007 (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 Withdrawn by nominator. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 17:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Template:Afd bottom[reply]

Dirck Tulp

Contested speedy. An article translated from the Dutch wiki, but I can't see how this person is individually notable, except as a relative of someone else, or through marriage. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 14:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - also notable figure in Dutch politics himself, in relations to the English court, and in being the last in a line. Entirely sourced from Dutch wiki for now, but looking up some more on him to boost its notability. Neddyseagoon - talk 14:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sheesh - give editors a few minutes before unleashing a barrage of tags. Addhoc 14:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment you miss the point - the article was translated from the Dutch wiki - it's not a new article. I read it through, couldn't see any notability, so tagged it. However I contacted the author (not via template) and based on his reply I moved it here from CSD to give some time to show notability. If there is some, then that's fine. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 14:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You read completely through the article, researched it, and tagged it all in under 1 minute? --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CSD A7 - "Article about a person, group, company, or web content that does not assert the importance of the subject.". The article certainly didn't assert any notability (indeed, most of it is not about the subject himself) but as I said because of the amount of possible notability, I brought it here instead. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 15:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Though there is plenty of stuff in the article about himself, too. Neddyseagoon - talk 15:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It tells us a little about his life, yes, but most of it is about his other family and his Potter portrait. I've tried to do a little digging myself, but without much success. Indeed, a Google search for his name, subtracting Wiki-mirrors and references to his portrait, left me with only 2 hits (though obviously there will probably be more Dutch language references). As I said though, the AfD will run for five days to help unearth any other, perhaps non-Internet references. (By the way, the spelling Dirk Tulp appears to be used interchangeably on websites of all languages, though this also confuses things as there appears to be another Dirk Tulp who also had his portrait painted, this time by Dupont [18])ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 16:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Prime encyclopedia fodder. —Xezbeth 16:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, first question is how can some one be notable in Dutch Wiki and not be in English Wiki? If a person is notable in one language of wiki he is notable in all wiki's. I find this person notable. Callelinea 16:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient text and importance in his day to show notability. Arnoutf 16:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient statements of notability made in article. If some Dutch-speaking Wikipedians could add more refs, that'd be nice. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before it snows, I'll withdraw this, though I'm still less than convinced :) ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 17:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion log shows that this article has been deleted before and per WP:SNOW this is closed as delete.--Jersey Devil 15:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Avraham Nhamani

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ben Avraham Nhamani

Fails WP:BIO. The weird spelling of the name got my attention. I live near Jerusalem, and i go to galleries, and i've never heard The only cited source is the "artist"'s website. The spelling of his name on the website is also badly inconsistent, which is a red of "the painter of Jerusalem". Google doesn't find any good primary source. I also tried googling "בן אברהם נחמני" in Hebrew and found some forum posts and an archived page of the Hebrew Wikipedia's Community Portal, which says that the article about him was deleted. light - the whole website looks like it came from some marketing website mill and part of it is actually written in Lorem ipsum. Also, "the painting on display in Vatican" is not necessarily on display - the website only shows a letter from the Vatican in which they thank the gallery for sending the picture to them. To put it short - it's a stab at advertising. Amir E. Aharoni 13:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another obscure person using WP for free self-promotion. Totnesmartin 13:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources. -- Whpq 14:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be in multiple non-trivial references that is independent of the artist itself. Spellcast 14:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google only comes up with sites selling his paintings, and the like. No independent reviews, critisism, etc, of his work. Probably meets WP:CSD A7. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This subject does not appear to be notable, as well as clearly failing the verifiability policy. — Rlest 15:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 more popcult listcruft. Daniel Case 13:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adagio for Strings in popular culture

Delete - see for precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1812 Overture in popular culture. This is a directory of loosely associated items. These things have nothing in common with each other beyond happening to include some portion of a particular piece of music. The inclusion of this music tells us nothing about the piece, the works in which it's included, their relationship to each other or the real world. In answer to the inevitable suggestion, I strongly oppose merging any of this information into Adagio for Strings or any other article. It's a laundry list/trivia dump in its own article and no more worthwhile cluttering any other article. Otto4711 13:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete oh god, another "in popular culture" list! the day they all go will be a happy day. Totnesmartin 13:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so WHY should it be deleted? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason. Lugnuts 14:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article couldn't even be a section of Adagio for Strings per WP:TRIVIA, which is part of WP:FIVE.-- aBSuRDiST -^T J ^C- 15:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure trivia - violation of WP:FIVE Corpx 17:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Trivia does not belong on Wikipedia. Sawblade05 17:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TRIVIA, merge the sourced ones in the parent article.--JForget 23:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of these sets of scrappy un-filtered notes can ever become a encyclopedia article. Golfcam 17:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 listcruft. Daniel Case 16:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of pop music rivalries

Another music rivalries page (following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hip hop rivalry, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other Hip hop rivalry and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G-Unit feuds) — this one has been tagged as unreferenced since August 2006 and is filled with unsourced material, original research, weasel words and possible WP:BLP violations. Because nothing is sourced, there's nothing that can be used in other articles. Extraordinary Machine 13:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of these "rivalries" are invented by the tabloids, so who's to know the truth? it mentions the Beatles/Stone rivalry (there wasn't one, they even arranged to release their singles at different times), and worst of all, makes no mention of Howard Jones and Nik Kershaw! Totnesmartin 14:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and in line with similar deletions of similar articles. Otto4711 14:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent set with other AFD's. Lugnuts 14:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per listed precedent, this is a pile of unreferenced, unverified original research and tabloid rumors, and the possible WP:BLP violations seal the deal. --Wingsandsword 15:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft.--Jersey Devil 15:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft, verifiability, per precedent, per nom, and also one of the only ones I can think of is F.U.R.B. Will ^(talk) 16:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources, original research, hopelessly vague inclusion criteria, BLP concerns, and also because it devotes a single line to Oasis but four sections to Mariah Carey. Iain99 19:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., and above.--JayJasper 21:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft and unsourced, and most of the rivalries are likely discuss in the respective various articles of the singers included in this list.--JForget 23:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NOT a catalog. Daniel Case 00:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney Channel Merchandise

This is corporate spam. It is not even all of Disney's stuff, just the books re Hannah Montana Jack Merridew 12:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see also: List of Hannah Montana books - it's all there and a whole lot more. Anyone for AfDing this, too? --Jack Merridew 10:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this is bordering on WP:NOT#DIR #3, which says Wikipedia is not a "resource for conducting business". Spellcast 13:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given the size and scope of the Disney Channel merchandising operation, I actually think this could feasibly be an encyclopedic list. But this article is one editor creating a list of five Hannah Montana books two months ago. Propaniac 15:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT - Not a sales catalog, even though it doesn't list the prices Corpx 17:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a short article only listing five books, which hardly bodes well for an encyclopedic article, but it is conceivable to me that it might be possible to discuss the merchandising of the Disney Channel in some form. Though I think in most cases it'll be on the respective television series or movie rather than an overall page. For example, this page's content would come under Hannah Montana somewhere. FrozenPurpleCube 02:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur L. Quinn

Prod removed several times, this article is of a seemingly not notable subject, its in a right mess and failing WP:V. — Rlest 12:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I see no evidence of this man's notability in the article or on Google. Closest is the captain of a floating nightclub from the forties, but that doesn't grab me as notable, even if it is the same chap. Lankiveil 12:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Despite the fact that the article is largely a mess of irrelevant interwiki links, it's clearly the vanity page of someone who I can find nothing notable on.--Sethacus 15:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC) (formerly Ispy1981)[reply]
Delete too bad it doesn't meet criteria for speedy. It doesn't assert notability, and there is no notability. Just some guy that was in the military. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Command Sergeant Major is a highly accomplished position, but accomplishment is not the same as notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also appears to be a vanity page; the creator was User:Kingsmen00. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 07:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy Beat me to it. User page of article creator says he is Arthur L Quinn. Sgt Major of the Air Force is notable, Command Sgt Major generally isn't. Horrorshowj 19:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:Kingsmen00 -- but I am not an admin. Bearian 22:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Prod shouldn't have had to be removed several times. Once prod is contested, it needs to be AFD'd. hbdragon88

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 unreferenced VCSA. Daniel Case 15:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bagrunov Vladimir

Page was created 14 July by someone who is obviously not a natural English speaker, with no development since. At first sight, I thought it might just need tidying up, but following the link suggests that this is no more than an ad for a non-notable commercial organisation. Of course, there is just a chance that I could be wrong so perhaps someone with a working knowledge of Russian could investigate further. Emeraude 12:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I have no knowledge of Russian, but it certainly looks like spam to me. Lankiveil 12:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Article reads like an advert and probably is. Does anyone naturally speak English? T Rex | talk 14:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. My Russian sucks even more than the author's English, but it's enough to see this is obvious spam. The Bagrunov guy in question opened a school where people allegedly learn to sing without using their vocal cords, which this man claims is against nature (!). The website says the school is famous and has been covered by major Russian media, but a quick Google makes it clear it has not. --Targeman 15:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM - This is pure promotional material Corpx 17:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the secret of notability is to have reliable sources write about you. WP:VSCA in every way. --Dhartung | Talk 20:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with no prejudice against recreation if more evidence of notability is found and sourced. Daniel Case 02:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Bolker-Hagerty

I found 300 Google hits on this person, but I can't tell if he's notable or if there are any references to corroborate his list of accomplishments. Unless these concerns can be addressed, we must consider deleting the article. Shalom ^Hello 12:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability, and reads like self-promotion, which it probably is (this is the author's first and only contribution). --Targeman 15:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Only articles I found on Google news just quote him from his official position. I dont think that's sufficient for notability Corpx 17:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just an executive for a company with a high-profile product. --Dhartung | Talk 20:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete not President of that company, but Executive Vice President--no individual accomplishments mentioned. DGG (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no basis to gauge if anyone outside his enterprise would be keen to support the article. Uranometria 18:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - he's "involved in every aspect" of the company, but needs sourcing and a complete rewrite from this vanity page. Bearian 22:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above reasons.--Fabrictramp 21:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. Not notable yet. Daniel Case 15:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Hull

Biography of a non-notable actor who played a (very) minor character in one of the Harry Potter movies. PageantUpdater • talk • contribs • 11:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if you are "best known" for playing a bit part in a big movie, you're probably not notable enough. Sorry. Lankiveil 12:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - doesn't even appear on IMDb! Extremely non-noteable and goes against WP:BIO. Get rid of it. Lra drama 12:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pfft, he's not even in IMDB. Guinness 12:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even some relatively minor actors are listed on IMDB, but this person is not. Spellcast 13:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His character only has a few sentences written about him. T Rex | talk 14:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only role was as a Minor Slytherin, which is about a half-step higher than being a walk-on. Why anybody should care what his little brother is studying in school is beyond me. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pottercruft per WP:SNOW. And it is (well, was) visually wanting, shall we say. Daniel Case 02:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hogwarts school roll

I think the introduction says it all. Incomplete listcruft, and WP:OR. Notable students are already listed elsewhere (in the House lists). PageantUpdater • talk • contribs • 11:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not only incomplete - empty. Pottercruft. Lankiveil 12:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Hogwarts characters are adequately covered elsewhere. Shalom ^Hello 12:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utter listcruft. Regardless of the couple of paragraphs at the beginning, the fact that the lists themselves are empty makes a reasonable case for deletion under WP:CSD A3.. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Harry's year is easy, but the years either side are much harder to find details for. As it is now, I agree it's pure duplication of Students in Harry Potter's Year, with a touch of List of characters in the Harry Potter books#students (although I do like my table syntax more than either of theirs). I've copied into my namespace, so I'm ambivalent as to whether this is deleted. It'll be back when it's complete, useful and unique. Oh, BTW, OR has gone from this page (IMHO), but you might want to chase it into Students in Harry Potter's year if you're keen. Happy-melon 15:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fictional topic with no real world coverage - Maybe transwiki somewhere? Corpx 17:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Slavlin 17:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have separate articles on the students in Harry's year? Ye gods. Delete this as redundant to those, and someone send me some new retinas, something about the colour scheme in that table made mine go all funny... Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and delete now. Ridiculous. Natalie 21:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is found in somewhat similar fashion in the Hogwarts article, so this is just a duplication for the most part.--JForget 23:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A redundant list of characters, plus it's HIDEOUSLY UGLY. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (A7) —Xezbeth 12:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viper Goetz

This is an obvious hoax - brought to AfD as this is not a speedy criterion, and prod was removed without comment by major contributor ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 11:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel Case 02:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

40 Winks

This article is not notable Woggy 16:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

40 Winks should be deleted because the game is not notable, And it is not well known. (Woggy 17:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has 100,000 Google hits and plenty of available sources. Shalom ^Hello 12:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Game has had more than enough coverage in reliable sources. Wildthing61476 13:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game was released on the psone and besides Nintendo Power the UK Nintendo Magazine System and N64 magazine both reviewed the game stating a release date, a month after the issues were released. It was also one of the few N64 game to feature single player co-op and use the expansion pak. Atirage 14:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Orinoco~~ Keep "40 winks" +N64 gets 10000 google hits, so seems notable enough. Totnesmartin 14:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep, I don't know that much about video games, but this one sure seems to be notable enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A single mention by Gamespy alone is sufficient as a reliable source, since Gamespy is an authoritative gaming website.--Kylohk 01:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - The nomination was presumably made in good faith, but there is simply no justification to delete this article, and the nomination reason provided is false. Deletion should be closed within 24 hours.--WaltCip 01:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 22:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avenue St Andrew's United Reformed Church

Non-notable church Montchav 19:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shalom ^Hello 12:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not notable and is only 1 sentance on the subject. Sawblade05 17:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability and reliable sources standards are met - neither of which seems likely after a brief Google search.... -- MarcoTolo 23:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well wide of the notability mark. Blueboy 96 20:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel Case 15:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City Life Church

Non-notable church Montchav 19:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shalom ^Hello 12:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Big top 17:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Non Notable church stub Sawblade05 18:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there are many local branches of this church, there doesn't seem to be any non-trivial mention by reliable sources independent of the Church. Doesn't seem to have any significant longevity or any major achievements. hence fails WP:CORP.--Kylohk 01:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Non Notable church stub --Vox Humana 8' 17:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for now. Content can be merged as desired from article history. Naming should be settled somewhere other than here. Daniel Case 04:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy Veras Goyco

Freddy Beras-Goyco is the correct spelling for this subect. I have repeatedly told editor who created this article that he was creating two articles for same person due to mispelling. The editor chose to ignore my warning and created another article on the same subject.

The links below will only validate the proper spelling of his name:

[19] , [20], [21].

Please delete other entry and merge any info that can be cited into the present article.--XLR8TION 20:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)-XLR8TION 15:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There also seem to be a LOT more references to his name being spelled Beras Goico, rather than Goyco. This doesn't appear to be a job for AfD, more a naming dispute - even if a name is decided upon the other articles would be redirected rather than deleted. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 11:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I said on the talk page, a naming should be settled on, then the page redirected to the correct spelling. Wildthing61476 13:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per previous two commenters. —David Eppstein 17:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. This seems to be "in use" as a misspelling so it makes sense to retain and point users to the correct spelling. --Dhartung | Talk 20:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect - alternate name spelling -- Whpq 21:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Avoid duplication of effort; redirects are cheap. --Aarktica 15:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SNOW (Can we come up with some sort of winter-themed pun for this combination of policy violations?) Daniel Case 02:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How I Feel(Kelly Clarkson song)

not confirmed, only a rumor. People need to wait until things are actually confirmed before creating pages about the information Her single 'SOBER' hasn't even been officially released yet.Alankc 07:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:CRYSTAL, etc. Lankiveil 12:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above. Shalom ^Hello 12:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:lack of information and no source verifying it will be a single. RaNdOm26 14:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, isn't notable enough for an article until it becomes a single. T Rex | talk 14:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable yet. Per the nom, "Sober" hasn't even been released yet, so this is totally crystalballism. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or re-direct to My December. The article about this song is currently crystal-ballism, and is not notable for now. Acalamari 21:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and any article that contains the phrase “it is rumoured [rumored]...”. Wikipedia is not a rumor mill and we are not in the business of lending legitimacy to rumors. ●DanMS • Talk 01:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mirelly Taylor

prod contested with no serious improvement to article. She is most notable, according to editors, for a one time guest spot that is not referenced in the article on the show or the episode synopsis. If that is her most notable role, then the roles she has had on other shows must be seriously minor. Unless someone can come up with something truly notable, I say she goes as nn until she truly makes it. Postcard Cathy 00:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lankiveil 12:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. She's not clearly notable, but the IMDb link provides some credible information, and the rest is a matter of subjective evaluation. Shalom ^Hello 12:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, without prejudice to recreation. Actress with promise, has had roles in Las Vegas and Numbers as well as indy films.--Sethacus 16:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC) (formerly Ispy1981)[reply]
Delete per lacking major roles Corpx 17:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepShe has had one staring role in a feature with other majors stars and she is an obvious up and coming working actress vcipolla 17:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which one is the major role? Corpx 01:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She played Elena in Kiss Me Again as one of the three stars with Jeremy London, Kate Winnick and also featured Darrell Hammond. That qualifies as a major role. Check out the IMDB page.vcipolla 15:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I thought IMDB was not considered a reliable source. Maybe that is bio info. But I am thinking the author's statement that a one time appearance on Vegas as her most notable role trumps your claim.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 02:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Artillery Command Unit

AfDs for this article:

The information presented in this article is unverifiable and violates WP:V. It also lacks original research and violates WP:NOR. Benjaminelmgren 15:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only google hits are wikipedia mirrors. Probably a hoax. JulesH 13:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very weakly, and without prejudice to re-creation. It surely sounds like a notable concept. But reliable sources need to be found, and unintelligible text (criticized for slow moving bipedal legs???) needs to be translated into plain English. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is why I think it is a hoax. If I read the article correctly, it describes a bipedal fighting robot, which I am pretty sure the US military hasn't produced, seeing as it's a dumb idea. JulesH 23:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that several key phrases in the article (e.g. "F/R RIR" and "GXR Vision") do not appear in google results except in mirrors of this article. JulesH 23:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - On second thought, it does seem to be a hoax. I am too numbed to inane jargon to see the possibility that this phrase may be meant quite literally, and this is talking about some kind of of gadget like a Star Wars style AT-AT walker. - Smerdis of Tlön 11:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 00:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this is nothing more than a clever pun on "mecha". Kirill 00:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: hoax, and any self-respecting mobile artillery command unit should have a Beagle targeting probe. -- Hongooi 00:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax. -- Whpq 21:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax Buckshot06 12:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 22:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Copp

Non notable person-football team appears not to exist. Maniacgeorge 15:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax schoolboy self-promotion. Interesting that the supposed team is called Bandits, but link is to Banndits. Seems the 'author' can't even spell when creating pages. Broadway Banndits needs to be deleted as well. Emeraude 12:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete semi professional at 13? yeah right. Delete Broadway Banndits as well. T Rex | talk 14:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 02:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Peter Mancroft Church, Norwich

non-notable church Montchav 19:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 15th century perpendicular Gothic building replacing an even older church, so hardly non-notable. The article is extremely short, but that's not a reason to delete. Emeraude 12:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stubs are acceptable content. No exact reason given for nom. DGG (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep It certainly is notable and I have added a little text to assert notability. I suggest that the nominator could have done some work to establish notability and to improve the article instead of putting it up for AfD. --Malcolmxl5 08:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly notable on architectural grounds. Golfcam 17:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's a safe assumption that there a many references to this church in scholarly architecture books and local history books about Norwich and Norfolk. Abberley2 02:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Needs merging with St Peter Mancroft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.76.254 (talk • contribs) 12:50, July 26, 2007

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

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

The result was redirect to YES Network. Non-admin closure. --Boricuaeddie 03:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yankees Batting Practice Today

This AfD nomination was part of a previous AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yankees Baseball on YES, which resulted in the deletion of the articles nominated. The reasons are the same now as they were then -- these pages violate WP:NOT, and WP:CRUFT; and contain information which overlaps with each other, and with the YES Network article.

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the same reasons:

Rollosmokes 16:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to YES Network, as User:Vassyana did on the 12th of June. These YES Network shows do not merit their own articles. Shalom ^Hello 12:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the articles and protect them as well, since User:NYYankee2684 seems to be insistent on recreating the articles in defiance of the previous AfD. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 17:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect, per NeoChaosX. Also, can New York Yankeees Post-Game Show be added to this AfD? (Note the extra 'e'.) Iknowyourider (t c) 22:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reverted it back to a redirect. Should probably get it protected and leave a stern warning for NYYankee2684; at this point, he doesn't seem to want to listen. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and move to Shalakya tantra, as it is a more common name[22]. Non-admin closure. --Boricuaeddie 16:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shalakyatanthra

Zero g-hits; unsourced possibly OR. It's unwise to offer unfounded medical advice IMHO. Gilliam 10:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just had a look myself, everything on Google is either Wikipedia or mirrors. If this is real, I'd expect at least some other sources about it to turn up. Lankiveil 12:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC). Keep based upon Corpx's comment below - but might I suggest the article be renamed to a more common spelling? Lankiveil 12:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above; no real online sources. Shalom ^Hello 12:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You're not finding sources because of the spelling. Its a Malayalam world transcribed in its English pronunciation, so spellings vary. A google search pulls up several sources for this. This is indeed a branch of ayurveda. Corpx 17:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of what Corpx found--as it is a real branch of a system with an immense literature, mostly not in english, there will be sufficient print sources. DGG (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Thanks to Corpx for the research. --Aarktica 15:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 02:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hampton Park Primary

Non-notable primary school, with No reliable sources, upon a quick search i found all of nothing. Twenty Years 10:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Twenty Years 10:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:N and WP:RS - A small primary school in Perth of which over 100 exist, with nothing to distinguish it in any way. Deserves a line or mention at Morley at most. Orderinchaos 10:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Morley, Western Australia, as suggested by Orderinchaos. Alansohn 13:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — But|seriously|folks 16:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Orderinchaos. --ForbiddenWord 17:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Redirect to Morley, Western Australia, but I see no value in moving any unsourced information. Just let it die.Noroton 21:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Might be worth a brief mention in the Morley WA article but that is all. Capitalistroadster 03:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Morley, Western Australia. Nothing special about this school. Giggy _U^CP 04:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. If a redirect is created, it should be at "Hampton Park Primary *School*", not at this location. Zivko85 05:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OiC: no assertion of notability. Eusebeus 21:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ardross, Western Australia. Sr 13 02:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ardross Primary School

Non-notable school, has no reliable sources stated, nor could i find any. Twenty Years 10:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Twenty Years 10:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:N and WP:RS - A small primary school in Perth of which over 100 exist, with nothing to distinguish it in any way. Deserves a line or mention at Ardross at most. Orderinchaos 10:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn school. Lankiveil 12:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Ardross, Western Australia, as suggested by Orderinchaos. Alansohn 13:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — But|seriously|folks 16:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alansohn, Orderinchaos, etc. Does not pass standards as established at the WP:N guideline. --ForbiddenWord 17:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Redirect to Ardross, Western Australia, but move no unsourced information. Noroton 21:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as this is only a local primary school with no importances.--JForget 23:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Worth a brief mention in the Ardross, WA article but not a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 03:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ardross, Western Australia, nothing notable in article itself. Giggy _U^CP 04:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to Ardross, Western Australia per WP:N, and no WP:RS to verify anything but that it exists and was built at some point. Zivko85 05:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep All schools have something notable, worth a mention on Wikipedia. I've googled the school, but I cant find too much. I think, if the article is expanded, its worth keeping. ClEeFy 12:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OiC: no assertion of notability. Eusebeus 21:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ardross, Western Australia is fine, nothing stands out which warrants a dedicated article at this time. Burntsauce 22:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Techs 4 IT

Non-notable company, which the article actually states ("a small firm", "as of 2003-2005, the company had one major contract"). Emeraude 09:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. Moreover, this company has not been the subject of any secondary sources. A google search also has very few links to this article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local business / no notability established - WP:NOT#DIRECTOR of businesses. Corpx 17:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:V, which as a core policy overrules any consensus here. This article quotes zero sources. End of discussion. Sandstein 20:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Užican speech

Dicdef, bordering on original research. Well, the situation is as follows: in a dialect continuum of Serbo-Croatian, there are numerous dialects, sub-dialects and sub-sub dialects. So, there probably is such thing as "Užice speech" or "Zlatibor speech", in the sense that, like every other dialect, it has some specifics. Those are enumerated in detail in sr:Zlatiborski govor with zero (0) references, meaning that they're by and large original research. I can't find any Google scholar hits on the subject, under various search terms. Most google hits for "Zlatibor dialect" by and large refer back to Wikipedia [23]; the situation is even worse for "Zlatiborski govor" [24]. The "traditional" map of South Slavic dialects classify this under wider "Eastern Herzegovinian" dialects[25]. I'm afraid that this is a case of local-patriotism without serious scholarly research underneath; there might be some social or linguistic study on the specifics of local speech around (not presented yet), but even if there were, do we want an article of specifics of every local sub-dialect around, without wider recognition? Duja► 09:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sub-dialect of the Eastern Herzegovinian dialect. It is not much written about indeed, so I suppose one can barely find any Google links about it, apart from Wikipedia. It is, however, mentioned here as "užički govor" (Užice speech), here as "изворни ужички језик" (original Užican language), here as "the dialect area of Titovo Uzice" (note that this is an article on Serbo-Croatian prosody published in an eminent journal devoted to Slavonic studies), and here as "народни језик" (vernacular of the Uzice region). Furthermore, Ottoman early geographer Evliya Çelebi while visiting Užice region mentioned that the local population spoke 'the Bosnian language'. Academic Ljubomir Simović in his book "Užice sa vranama" devoted a chapter to the language of Užice people: "О ужичким именима и надимцима или О томе како Ужичани схватају однос између речи и ствари". There he wrote (p. 274), "Unfortunately, soon there will be nothing left neither of that world nor of that language" (Uzican dialect, that is), and so on. --George D. Božović 11:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Užican speech is no different from other Serbo-Croatian sub-dialects such as Bunjevac ("traditionally" part of wider Younger Ikavian dialect), Našinski ("traditionally" classified under wider Torlakian dialect), Molise Croatian dialect (not a widely recognized dialect in Yugoslav dialectology), etc. --George D. Božović 11:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Bunjevac speech was subject of extensive scholarly research (including at least 2 books [26], [27]), and Našinski (stupid title btw) has one scholarly reference; I quickly found another (Vidoeski, Božidar. 1986. Goranskiot govor. Prilozi, Makedonska Akademija na Naukite i Umetnostite, Oddelenie za lingvistika i literaturna nauka, 11,2:45-76.). Molise Croatian, with only 2000 speakers, has volumes of research. You have been criticized on sr:wiki for the OR in that article. It can be argued that those dialects were studied more because they present a discontinuity with the surrounding areas, either in terms of linguistic specifics or increased ethno-sociologist interest for the ethnic group that speaks them. But so far, you haven't presented an extensive reference on the Užice speech, or a reason why it should be singled out among many subdialects. Duja► 11:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to understand the point with Užican. However, I must admit - there really is no extensive reference on the Užice speech, unlike Bunjevac or Gorani speeches! Or at least, I'm not aware of any so far. Yet, I could say that Wikipedia should have an article on it because it is a dialect of significance when it comes to Serbian vernacular literature, since there are many well-studied Zlatiborian anecdotes (erske anegdote) written in it, and many well-known poems and popular songs such as "Užičanka", "Oj, Užice", "Zlatibore, moj zeleni bore", and the newer ones "Zlatibore, pitaj Taru" or "Sa Ovčara i Kablara", which were compiled in this dialect (similarly to another Eastern Herzegovinian speech which also has significant literature in it, the Dubrovnik speech); but if Wikipedia's policies are ignorant enough to prevent its existence in this encyclopaedia, then I really have no other possibility but to agree upon its deletion. Therefore I shall not even vote myself, although I was looking forward to editing and improving it eventually. --George D. Božović 15:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, oh boy. Before the usual flamewars that accompanies these sorts of topics, I'll point out that there are few ghits, and it does not appear that this article can be sourced as per WP:RS. For that reason I am voting for deletion. Lankiveil 12:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete certainly per WP:RS, probably also WP:OR. --Targeman 15:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ George: as you say, there are no extensive references on the Uzice dialect. I'm a linguist and I know where to look but I can't find a single study concerning this dialect. So deleting this article would not be the result of an "ignorant policy", it'd be the normal academic approach - no sources, no article. I'm not familiar with the state of South Slavic dialectology but I'd reckon that if no university has taken up the subject yet, it's probably a sub-dialect or patois barely distinguishable from other Zlatibor variants of Serbian. --Targeman 16:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there do not have to be extensive references, there just have to be sufficient substantial references. that it is less documented than other dialects is irrelevant if it is documented adequately. DGG (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep any dialect spoken by a non-trivial number of people is notable, see also:WP:BIAS. This is also part of a comprehensive series of articles, and random pot shots like this do not help the project. We need a ref, but WP:AGF. Dhaluza 23:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replies (to both):
1. The article in its current state is a dicdef; it comes down to: "Foo speech is a dialect spoken by inhabitants of Foo region". I can write at least 50 similar ones for any given region Foo, just for the linguistic area I know about.
2. Since, admittedly, there are no adequate references, the article cannot grow beyond that level. The references produced in George's post above are just passing mentions.
3. It is part of a "wider" series just because it's stretched into that series. Other articles from the series ({{South Slavic languages sidebar}}) have extensive references.
4. "any dialect spoken by a non-trivial number of people is notable" – is it WP:BIGNUMBER, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING or a combination thereof?
5. Who is not WP:AGF? Duja► 09:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...P.S. And, there is a big issue of taxonomy: in a dialect continuum, potentially every village has (slightly) different dialect from the neighboring village, and so on. I argue that, in the case at hand, the border is drawn arbitrarily. Duja► 09:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, in the case at hand it was not drawn arbitrarily. The Užice region has "some specific geographical, and also ethnographic characteristics within Serbia" (Rade Poznanović, "Tradicionalno usmeno narodno stvaralaštvo užičkog kraja" - this work deals with the Užican vernacular literature, but not the language itself unfortunately). This is a well defined region whose inhabitants (so-called Ere, Starovlasi, or Užičani) have a somewhat different culture and mentality than the people from the rest of Serbia. This region was more influenced by mediaeval Celts ("Vlachs", hence the name Starovlasi) and later also Ottoman Turks than some other regions, and thus developed into a somewhat specific ethnographic area. Its specific ethnography includes Užican customs, as well as language and literature produced in it... There are much more works about the specific ethnography of the Užičans, and I can name some of them. Unfortunately, neither of them deals with the Užican dialect more closely than barely mentioning it. They usually describe Užican customs or cuisine, or sometimes even the vernacular literature (like the work I quoted above) but not the vernacular itself... --George D. Božović 18:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's clear two things out, shall we? First: This dialect does exist in the Serbo-Croatian dialect continuum, within a "wider" Eastern Herzegovinian dialect, right? Even you admitted that in your first post. And second: It is a notable dialect 1) because there is a notable literature produced in it, and unlike the dialect itself this literature was much written about, and 2) because it is spoken by a somewhat distinct ethnographic regional group who also keeps some other distinct ethnographic and even historical features, and they were written about too. So, how come there is no need for an article about it in an encyclopaedia that already contains many articles about similar dialects and regional languages? --George D. Božović 18:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no doubt was you say is true (dialect exists, ethnographically separate population, etc.) I myself would love to see as many articles about dialects as possible, but if no serious scientist has ever studied this particular dialect, Wikipedia shoud not be the place to publish the first study (WP:OR). So I'll regretfully stick to my vote. Of course, as soon as this dialect has been studied by competent linguists and their work published, Užican speech (which IMHO should preferably be titled Užican dialect) should be restored without hesitation. --Targeman 18:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose you're right at some point. Just to mention that speech is actually the usual term in Serbian dialectology for these sub-dialects. There are three super-dialects (Shtokavian, Chakavian, and Kajkavian) which divide into several dialects each, and which further divide into many sub-dialects, so-called speeches. Some of those regional speeches were subject to extensive studies, but many of them were not written about that much. --George D. Božović 19:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the items above:

The article in it's current state in a stub, which is distinct from a dicdef.
The article can grow with references, that is what a stub is for.
So this article needs work to bring it up to the same standards. Deleting it is regressive, not progressive.
No, it is a corollary of the principle that all populated places are notable.
All should WP:AGF

Also, there is no requirement that a subject be scientifically studied. WP acceps both scientific and other reliable sources. Dhaluza 00:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Dhaluza 00:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Are the "in other languages" links talking about the same thing[28]? If so, it seems that much more could be said. But I think that that comment is touching on the dispute alluded to above. In any case, if it exists as a dialect, surely there is some mention of it in English. Even so, it seems notable enough for a stub, with more written if/when more is published. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I basically said in the intro. That article is created by George D. Božović. I'll select a comment from its talk page [29], translating to:

George, let's get straight. I wrote elsewhere that I very like the article even in the current state (which you don't consider too good). I also emplasized that it was written by a man whom I exceptionally value both as an expert on Serbian and as an erudite (...) That makes me even more uncomfortable to turn your attention to the omission of references, and I did that just because somewhere around the corner, in an ambush, a bunch of quasi-scientists waits with a bunch of half-literate articles without a single reference, to "hang" those articles on Wikipedia, with the excuse "if George can, why can't we?", ignoring the old Latin Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi. So, this objection was not for the sake of myself, but for the sake of you and Wikipedia, and only with the desire to eliminate problems even before they emerge.

I didn't write those words, but I can sign each of them. Alas, feeling a bit more rouge than people of sr. wiki, with due respect to George's knowledge and personality, I'm inclined to say "no references" = no pasaran. Duja► 10:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've read the discussion there. That article was written by me long before Serbian Wikipedia started applying the policy of citing sources. So, when I was later asked to provide references for it, I didn't do it because, like I wrote there, I gave up on that article. And I gave up on that article because quite some time I've been working on a new one. A totally new one which would also contain sources for most of the material... --George D. Božović 11:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now this article Užican speech contains two bare sentences. I don't think it would be much difficult to find references for both of them. --George D. Božović 11:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But on the other hand, I believe this article can actually be turned into a redirect to a general article about the Užicans themselves, as a regional ethnographically diverse group, which could also contain a section about the Užican dialect, similarly to the article about the Shopi. --George D. Božović 14:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 02:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punch Dialogue

Unencyclopedic fancruft Sarvagnya 09:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Sarvagnya 09:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kappa 09:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Care to provide a reason for keep? T Rex | talk 15:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It would probably take an editorial genius to make this article encyclopedic. It would fail wiki policies on a number of counts...for starters, citations from RS. This could, at best, be an entertaining blog entry. Lotlil 13:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:OR. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 15:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I removed the uncited (and OR) examples section. This site qualifies as a "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." under WP:NEO Corpx 17:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even after you removed the fancruft, what is left there is still OR. And no. Behindwoods is not RS. It is just another self styled 'expert'. And not to mention the very term is a neologism and not notable enough. There are zillion 'intricacies' of this sort in the Indian film industry and we really shouldnt be having articles on each of those trivialities. Sarvagnya 18:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." Corpx 19:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not suitable for an encyclopedia and lack of reliable citations that could support this article -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits}07:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Naveen ^(talk) 08:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Guillermo Rios

WP:BIO Notability concerns and probable WP:BLP violations. Submitting a complaint to the ICC does not make one notable, as anyone can do it and hundreds and possibly thousands of people have done it. (Incidentally, complaint suggests he is a bit of crank, since anyone semi-informed knows the ICC has no jurisdiction over U.S. actions in Iraq, since neither country has joined the ICC.) Otherwise, he has apprently published a book and is the son of someone notable. None of the hits on Google search has any mention of the ICC reference. SESmith 09:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; sketchy on the notability; WP:BLP concerns; and see WP:COAT regarding the relevance of this ICC complaint. Shalom ^Hello 13:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per Shalom. BTW, the title is incorrect. It's Juan Guillermo Ríos not Rios. --Boricuaeddie 15:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N. I found a 1942 article in Google News Archive that said he was coming here for college, nothing since then. --Dhartung | Talk 20:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Minor Harry Potter characters. Daniel Case 13:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victoire Weasley

Non-notable Harry Potter character. The only reference to Victoire in the books is in the epilogue and is extremely brief. Most of the article is OR and given the little context in the book, even the title is OR because the surname isn't even mentioned in the book (well, I just re-read the epilogue and I don't see any mention of it. PageantUpdater • talk • contribs • 09:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remus's only son sgould get his own page.
Comment,Yeah, but Teddy Lupin seems to be romantically involed with her, therefore she should be kept. It shows a sense of continuation with the story and she has to be a Weasley, because she is refered to as "our Victorie" and has a French name, obviously from Fluer's French inheritance. The Neverdoll 10:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Weasley Family. We dont know anything significant about her (or for that matter Teddy) to devote an entire article. If Jo decides to write more in the future in which we learn more about her, we can always revive the article. For now, having this as a redirect is enough. --Ayleuss 10:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Only a couple of lines of text about the character, most of the material in the article is filler Recurring dreams 11:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A character with no plot relevance mentioned in passing doesn't need her own article; the information in this article is all conjecture or information that can be found in one of the main articles.--stufff 14:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above Will ^(talk) 14:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A character that's barely a character hardly deserves its own article. Roundelais 14:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Weasley family. T Rex | talk 15:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Weasley family - I agree.DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC 15:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No proof she is a Weasley beyond OR. Zazaban 18:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per most of the above. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The character gets only a passing mention in the epilogue of one book, and most of what is "known" about her is based on speculation and presumption. --Dajagr 18:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue specifically against merging with the Weasley family article, because, although the book makes it very likely that the character is related in that way, it is not explicit and thus OR/speculation. If the article ends up being merged rather than deleted (which latter I still recommend, because of the non-notability of the subject), I would strongly recommend merging to Minor Harry Potter characters in accordance with Quackdave, below. --Dajagr 23:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Weasley family Neville Longbottom 20:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. This isn't even a character - it's a name and a lot of speculation. Natalie 20:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. We don't even know that she is Bill and Fleur's daughter! Valley2city 22:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Maybe even to Minor Harry Potter characters rather than Weasley family, since an interesting point is raised by nominator and Zazaban - namely that "cousin" doesn't necessarily mean "first cousin". For all we can verify, she could be Dudley's daughter, and thereby James Potter's second cousin. Yes, I know it's unlikely, but encyclopedic content needs to be more than just "safe to assume". Quackdave 22:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Weasleys per most of the above--JForget 23:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters, since the surname and exact relation is speculative (it seems the most likely alternative, but it's not explicitly stated). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters; even the title of this article is speculative. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No direct evidence that this is correct name of character. Merge content to Minor Harry Potter characters, per my comment on Gellert Grindelwald. This is just getting ridiculous. Espresso Addict 03:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Weasley family. It's not that hard. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is silly - she is mentioned once and all we know is she snogged Teddy. We dont even know which Weasley's daughter she is although we can guess. Editor guesses do not belong in articles. Dolores Umbridge 10:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Professor Umbridge, but your username scares me a bit... :) Valley2city 16:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so it should ;o) Dolores Umbridge 20:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Minor Harry Potter characters (as others have said, there seem to be no canon sources unequivocally backing up a relationship with Wasleys). -- pne (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Weasley family. But while we're talking, I suggest patience to everyone who's exasperated at recent Potter material. Harry Potter articles are in a completely unavoidable state of frenzy - just give them a bit of time, and things will calm down. --Kizor 21:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Weasley family, as suggested above: not to Minor characters, because there's a Weasley family article, and because she has to be a Weasley — otherwise a connexion with Teddy wouldn't be able to make him really family, as noted in the epilogue. Nyttend 21:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(*slaps own forehead for not realizing it*) Nyttend has spotted the obvious, which is often a very challenging task. It's explicit in the books that marrying Victoire would be marrying into the Weasleys. That settles that, I believe. --Kizor 11:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. It's explicit that he would be marrying into Lily Potter's family, since she is the one who makes that comment. Which is no more than we knew already. Quackdave 17:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. We do know that Ted would have to marry into either the Weasley family line and the Potter family line, and that Harry is the sole surviving member of the Potter line. I checked the text, and found a point that apparently hasn't been brought up: James calls Victoria his cousin, and Harry was an only child. --Kizor 18:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Weasley family. She is completely unworthy of an article. Titanium Dragon 23:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters Lemonflash ^talk 00:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is not even a character, but gets a passing mention. I have not read the book yet, but am strongly persuaded by Dajagr's arguments. There is no place on wikipedia for original research. However, if kept, the name should be Victoire (Harry Potter character), and any juxtaposition of "Victoire" and "Weasley" should be expunged until sources exist to corroborate. Ohconfucius 04:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page Please

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of fictional books within the Harry Potter series nad/or articles related to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, such as Deathly Hallows (objects). And, yes, I did read the seventh Harry Potter book. --Kurykh 02:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Tales of Beedle the Bard

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

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

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

yet another article about a relatively non-notable Harry Potter object PageantUpdater 08:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!!! - It is a significant part of Harry's search for the Deathly Hallows. It is left to Hermione Granger by Albus Dumbledore another inmportant point as it strongly links Dumbledore into the story. Also it provides evidence that the Muggle and Magical world are as alike as they are different and it is something that many children and adults can relate to from their childhoods.81.104.147.204 20:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -The article in question plays a large part in the seventh Harry Potter book and it essential to the plot-- SamWolken^Talk 15:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is truly important in the books plot. and it should be allowed its own article. This book is possibly the only in the entire series of which its contents are fully described. -- Hpfan1^Talk 06:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - an important, in my opinion, figment of the story. Having read the last book, I feel this is sufficiently imporant enough to be kept. As a curiosity, have you read the book PageantUpdater? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Having read the book I think this article is worth keeping because of the fact that the book 'Tales of Beedle The Bard' is an important part of the storyline of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Considering it's relating to the Deathly Hallows, and without it Hermione would never have gone to the Lovegoods. With out ruining the story for those who havnt read the book, this would lead to that and it would have changed the whole storyline of the book. I think this a suficiant reason to keep this article. —Zan _orath 08:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should have mentioned in my nomination that some of this should be merged elsewhere, but I believe it doesn't warrant its own article. And yes, I have read all seven books. PageantUpdater • talk • contribs • 08:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it certainly can be expanded to have meaningful content, and if it doesn't get kept, it should at least be merged and redirected. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it can be expanded to have meaningful content, but that doesn't mean it is notable enough to warrant an article. PageantUpdater • talk • contribs • 09:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the nutshell of WP:NOTE: I'm sure some good sources can be found, if from the book. But you are right. Exactly right. I still say keep though, because it is important to the story. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AD's reasoning. It is one of the more important plot devices. Recurring dreams 11:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentMy initial reaction was to delete it, because frankly there is little to say about it as an item. However, the people above are right that it is part of one significant plot arc. If the article is expanded to explain the meaning of the 'deathly hallows' which is the title of the last book and which are somewhat explained in 'beedle', then it might make some sense. Sandpiper 12:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Deathly Hallows (objects) and list of fictional books within the Harry Potter series. List of books is basically one-line entries of books referred to in the series, where this deserves to get a mention, and I have inserted it. On consideration of how articles are forming up, the deathly hallows objects article is a sesnsible place to otherwise mention the book. I suggest this page should become a redirect to there. Sandpiper 08:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge either into the List of items, or Deathly Hallows (objects) Will ^(talk) 16:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fictional topic that has received no "significant coverage from (real world) independent sources Corpx 17:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Deathly Hallows (objects); the book's ONLY notability even within Harry Potter is in leading to the discovery of the Deathly Hallows concept. By that weak logic, Hogwarts, A History has been about ten times as "notable" (and no, I DON'T mean that we need an article for Hogwarts, A History). Propaniac 18:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just in case everyone has forgotten, we base articles on notability, not whether or not this book was important to the novel, or whether the article can be expanded, or because it is part of a plot arc. There is not significant real world discussion of this book, ergo there should be no Wikipedia article. Natalie 21:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too obscure, no notability outside the Harry Potter books. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows has only been out for three days, that is not enough time to establish notability for any the new objects or new characters in the book. --Phirazo 21:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as significant plot element in very notable book. There can therefore reasonably be expected to be sources. DGG (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect/Merge (whatever leads to a consensus) to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, per WP:FICT. I don't think there's any content here that we need there, but if there is, by all means merge it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very important in the book itself, its a major source of information regarding the hallows etc. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're just a plot device. Is there anything we can possibly say about them that isn't plot summary of Deathly Hallows? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Deathly Hallows (objects) for now, although content would probably be better suited for a list of books in the Harry Potter series (naming such a list would be tough, but it could be along the lines of Potions in Harry Potter and List of places in the Harry Potter books. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC) to List of fictional books within the Harry Potter series. I'm not sure why I didn't notice that page before. That list could be expanded, giving (brief!) details about the more noteworthy books (such as Hogwarts, A History or The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Deathly Hallows (objects) and/or Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Aleta 02:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to some appropriate composite article. This is getting annoying. Espresso Addict 03:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Wizarding media in Harry Potter, which would include not only books but also incorporate Harry Potter newspapers and magazines, as well as Potterwatch the radio station. Brisvegas 03:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge contents into something else. This article will never be more than a stub. --Masamage ♫ 07:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Isn't cruft, but deserves its own blurb elsewhere. Auror 14:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Deathly Hallows (objects). The book isn't notable enough for its own article, but it is very important to the Deathly Hallows plotline. AgentPeppermint 16:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to relevant article (or articles). A one time item that plays a big role doesn't need an article of it's own. This Harry Potter cruft really needs to stop. RobJ1981 17:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or Merge. -Inventm 19:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Deathly Hallows (objects). --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 22:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Tale Of Three Brothers is the one that is relevant to the storyline of HP7; this book is pretty irrelevant. Even then the story (the fairy tale!) is important only to set the context for the Deathly Hallows, and not important in itself. As such, it should be merged to Deathly Hallows. --soum ^talk 14:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would never pass WP:N or WP:FICT. In fact, it fails WP:FICT in a miserable fashion. --Farix (Talk) 14:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely non-notable fictional book. Marc Shepherd 14:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is a valuble resource to many readers of the Harry Potter series. Many readers read the books once and at most twice, and so they do not retain all the information that it contains, and most will not remember small details that were mentioned in passing in a much earlier book. This page allows readers to refresh their memories on something that they may have forgotten.
Strong merge I can easily support merging this article with List of fictional books within the Harry Potter series, as per Josiah Rowe. But delete the article? No. As others have mentioned, this is a highly significant book in the Harry Potter universe, particularly in Book 7. --Micahbrwn 23:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to List of fictional books within the Harry Potter series — we definitely don't need an article about every single little thing in the Harry Potter series, and this list is a good place to put it. Nyttend 02:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Extremely important and central to plot of seventh book. It most certainly should not be deleted. --Candlewicke Consortiums Limited 15:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Magical objects in Harry Potter or similar. The other objects bequeathed by Dumbledore don't get their own articles, including Gryffindor's Sword, which has played a significant role in two of the books and about which we know much more. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. 21:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I don't know where to, but I'm sure we can find a nice spot for this page, because it doesn't deserve its own, and only served as part of a key element of the plot, not a key element. Jared (t) 01:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If not, at least merge it somewhere. The information is important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.165.59 (talk • contribs) — 24.93.165.59 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was merge to List of places in the Harry Potter books. Daniel Case 02:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malfoy Manor

Barely notable place in the 7th Harry Potter book, doesn't need its own article, content can be merged elsewhere. PageantUpdater 08:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Malfoys kept white peacocks here. = Notability...NOT! Giggy _U^CP 08:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lucius Malfoy - not notable of itself, but could be mentioned in Lucius's article, in the context of "He owned Malfoy Manor." -Malkinann 12:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Seems like perfectly relevant info that can be mentioned in Lucius Malfoy. Spellcast 13:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lucius Malfoy. T Rex | talk 15:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lucius Malfoy Will ^(talk) 16:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as stated above.--JForget 23:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Lucius's article seems the most appropriate place for this, not notable enough for an article itself Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lucius Malfoy, per everybody. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per my above comments, passim. Espresso Addict 03:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -Inventm 19:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of places in the Harry Potter books, NOT Lucius Malfoy. Also, please make sure to get Malfoy mansion, as well. --Eyrian 19:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - insignificant to the plot, though good for Lucius' page. Auror 20:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Even though I find Pageant Updater's reference to it as "barely notable" ridiculously biased and farthest from impartial, this topic has no need of its own page. It deserves mention in the pages of the Malfoys and on the list of places in the series. JNF Tveit 20:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Malfoy family. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 22:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MergeShould be merged to List of places in the Harry Potter books. Bella Swan_(Talk!) 03:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per everyone above, et al.Ravenmasterq 05:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:TexasAndroid per CSD A7, no assertion of notability. Shalom ^Hello 20:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Huw and Matho show

Melbourne community radio show, fails WP:N, lack of context Rackabello 08:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CSD A7 (no assertion of notability) applies here. Shalom ^Hello 13:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability and local scope Corpx 17:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, on the grounds of original research and redundancy, primarily. Keep !votes all sound like WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Harry Potter family tree

I think the article says it all. I'm sure any of the things the author wants to do is either already incorporated onto existing pages or that can easily be done. PageantUpdater 08:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom, per article text, per templates at bottom. Giggy _U^CP 08:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per both of the above. Lilac Soul 08:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think the article introduces anything new to what the main existing pages already give. Perhaps someone should consider nominating the rest of the articles in Category:Fictional family trees. Spellcast 13:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I think that this page can show just how all the family trees shown in ther series are related, though the article should be renamed to reflect this.--Tempest115 13:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Relatives of Harry Potter. Redundant. --Quoth nevermore 13:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete redundant to Template:HarryPotterFamilyTree Will ^(talk) 14:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created this page with the intent of summarizing all the available pages. Perhaps this would be better under a heading on the main Harry Potter page? It was intended as a comprehensive family tree. — mrmaroon25 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Will. Redundant. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 17:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is fansite stuff. Propaniac 18:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rework This is a great idea to show graphically the Potter Family tree, but it was never proven that Cadmus is the ancestor of Slythern, thus being the ancestor of Voldemort. Slythern could be the decendant of Antioch just as much as he could be the decendant of Cadmus. But the fact that Marvolo Gaunt had the Resurrection Stone is a pretty good case for the Gaunts to be decendants of Cadmus, thus making Slythern the decendant of Cadmus. But regardless, I wouldn't delete this page, its a good idea, it just needs to be decided on where Voldemort's portion of the tree lies, Cadmus or Antioch? --Ivalum21 21:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - This is a useful reference and should be allowed to grow and improve before it is prematurely and hastily deleted. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 21:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is too early to start deleting all these article. I think its intended use as a summary is appropriate. DGG (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I may be wrong on that one but it can be appropriate to add it in the Harry Potter article - or a part of an external link from the HP article--JForget 23:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep per Fullmetal2887. It's had 24 hours, and much of the family tree is already cross-posted to other harry potter articles (notably Relatives of Harry Potter). This speaks to its value in describing the content of those articles, in the context of those articles. If it must be deleted as redundant, then I would recommend that Mrmaroon25 userfy its contents until he is done with them. The completed tree, which would be worth keeping in the context of individual articles such as Relatives of Harry Potter, could then be updated in the appropriate articles. Those articles would also be consistent with each other, something which they do not currently appear to be. ZZ 00:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being completely in-universe material. - Chardish 02:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
""Strong Keep"" It is a very good idea and reflects how the people in the potter universe relate to each other.
Delete, merging content to somewhere appropriate. This profusion of non-notable sub-articles is getting way out of hand, and damages the credibility of the encyclopedia. Espresso Addict 03:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect, I'm pretty sure this is elsewhere, but as Rowling gives out more information on the subject, it might become necessary in the future.Ravenmasterq 06:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Black family tree contains very nearly everything this page could. Tesseran 08:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very useful in understanding the Potter family tree, although some of the infomation can be found in other aticles, this pulls that information and more into a comprehensive and comprehendable format. Chardish, there are many "in-universe material" articles out there. Deleteing this article on those grounds would be a bold statement about deleting all other articles that are similar. MegaLegoChai 17:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC) — MegoLegoChai (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. This is already on Harry Potter (character) -Inventm 19:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is already incorporated into several other pages.Csloomis 23:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But there's no proof that Salazar Slytherin is descended from the middle Peverell brother. He could have married into the family. CathyWeeks 24 July 2007 — CathyWeeks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong Keep and Rework This page consolidates important information, and is in my opinion of encyclopedic value. It currently reads as a collaborative project, not an article. If rewritten in a way that makes it more like an article, I think it could be of greater value. A deletion is too hasty when this page has so much potential. Alexbrewer 05:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but Keep the template Having done some (non-Potter) family trees myself, I'd like to suggest to make new template for the complete Harry Potter Characters Family Tree (HPCFT), possibly in user space during creation. Then we can decide how to use it.SQB 07:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep If the nominator was correct and this information is available elsewhere then that would justify a merge not a delete however this information as a diagram is not the same as a text description and so is not redundant. Adding this family tree to the page of every one of the people listed would make those pages excessive. If you feel this information is too 'in universe' then ad an introductory sentence saying this is the family tree of a fictional family - Don't delete.Filceolaire 20:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously it's a work in progress, but it has sufficient potential. Marc Shepherd 21:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Family trees belong in relevant articles, not randomly lying around for no reason. Titanium Dragon 23:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All information in this tree except the Gaunts and Peverells is included in the Black family tree, and the Black tree is massive compared to this one.Xasz 06:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Relatives of Harry Potter; a separate article including just a family tree seems unnecessary though. --musicpvm 22:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. ~~I considered a template-ify vote first for re-use across HP articles~~ (edit: I see this page already incorporates Template:HarryPotterFamilyTree in major way) but it works better as a sub-article linked from See also sections for anyone who is really interested. Encyclopedicness is IMO established as I can see many people going to WP to look up such info (who can keep track after seven books spanned over 10 years?). It is somewhat redundant though with Template:Blackfamilytree now because of all the new intermarriages. If that issue is worked out, I'd switch to delete for this redundant template, but not the family tree idea in general. The article could also use some references for where (book, chapter) to look up all presented info. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Rework I found this page to be immensely useful, and the information is quite relevant. If all of this information is already incorporated in other pages, I can understand the rationale for deletion, but is this information in the other pages organized as concisely as it is here? Or are we simply saying the information is redundant because it's possible for the reader to reconstruct this family tree after visiting 5 to 10 articles and referencing the books multiple times? Tzepish 02:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an important part of the storyline, especially in Book 7. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 07:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, correct any errors of fact. It shows all the genealogy without having to ferret through much miscellaneous other text for it. Anthony Appleyard 12:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its duplication of List of characters in the Harry Potter books but the family tree is a very good representation of the relationships. So, I would suggest to move the family tree from this article to List of characters in the Harry Potter books, clean up the latter to remove duplication and redirect to that article. --soum ^talk 13:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Trivia. It also fails WP:N and WP:FICT. --Farix (Talk) 14:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete let me see... original research, unsourced, and probably some of the CSDs as well... A1 comes to mind. SamBC 23:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 somewhere. As it happens, someone already merged the article to Lupin and Tonks family#Teddy Lupin. Whether it should stay there, or move on to another article, is an editorial decision. Sandstein 20:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Lupin

Harry Potter character who is non notable in the scheme of things... only a few brief mentions in book 7. Mentions in the articles for Remus Lupin and Nymphadora Tonks are fine but this does not need its own article PageantUpdater 08:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough information in the article to keep it separate from the Lupin or Tonks page. Recurring dreams 11:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether there is enough information in the article or not, it doesn't mean that the subject is notable. PageantUpdater• talk • contribs • 11:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my reasoning is that the subject is notable as a significant minor character. Significant plot movements revolve around the character: the initial restlessness of Lupin, the estrangement of Lupin and Harry, the subsequent rapprochement after the character's birth. Furthermore there's enough there about the character himself, including the detail from the epilogue, to have a seperate page. Recurring dreams 11:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to both his parents' pages. I realize articles can be created without much information, but he doesn't even -appear- in the book, he's quite literally just mentioned for a few sentences. Also, the entire third paragraph of the entry about his grandmother and Harry are really just information about them, not him at all, since it's not even clear who raised him. Also, about plot movements revolving around the character - it revolves around Remus being edgy about parenthood and Tonks being pregnant, not Teddy Lupin. I vote merge and delete. Kylara21 12:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The character appears in the epilogue. Recurring dreams 12:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why he can't have his own page and then people can link from his name on both of his parents pages Delighted eyes 13:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, no he doesn’t, does he? He’s still ‘off-screen’, as it were, only being mentioned by other characters such as James. --WikidSmaht (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge(holding on opinion for now, pending discussion) to Remus Lupin and/or Nymphadora Tonks (but then where should Teddy Lupin redirect?). I probably would have suggested a merge to Lupin family but since both Lupin and Tonks have pretty large articles, it would only end up duplicating. Or merge and redirect all three? --Ayleuss 13:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Remus Lupin and Nymphadora Tonks and redirect to Minor Harry Potter characters, as per the person who suggested it below. --Ayleuss 15:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per directly above. The content is notable, and the Tonks and Lupin articles are too big for this to be merged into. Ab e g92contribs 14:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above Will ^(talk) 14:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment & Question It should be noted that very few charecters even get mentioned in the epilogue, much less have a distinct appearence. Is this grounds for notability? Steve J 15:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with his parents' articles. To Steve J, no, because even Harry's children don't have their own articles and they actually have dialogue. T Rex | talk 15:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case I agree with the Merge and Protected Redirect crowd. Steve J 15:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to both pages. Teddy is a minor character at best, he never actually appears in the books. His existence is notable in the context of his parents' relationships and Remus's struggle. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 17:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into Remus Lupin and Nymphadora Tonks, and redirect Teddy Lupin to Minor Harry Potter characters, since he never actually appears in person in the book. Teddy's importance is solely reflected (that is, his influence on other characters), so doesn't need a page of his own. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this one, it makes the most sense. If we're keeping this as its own article simply because of where to redirect, this is the best answer for a character that NEVER appears (Rose and Hugo Weasley don't even have their own pages, and their parents were considerably more notable). Kylara21 02:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Harry’s, Lupin’s, and Tonks’s articles, definitely, and perhaps a passing mention in Sirius’s. While there is some minor plot movement around him, he never appears except in comments by other characters. Instead of redirecting, delete and salt. Or lock it with links to his parents’ articles and his page in the HP Wikia. and redirect to his own section in Minor Harry Potter characters, which can link to his parents. --WikidSmaht (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters, he is on par with Amy Benson, Dennis Bishop, Stubby Boardman, Herbert Chorley, Fridwulfa and other characters that are talked about, but do not appear directly. Dsmdgold 19:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remus Lupin's only son should get his own page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.168.161.27 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I fail to see how merging the information to three (!) separate articles will improve anything at all. Exploding Boy 19:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but what about the suggestion of merging it into one article: Minor Harry Potter characters? --WikidSmaht (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Minor Harry Potter characters. Exploding Boy 15:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Remus Lupin and/or Nymphadora Tonks. The character doesn't even appear in the books. He is just mentioned. Neville Longbottom 20:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and protect the redirect. This article is two paragraphs, and thus is really not going to extend Remus Lupin or Nymphadora Tonks that much. The subject of the article is an incredibly minor character in a 7-book series, and barring the unlikely event another book is written, the character will never be notable. To suggest that this character is important enough to the book series, much less the rest of the world, to need an article is ludicrous. Natalie 20:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's plenty of information at Remus Lupin and Nymphadora Tonks, this is way too minor a character for a stand-alone article. --Phirazo 21:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one of those "nn but there's enough information for a mention in several other articles" situations, and User:Ayleuss highlighted the problem - where should the article title redirect? In cases like these, I fully endorse ignoring notability guidelines to keep Wikipedia simple. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 22:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That really doesn’t make sense, why can’t it redrect to an entry on Minor Harry Potter characters? The entries there on Stan Shunpike, Bane, and Eloise Midgen are about the same size. --WikidSmaht (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No reason, but this was not the issue I was addressing. I was addressing the nominator's rationale, which states the article should be deleted, because of the mentions in the other two characters' articles. This is "articles for deletion", not "requested merges", right? I couldn't care less whether this content had its own article or whether it had a section on a list article, though quite frankly I do think the list of minor characters looks rather ugly with a random mix of one liner stub sections and sections which contain a few paragraphs and an infobox, but that's just my opinion. Merging is an editorial decision which does not need to go through AfD, and one which I generally have few opinions on, as long good information is still preserved in one place. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 21:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as most of the editors said above.--JForget 23:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zeibura's excellently stated case. --Hemlock Martinis 23:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that excellently stated, please see my response. --WikidSmaht (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per previous statements. Reputation 00:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It could be changed to using remus and tonks's articles, however it would be impossible to redirect to both, so for simplicity and ease of use, it needs its own article Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why can’t it redrect to an entry on Minor Harry Potter characters? It’s the right size, and that would satisfy the need to link to parents’ articles, while giving a single redirect target AND preserving the information. --WikidSmaht (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to some appropriate composite article. As I've said elsewhere the profusion of sub-articles about non-notable fictional subjects is damaging to the credibility of the encyclopedia. Espresso Addict 03:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zeibura.Ravenmasterq 06:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There are plenty of articles it could be merged into - Remus or Nymphadora or the list of minor characters or even Harry as he seems to have played a similar role to Teddy as his parents did for Sirius, virtually adopting him. Aula ^TPN 08:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being It's going to be madness with potter related topics at the moment. Anything attatched to them is going to generate a lot of traffic and the Teddy Lupin page is going to be recreated again and again. This article is significant enough just because the latest book is a week old. Wait a few months or so, and then this article will no longer be notable and it will be appriopriate to delete it. (Justinboden86 14:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It's called a protected redirect. We don't keep junk pages because people are going to recreate them over and over. Natalie 14:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into something. What article, I don't know, but all he does in the entire book is kiss another one-time-use character in the epilogue. We've denied unique article status for more important characters. If Dudley Dursley doesn't get his own article, Teddy doesn't get one either. Valley2city 16:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters; or to the parents' pages. Patently non-notable enough to warrant a separate article. LordAmeth 16:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per the comment above -Inventm 19:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Remus Lupin and Nymphadora Tonks. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 22:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because that's what happens with a merge. If this isn't deleted, then why should I ever need to vote for deletion of the most trivial and non-notable articles in my field? HG | Talk 03:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the most interesting version of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS I've ever heard. --Hemlock Martinis 04:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Once you see the logical relationship of my statement to typical WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, and read closely the 1st paragraph of that section of the essay, you'll grok why my version is a valid argument. HG | Talk 09:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Lupin and Tonks family. The article's already been merged for the most part. --musicpvm 20:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters Lemonflash ^talk 00:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Teddy Tonks is an incredibly important character even though he does not 'appear' in the seventh book. There is enough information about him to merit an individual site. Teddy Tonks not only is Harry Potter's Godson, but he is also important in fulfilling the re-newing of the entire wizarding community. Unlike the first time Harry 'defeated' Voldemort (as a baby) which ended up with Harry living 10 years of misery with his Aunt Petunia and Uncle Vernon, Teddy who was also orphaned in a war against Voldemort, did not have to grow up without knowing love. In addition to this through Teddy, Harry is able to experience the relationship between a Godfather and a Godson that he was denied of as a child with his own Godfather Sirius Black. Needless to say, however minute Teddy Tonks' actual appearances in the entire series is, his addition is nonetheless vital to the Harry Potter universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.116.196.200 (talk • contribs)
Suggestion Transwiki to wikibooks:Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter, if this is not encyclopaedic enough to be left here. -- Jokes Free4Me 06:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lupin and Tonks family. The character is certainly significant to the storyline although he doesn't actually appear. However, a section or subsection within Lupin and Tonks family would cover the character sufficiently. 70.111.219.27 18:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is my comment. I didn't realize I wasn't logged in. Clamster 18:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Lupin and Tonks family. I think that Teddy being included in the Lupin and Tonks family article would be more informative anyway, because there would be no need to navigate through articles; more information on him would be in one place instead of being scattered. Xasz 06:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This character has no hope of passing WP:N or WP:FICT, and we don't need an entry for every single character that is mentioned in the Harry Potter series. That includes Bar Wench #4. --Farix (Talk) 14:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Chantessy 15:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please not that this is not a vote. If you don’t explain your reasoning, stating your preference means nothing. --WikidSmaht (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Teddy Lupin only exists in the writings of J. K. Rowling and to take information directly from the writings of J. K. Rowling and use it in Wikipedia in an article about Teddy Lupin is original research. There is not enough reliable source material independent of the writings of J. K. Rowling to develop a verifiable article on Teddy Lupin. Merging unsourced text into another article does not solve the problem because the merge does not make unverifiable material verifiable. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 08:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that is not true. There is reliable information on the character of Teddy, including a recent interview Rowling did with NBC where she dicussed the significance of the character. [30]. I will add the source into the article Teddy Lupin has been merged into. --musicpvm 19:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE per WP:CSD#G4 as repost of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tupac_Shakur_Unreleased_List. But|seriously|folks 08:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tupac Shakur Unreleased song list

As per this. east.718 08:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as repost. MER-C 08:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G4, Tagged Rackabello 08:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Shalom ^Hello 13:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imprecise probability

I've never heard of this before. May be legit, but I also wouldn't be surprised if its an original research violation. I'm also worried because of possible WP:COI as this article's primary contributer is the same editor who wrote SIPTA (Society for Imprecise Probability: Theories and Applications) which is also currently being considered for deletion. Rackabello 07:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Top google hits were SIPTA and Wikipedia Rackabello 07:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while I am not quite knowledgeable about probabilities, I see this concept being mentioned in Upper and lower probabilities as well. [31][32][33], among lot others, also mentions it. Google search lists up around a million hits. While it may be a niche mathematical concept, it is not anything insignificant. Quite a lot of research papers mention it, it does not seem to be a an OR. While the editor might have a COI with the society, I dont think it has anything to do with this article, that deals with the mathematical concept. A quick google search brings up a close to a million hits. --Ayleuss 07:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nomination If its mentioned in multiple research papers then its not OR, and the concept can be included. I'm not sure about SIPTA though, I have notability concerns with that article. Rackabello 07:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solitaire Meissmer disappearance

A not particularly remarkable case with two bad references: a memorial site and the family's website. Guy (Help!) 07:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hmm, I'm more than a bit disturbed by this nomination. It would have been much more appropriate to make it without referring to the individual editor's conduct. If you believe there's a problem with regards to an Arbitration decision, it would be far more appropriate to notify them instead of making it here. In any case [34] gets a number of results including several reputable papers. And the guardian reference existed before your nomination, so I wonder how you missed it? FrozenPurpleCube 07:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Firstly what you are saying about me above is a complete misrepresentation and a borderline personal attack - I ask that you change it. I can't see a particularly decent reason for your nomination other than "not particularly remarkable", which isn't right. The article details something that was massive across the news, not just tabloids. It was a massive missing-person operation and is a significant event. violet/riga (t) 08:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - There is just no historic notability. While its sad, I'm strongly opposed to making articles every time a child goes missing. Corpx 16:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A widely-publicised and still web-present case related to a significant event. This wasn't just any missing child. Cite WP:NOT#PAPER if you want to use that policy. violet/riga (t) 17:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP is not paper, but neither is it an indiscriminate collection of information. Where is the historical notability to this? Corpx 17:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A valid question, but I'd say it's kind of hard to be sure since something only happened a few years ago. However, it is more than a few months after it happening. FrozenPurpleCube 02:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is going to sound insensitive and I really don't mean it to be, but kids go missing all the time and there will be a big search for the missing kid and much publicity will be given to the situation in the hope that somebody might be able to help. As I said below, the case of Amber Hagerman clearly shows historical notability (at least to me) because her disappearance was instrumental in creating the Amber Alert system. How is this kid disappearing any different than any of the other kids that have gone missing? Corpx 02:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, but there are also problems with removing information because it hasn't had time to be long-term importance. If this were mere weeks afterwards, your argument might have more merit to me, but some of the sources are more recent. FrozenPurpleCube 02:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other than updates to the story, I dont think there's been any coverage. A search on google news archives only pulls up stuff from 2005 Corpx 03:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FrozenPurpleCube. Why are you making it so personal anyways? --MichaelLinnear 19:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm inclined to consider this sufficiently referenced (two bad external links do not negate three proper news references, even if not inline). As news it was international and even involved legal proceedings so it wasn't trivial. I would consider this one of the more notable -- the word "victims" seems problematic -- aftermath stories from the tsunami, no matter how you believe it turned out. --Dhartung | Talk 21:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic and highly invasive for the famiy of the victim. We are here to write an encyclopedia not cause trouble or troll, SqueakBox 23:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain how using information reported in several published sources of wide reach is highly invasive to this family, or how it causes trouble or trolls by having it? FrozenPurpleCube 01:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. We are wikipedia. Journalists are trained not to commit libel etc. As wikipedia we have to greater responsibility, being an encyclopedia, and one that anyone can edit, and I fail to see how this improves the encyclopedia and if she were my kid I would be outraged at wikipedia doing this. Lets grow up as an encyclopedia, as Doc Glasgow said recently, SqueakBox 02:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing much of an explanation there. Your personal outrage doesn't mean much, you aren't the parents of the child involved. Perhaps they feel differently. They did participate in publicizing this issue, and for what I'd consider a good reason. More publicity means more of a chance the child will be found. FrozenPurpleCube 02:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We arent here to find lost kids. We dont know what the parents would think so lets not assume they think we are the best thing since sliced bread or even something positive. My outrage? I wasnt aware of expressing that, please dont assume, I amtrying to protect the project not indulging in emotion, SqueakBox 02:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page isn't about finding the kid. It's about the effort to find the kid. Slight different. And um, you said "if she were my kid I would be outraged at wikipedia doing this." which quite clearly IS an expression of how you would feel on this subject. So don't tell me not to assume things when you state them right out. I'll take you at your word. You said you'd be outraged. I don't feel your emotional reaction is relevant, as someone else may have a different reaction. FrozenPurpleCube 04:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invasive for the family? The same family that made their own website about the girl, are very happy for a memorial site to be made, and spent months publicising the event? violet/riga (t) 08:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above & per nom. Eusebeus 00:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion, given the length of time it was in the public eye and the resulting news coverage. Viridae ^Talk 01:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability at the time isn't the question, but it is whether there is historic notability to this. Unlike Amber Hagerman, I dont think there is a historic notability to this. Corpx 01:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think it is a question. If it was highly notable at the time it can still be covered. violet/riga (t) 09:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#NEWS says "Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and event" Corpx 14:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

notability over several years is in my opinion long enough for inclusion. Viridae ^Talk 15:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that's not established either. All the articles on that page are from 2005. Corpx 15:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a mere current event, solidly referenced, doesn't remotely meet our own definition of tabloid, and is hardly invasive when the parents have gone to so much trouble to publicize this. I can easily imagine the parents registering here to post "keep" votes and having WP:ILIKEIT or WP:COI cited at them. We therefore can't use their hypothetical and highly improbable opposition (invasive?!?) to such an article as a reason to delete. --DeLarge 20:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not encyclopedic. --Tbeatty 20:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the references establish notability. Everyking 04:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Don't see any long-term notability. --MediaMangler 13:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per FrozenPurpleCube, this article does in fact satisfy notability guidelines and is not at all handled in a tabloid-like fashion. Burntsauce 17:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bad faith nomination by editor with a grudge. Vodak 17:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G12 (copyvio). In this case, policy trumps consensus, or lack thereof. --Kurykh 02:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E. Harold Munn

Article makes no attempt to assert notability of subject. It fails WP:BIO, as he doesn't seem in any way notable. Giggy _U^CP 07:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article does assert notability. Four-time (once as VP) for a notable third party, president of two related organizations. Received news coverage in greater proportion than votes. --Dhartung | Talk 21:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three-time candidate of the Prohibition party, in its decline, but still perhaps the most notable & successful of all US third parties. DGG (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:COPYVIO. The source of the WP:CSD#G12 infraction is also available online. --Aarktica 16:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Pitcavage

delete: subject not notable TrevASLer 06:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)— TrevASLer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Ghits seem reliable, but nothing there is independant as far as I can see. Giggy _U^CP 06:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TrevASLer (talk · contribs) has two edits: one to create this page and another to add this AfD to the deletion log. He/she tagged the article under an IP address. The IP address, 68.146.179.223 (talk · contribs) has few edits outside of this topic. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I, on the other hand, have about 5000 edits :P Do you have a reason the article should be kept? Giggy _U^CP 07:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply No, as a matter of fact, I think that the article should be deleted. I just thought that was info the closing admin might like to have. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note TrevASLer is the IP user who has commented here, and a sockpuppet of a long-established editor. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ I did a LexisNexis search for the subject of the article, and although there were 200+ results, Pitcavage is not the subject of any of the articles. Within the results, he is often quoted as an expert on radical right-wing groups, but I don't see that as sufficient notability to be included on Wikipedia. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Keep based on the improvements in the article and other arguments below. Pablo Talk | Contributions 03:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no knock on the gentelman in question, but there does not seem to be any notability consistent with WP:NOT.Calgarytanks 14:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment is made by a sock of the nominating user TrevASLer. As well as all the IP edits as Morven points out. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found lots about him and apparently his work is noted in a few books. Give me a bit to update article and cite sources etc. While it may not pass, its best the full picture is present before deciding. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - nice work on the recent update, but it still reads like a resume. Pardon me, but what exactly is he notable for? Having a job?139.48.81.98 17:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - where is the information of these recent updates coming from? Do you actually have the books that you are citing in your possession? Can you provide quotes? Nothing you are adding to the site is actually cited in any verifiable way. And even if SLATT has trained 10,000 law enforcement officers, you havne't proved that the subject of the article has had anything to do with that - where is your source? He could be in another department. see WP:VER. In fact, his title of "research director" kind of suggests he is not training them - so how does any of this info establish notability? What is it he is notable for? All you're doing is padding the article with info on his employer and not answering the basic question - why does the article exist?139.48.81.98 19:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you are talking about. I have even provided page numbers for all sources, so they are surely verifiable. As for the training, he is the director of research for the group, a section explaining what they do, and his role in it, does not seem over the top. As for quotes, I am not sure why they would be needed, looking for something you can google? Not really sure why you say it reads like a resume, do you mean the bio talks about the person in question? I can find out more about his home life, but that is surely not why he is notable. He is notable due to being a member of the ADL and founding the Militia Watchdog site which is used for other books and references. He gained so much notoriety through his site that he was given a position with SLATT as director of research, seeing as the training that they go through is not physical, and based on ... research, I am sure he has something to do with it. I even cited a source for how the Militia site lead to the SLATT position due to it being highly respected, and used by other watchdog groups. You can do a amazon.com search if you are bored and see how often he is cited and his work. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my recent additions, the article is greatly expanded since nominated. It now shows his creation of Milita Watchdog, which is often cited regarding militias and their activities, as well as his position in SLATT as Director of Research. A run down of what both groups are have been included as well as sources. I can add more to support the fact that his work is often cited in regards to militias if needed, let me know. Just to add, he is apaprently often quoted in news articles regarding miltias as an expert, just look at the pages on google news [35]. Tjere is 16 pages of articles that reference him, not including the articles they group with others ... Looks pretty notable. Also just to satisfy, two of the books cited have chapters on the Watchdog Militia cite. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you haven't demonstrated that he is "notable" for anything. You've noted that he created a website, but look at the actual WP rules for notability of websites - does Militia Watchdog qualify? You've proven that he has a job and that his "work" has been mentioned in books - but you don't cite anything specific. You haven't proven his work has been important enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry about him. If every research director or every person who was ever "mentioned in books" had en encyclopedia entry, there'd be no room in the database for them all. So the question is raised again - why is he notable?68.146.179.223 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop cycling your IP please. I already demonstrated that the website Militia Watchdog was very notable, so notable that it is a frequent source on militia's. Further it was so notable that it caused the ADL to pick him up and absorb the Militia Watchdog site as well as to get him recognized to become Director of Research for a program that trains thousands of state law enforcement officials. His research is credited quite often and referenced. Again, if you want me to present more sources of just people citing his research, just let me know and I will. Also get a username as what you are doing are violations of WP:SOCK, or at least sign your posts with the same common name so people get that you are not trying to make it look like a larger concensus. Thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not cycling anything; my IP does that automatically. As for getting a user name - feel free to bite me. I had over 20,000 edits by using a WP user name, and like the majority of WP users, got disenchanted with tyrannical petty bureacrats and idiotic rules, so I can't be bothered. If my rotating IPs bother you, go cry to the admins; its not deliberate sock puppetry, and if you want to think so - I really don't care. XOXOXOX In any event, I agree with the comments below that simple cites don't prove notability. What are his duties as "Director of Research" and how does that make him a candidate for an encyclopedia article? Publishing a thesis, by the way, is standard for millions of MAs and PhDs. Again, we couldn't hope to list them all in an encyclopedia as per WP:NOT, as that would make WP an indiscriminate list. So again, what makes this guy special? Even if he is an "expert", what's he done to stand out among the other "experts" besides publish his own thesis? There are separate criteria for authors also, by the way, and his theses fail to meet them based on circulation.68.146.179.223 05:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His thesis alone is cited by 5 books, his works together cited by over 20, he has been quoted in over 200 articles. He is cited as an expert in many of those news sources. I am not sure if you are just ignoring but I went over it below. Please read the full discussion as I prefer not to repeat myself. Also IP's are either static or dynamic, but they do not jump between two numbers constantly. You are either randomly assigned one via your company everytime you lose connection back to them for a significant ammount of time, or you are given one that you stay with. The fact that both do not trace back to your ISP, shows thta you are using an alternate connection, as both would reverse DNS back to Shaw, however only one does. But if you wan tto continue the conversation about the topic, feel free to do so below. I laid out the requirements of notability as applied to academics and cited how he meets each. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources found below. ~~Weak delete~~ back to the article. Could you please furnish page numbers or quotes to show that the references are more than mere mentions? Print is fine, but some more detail would seem appropriate. I fixed the refs a little--the first item is his thesis, I found a second journal article, but the items published by the "Institute for Intergovernmental Research" are held in between zero and 5 libraries only, and are apparently reports not formally published, and lacking ISBNs. Without something further, notability seems unproven.DGG (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)DGG (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Pitcavage is cited in over 20 publications on google books alone [36] and over 16 pages of news articles on google news. [37]He is a premier expert in his field. I guess I am done looking, if the improved article, plus the citations through google news and constant mention in relation to militas in the news is not enough ... *throws hands up* then I do not know what to say. --SevenOfDiamonds 01:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer You can use Lexis Nexis if you have access to it. Like I said above, none of the 200+ articles that I found were about Pitcavage, but he was quoted a lot. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found two interviews that I added and mentioned in the article. I do not have Lexis Nexis, however found the tons of quotations and references to him as an expert through google news, 16+ pages of him being quoted. His work is cited in over 20 books that google books had as well. As noted above, I was able to find 2 books that actually discuss him and the two groups, but only devoting a chapter to each group and his link to them, which I guess is more then a short article anyway. --SevenOfDiamonds 01:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Promise my last, but per Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Pitcavage clearly passes The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources This is demonstrated by the 200+ articles quoting him and many reffering to him specifically as an expert. The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known. This is demonstrated by the 20+ books I was able to find citing his research, some citing multiple works of his. The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field. Hard to say, but Michael A. Bellesiles quoted Pitcavages work as invaluable to one of his books. Not sure how many of these need to be satisfied. Also did not know academics had their own rules for notability. I hope this is taken under consideration and after all this work my head hurts. Goodnite all. --SevenOfDiamonds 01:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment by practice here, and as stated in the guideline, meeting any one of these is sufficient; they overlap considerably, so if someone is notable, usually more than one is met.DGG (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a direct quote of him being referred to as an "expert" - or are these mentions really just passing mentions? If he is indeed listed as an "expert" then you are correct in that he meets the notability criteria.68.146.179.223 05:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the sources directly following the statement. It is why they are there. Your style of argument, the whole refusal to read sources is quite familiar. --SevenOfDiamonds 09:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 03:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not entirely agree with his perspectives, but I agree that he is considered an expert in his field. --WacoKid 16:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep eems notable, with the number of references against text and his bibliography. Will ^(talk) 19:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Notability is proved by various references, as Sceptre points out. He might not be notable as a historian, but he is as an analyst of the radical right, and his cite certainaly is notable, as well. As direcctor of the SLATT Program), he is often cited as a terrorism and extremism expert by the mainstream media and interviewed. So this also proves notability. Moreover, Pitcavages' work has been cited by other authors, such as Michael A. Bellesiles as "invaluable to the development" of his book Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture.Giovanni33 02:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've voted keep too, but I find it strange that you put so much stock in the fact that he was cited by a discredited historian like Bellesiles. --WacoKid 13:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't put any stock in that historian, per se, I simply note that this author is notable enough to be cited by him, a historian who himself is notable, I make no comment about Bellesiles work, but he does have his defenders and he is a legitimate historian, even if the fame he received for his work on guns turned out to be seriously flawed.Giovanni33 21:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough refs/cites to establish notability. Fairsing 16:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not sufficiently notable. John Smith's 16:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Actually, I feel like both parties here have presented fairly weak arguments seldom going beyond "he's notable"/"no he's not". Still, it has been clearly established that there has been sufficient third-party coverage to consider at least a short article on the subject. The tone is not hopelessly problematic and a bit of pruning and careful use of third-party references should get the job done. Pascal.Tesson 17:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Georges

Reads like a resume, the majority of sources are from his personal website. Wikipedia is not a political campaign website and possibly fails CSD A7 (notability) and G11 (vanity/ advertising) Rackabello 06:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think my article deserves to stand. Exactly how is it like a resume? I think I was neutral. The candidate is noteworthy as he is challenging the front runner, Bobby Jindal. I doubt he will win but that is beside the point. The speed with which you flagged for deletion makes me wonder if you actually read the article.

- Reply I did read the article and I felt that it was promotional in tone. Writing about a political candidate is fine, but the position statements sound like they came out of a campaign website, and that's not appropriate for an encyclopedia Rackabello 06:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - not notable.TrevASLer 06:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable? Why? Justify your statement. I justify my article because he is an announced candidate for governor in Louisiana and has received some press attention. After he starts his media blitz on Labor Day his notability may become clearer. There was a red link on the governor's election page, so I wrote an article. I searched the news and found what I could. So far he has garnered little attention but that will likely change when he starts his TV ads. I have no association with his campaign and no plans to vote for him. I teach Louisiana Studies and when I see a red link on a Louisiana topic I try to do something about it. He is not the only candidate I have written about.

If he were one of two announced candidates in a major party in New York or California would he be notable? If the article seems promotional it come from no sympathy on my part but from the fact that I just did not have much information beyond the candidate's web site. In the early stages of a race that is to be expected. I have no interest in promoting John Georges but many students will go to Wikipedia for information on the election (whether I like that or not) so I am trying to fill in the gaps.

I could have written that about all he has done as a candidate is contribute to his own campaign and shoot some commercials. I could have written that his entire platform is ridiculously centered on New Orleans and he seems to have forgotten the rest of the state above Baton Rouge. But I thought that might be too biased.

Comment Just because someone announced a candidacy doesn't make them automatically notable. Rackabello 08:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you struggled to find sources other than his website, that's pretty good evidence that he's not in fact notable: see WP:BIO. Of course it's possible that he might become notable at some time in the future; if so that will be the time to write an article, not before. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Iain99 10:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral While the article reads like an advertisement, this guy is notable from a google news search. Corpx 16:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, I would recommend a complete rewrite of this article as it is written as an advertisement and possibly a campaign flyer. Other then that no vote. Although, it doesn't meet the WP:BIO criteria just yet.--JForget 23:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HE announced his candidacy AND put in $5 million. That's a little different. How you read promotion into the article is beyond me. Is this coastal bias, political bias, Post-Ron-Paul syndrome, or just trolling on your part? I have seen articles in Wikipedia about minor characters on cartoons (e.g., Meatwad); are those more notable than a candidate for governor with a $5 million war chest?

Examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meatwad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.E.L.P.eR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Werner_%C3%9Cnderbheit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap-Jaw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Jim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_%28G.I._Joe%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hordak

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/She-Ra

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzlor

I have also noticed some non-notable articles on opera (seriously, who listens to opera in private?):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il_mondo_della_luna

Shall I go on? I hope my article does not put too much strain in the servers but it seems like there are far less notable articles that you could go delete.

I added some negative comments under the positions header; hope that helps.

Comment I disagree with your statement about opera. First of all, it isn't a valid argument in the context of this discussion. Notability standards for opera and political candidates are quite different, and I can't quote them off-hand but there are policies on Wikipedia supporting that. This is not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, I think you're attempting to compare apples and oranges here.

Additionally, Just because a particular opera isn't performed on a regular basis doesn't mean that its not notable. And even if its not notable on its own, its written by a composer who is certainly notable. Joseph Haydn is along with Mozart and Beethoven one of the most prominent classical era composers. If you don't believe me then I invite you to nominate Il mondo della luna for AfD and see how the discussion turns out.

Concerning your statement that no one listens to opera, many critics still consider opera is still a viable format that people frequently listen to (attendance at Opera Houses such as the Met and the San Francisco Opera are strong, and there is still a good number of voice students training to be opera singers at schools such as Julliard, NYU, NEC, and Ithaca College ) and new traditional and experimental operas are still being written, often using the opera format while combining with unique or non-traditional musical styles.

Know what you're talking about before you make assertions like this. If you'd like, we can continue this discussion on my talk page. Cheers Rackabello 19:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep if a rewrite is done. One 18:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep: needs more about his life and stuff like that but he is at least notable now, and after the election, if he loses he can be deleted. Comedy240 19:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you know so much about opera why not stick to those articles and leave the serious stuff like politics and history to people trained in those fields? I have a B.A. in history from Samford University and an MSW from LSU. I have taken upper level and graduate courses in Southern History. I teach Louisiana Studies. I have a better idea of what is notable here than you do, just as I am sure you know more about obsolete and obscure musical forms than I ever want to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didaskalos (talk • contribs)

Leave the serious stuff to people trained in those fields? I've been trying to assume good faith, but college professor or not, I feel that some of your recent comments in this discussion have been extremely immature and that a few are personal attacks, not to mention unprofessional for a college professor. You've accused me and other contributers in this discussion of trolling and being anti-south. I listed this article to argue that its written tone and notability were not in line with Wikipedia policy. Several editors agreed with me. We're simply attempting to come to a consensus as to whether this article is eligible for inclusion at this time or not, we're not personally against this gubernatorial candidate or Louisiana, which is what you've implied. Secondly, you've made negative statements concerning opera (which has no connection with this deletion discussion) that I felt were directed at me and trying to paint me as weird and incompetent for enjoying and performing a musical art form that you personally don't like and view as strange, obscure, obsolete and not notable. I respect your opinion if you don't like opera, but those statements were not appropriate in the context of this discussion, nor for Wikipedia in general. If you have an issue with opera being included in this encyclopedia, that's fine, but discuss it at WP:WPO, not here. Finally, I resent your assertion that because I'm a musician and not a college professor, political analyst, or historian that I have no right to be commenting on articles such as this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia edited by its users, for better or for worse, and the idea is that we all attempt to improve it and contribute to it to the best that we can. Everyone can contribute in some small way, not just "experts." I'm actually also quite interested in politics and law as well as music, and I think I as well as anyone else with these interests have just as much a right to contribute as you do. Seriously, I think you should read the five pillars of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia etiquette because I wonder if you truly understand some of the fundamental underlying principles of this project. Users who make personal attacks can be blocked, comment on content, not the contributer.

Peace - D. Owen Brandenburg, tenor aka Rackabello 04:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He's not notatble for anything other than his current campaign. --Tdl1060 18:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't matter if he's notable for anything other than his current campaign -- he's still notable. Joseph Antley 02:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Simply being a candidate doesn't make one automatically notable, and that's besides the fact there are still problems with tone and POV in this article Rackabello 12:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Georges is a major Republican candidate in the election. If the problems with tone and POV, which I don't really see (it resembles almost every other article of a politician currently running in tone, as far as I can tell) then fix the tone and POV. We don't delete articles because they aren't NPOV. Joseph Antley 19:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Back to your comment about Georges' notability, he doesn't meet the notability criteria spelled out in WP:BIO. It says that for politicians to be considered notable, they must have held (not running for) an office or been a part of a legislative body at a level above a city or county (i.e. state, provincial, territorial, national, United Nations) OR have been a local figure with substantial press coverage. The only way he might pass WP:BIO is through the second criteria, but considering that the majority of sources come from his own website, I have yet to see any substantial press coverage Rackabello 05:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I agree, this is a vanity page and all the "references" are either blogs or the subject's own website. In other words. Our standard is for third party sources, and non-trivial ones at that. RFerreira 01:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

very weak keep. Subject is barely notable - without spending lots of money to run for governor, he'd probably fail. But he's gotten lots of coverage in-state for his campaign, and he's been on the Louisiana Board of Regents, which is somewhat significant. He's also gotten one out-of-state media mention. I'd really prefer to see more than one outside mention, but I'm sure that will come sooner or later. Argyriou (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:Butseriouslyfolks Corpx 08:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mangina Complex

A7 Band Brianga 05:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I originally speedied it but the article creator has recreated it. Rather than delete it again it's probably better to wait for a consensus here. ugen64 06:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete A google search shows up no WP:RS|reliable]] hits for this band. Moreover, it also fails WP:BAND. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 06:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete A7 Band Brianga 06:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD A7 Rackabello 07:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting (in line)

Banal subject matter. Definitionally unencyclopedic. In the event it's not deleted, please merge into Getting dressed or Picking the nose. -- Y not? 05:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Getting dressed or Picking the nose are now no longer redlinks. =) Wl219 03:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unencycopedic. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unencyclopedic is a 'cover-all' term WP:UNENCYC... shouldn't be the basis of a argument. - Kneel17 05:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "unencyclopedic" refers to our basic text, Wikipedia:Five pillars. Sometimes you need to step away from technical verifiability, and ask yourself whether this makes any sense. -- Y not? 13:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This is something notable, in my opinion...you see this all the time. But seeing something all the time isn't a policy, obviously. So I think the best thing to do would be to interwiki (Wikitionary, I'd say). Giggy _U^CP 06:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~. Contains mostly OR. But some of this language ("transaction time", "social sanctions") makes me wonder if there was ever a serious sociological or economic study on the phenomena. I don't think the behavior is as inherently banal as the nominator does. Would support keeping if anyone digs up a peer-reviewed article like Line cutting: an economic analysis of social norms. Failing that, delete. Cool Hand Luke 07:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Delete I wish unencyclopedic material was a CSD category Rackabello 07:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Keep Sources exist. Would merge into queue area or Queueing theory. Most of the delete comments smack of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wl219 07:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followup Actually, know what, if this doesn't survive AfD, let me move it to my userspace. I'll save the sourced parts and merge it into queue area and junk the rest. Wl219 07:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I'm definitely opposed to this, but I cant find any (solid) policy grounds to voice my opposition. Could this fit under WP:NOT#DICT as in this is basically a dictionary definition and some examples? Corpx 08:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Construe it as violation of pillar one, see above. -- Y not? 13:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I try to avoid using that (just like WP:IAR) because its a subjective thing Corpx 16:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Cutting in line. While most of it is OR and should be drastically trimmed, there is one study referenced. According to this, it was done by Stanley Milgram, of six degrees of separation fame. A closer look at the Tasty Research story shows the info about his research paper. Also, a Fox News story reports one woman attacked another for cutting ahead of her at the Magic Kingdom. National variations and queuing theory indicate that there is serious room for expansion. (You don't mind if I cut in ahead of you, Binguyen, do you? ... Back of the line, you! Oh, all right.) Clarityfiend 09:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per my comment above because it apparently has been the topic of more than one scientific study. Cool Hand Luke 18:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Abstain I Abstain Weakly. 24.44.96.29 13:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL!
  - Comment. Have the courage of your convictions. Abstain strongly weekly. Clarityfiend 17:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's not delete the baby with the bath water. :) I read an article in the New York Times about cars cutting in line at the Seattle ferry, and that counts as a reasonable application. This isn't just childish jabberwock, though it needs improvement to a more mature tone and organization. Shalom ^Hello 21:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly notable and encyclopedic. It just needs help. If Wikipedia can have an article on nose picking, it can have an article on cutting in line. I agree, deletes do seem to come from a WP:IDONTLIKEIT direction. -- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 22:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep we do in fact have an article on nose picking as we should, and this article establishes notability by citing several reliable sources, and meets other relevant policies. "banal" and "unencylopedic" are non-arguments. — brighterorange (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/mergeas per Wl219 07:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC). I bet there are plenty of papers on this in several major different fields, starting with economics and sociology. Banality is not trivilalty.--Victor falk 14:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-written and referenced -- room for expansion and more references, but perfectly encyclopaedic as is. --Zeborah 21:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 02:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Life (Kanye West song)

Pure speculation; completely unsourced... a song from an album not even released yet. Suggest delete or merge to album article until there is at least a confirmation that this will be a single. - eo 04:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The fact that "Kanye's songs appear on the radio only as a single unlike other artists." is not a source and does not confirm the song's release. — *H ¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 06:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only reference doesn't mention it. WP:V Giggy _U^CP 06:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ive changed the article and included a source.Sf2070 09:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That site, which is a blog, says "Kanye recently shot the video for the third single from Graduation". Are there any reliable sources that have reported this? Spellcast 13:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It links to an MP3 interview of Kanye West himself talking about it Sf2070 10:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until a reliable source confirms it being a single. T Rex | talk 15:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the meantime since it is not officially confirmed. It wouldn't be surprising if this becomes a single though. Spellcast 12:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 23:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Record-A-Call

This product does not seem to meet notability requirements. Its claim to fame is that it was “one of the first answering machines available to the U.S. state of Washington”. This page has no incoming links and no external references. ●DanMS • Talk 03:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, is this a reliable source which can be used in this article? --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Add it to the article! ●DanMS • Talk 04:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no corroboration of notability via Google News Archive or Google Books. Historical topics have fewer online sources, yes, but "firsts" are often recorded somewhere. This is only one of the first and only in a limited geographical area. I hope Mr. Nosworthy made a profit, but he did not succeed in acquiring notability for himself or the service in the process. --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a Nosworthy Telecommunications in Lynnwood, WA, but I get the feeling that he did not introduce the answering machine to the state of Washington. No sources to back up the claim as such. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Answering machine. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 07:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too obscure to be encyclopedic. Metamagician3000 12:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 02:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Flesh

Non-notable band that completely fails WP:BAND. — Coren ^(talk) 03:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This band actually passes WP:BAND. It is stated there that a band has to release two or more albums on a major label. This band in question had released six albums. Moreover, the content of this article is easily verified at this webpage. A google search shows up over 27 000 hits as well for this band. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; I think the keyword here is major label. Six albums, of which three are self-publishd. That, and "Screaming Ferret Wreckords" googles only to self-published info and back to Wikipedia. Hardly major. — Coren ^(talk) 04:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not assert notability per WP:BAND. Screaming Ferret Wreckords is not a major label. The article doesn't mention winning any major awards, being put in rotation on major radio stations, or having an album go gold or higher, etc.-- aBSuRDiST -^T J ^C- 04:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not notable local band. Vespid 05:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I thought there might be enough out there to work with, but when I started seeing "unsigned" in the reviews, that made it difficult. They do have a distribution arrangement with Universal, and I could get the CD fairly easily in Canada, but they don't seem to have the level of coverage that's necessary for WP:RS to be fulfilled. At the moment, they don't quite make it. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Relisting generated sufficient consensus to take action. Daniel Case 00:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Mickey Bono

I believe it fails WP:Music. Certainly needs a lot of cleanup. Douglasmtaylor 01:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've slapped a wikify tag on it in case it passes AFD. It does need a lot of cleanup, but it's not too hard to do that for this article. Guroadrunner 13:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides the promotional tone issues (WP:NOT#MYSPACE) and the fact that there is essentially zero context, there is also no assertion of notability at all (thus failing WP:MUSIC). -- MarcoTolo 02:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's a source for you: [38] Giggy _U^CP 00:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; that's not a reliable source— this information is simply a self-published profile: "In their own words". — Coren ^(talk) 03:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 03:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it does indeed fail WP:MUSIC. — Coren ^(talk) 03:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. It has so many myspace links, and a lack of reliable third-party sources.-- aBSuRDiST -^T J ^C- 04:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't even remotely pass WP:MUSIC Rackabello 07:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 vanity. Daniel Case 13:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Chris Kennedy"

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"Chris Kennedy"

Blatant self-promotion/vanity; some claims of notability though so not speedyable, and article creator deprodded. If closed as keep, the article at least needs a rename for MoS purposes. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; only notability claim is an unsourced "well-known", and some of the secondary claims are dubious (for instance "Corus Radio" is big, but "Most successful" is a unsourced vacuous claim that reads like little more than aggrandizement to fluff a resumé up). — Coren ^(talk) 03:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promotional and non-notable. Fails WP:BIO.-- aBSuRDiST -^T J ^C- 04:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. agree with Absurdist. Vespid 05:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Asserts (but fails) WP:N. Also see WP:NOT#MYSPACE. -- MarcoTolo 16:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting the criteria of WP:BIO. Pastordavid 16:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 02:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand business forums

This has been speedily deleted once and the author contests this one, so let's give it a formal AfD vote and let him make his case. I don't see how it can be kept in its current form. Perhaps the five days will lead to improvement so it can be retained. KrakatoaKatie 03:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. - KrakatoaKatie 03:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB for lack of sources Corpx 05:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noted above; reference links were not valid when I checked, seems like a lead-in to a business venture. Vespid 05:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Author cannot be bothered to create correct links and there is no evidence of notability. -- RHaworth 07:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There could be an article on business organisations in New Zealand but this is not it. Its main purpose seems to be to promote the organisation linked to. Capitalistroadster 03:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply to all. hi i just found this page. and to set the record straight its not becuase i "could not be bothered" some of us are not as familiar with wiki as others. please dont take a dim view becuase it doesnt meet your expectations. it takes a lot of time to write something. the links,,, well take them out i really dont care... as i have already stated i wanted to write about new zealand, but have put some reference links in so theres some content. do you think i own government organisations c'mon? yes feel free to edit the article BUT please dont delete. if you;ve been to new zealand you'd know that there is a need fos such information. so lets make a nice post on wiki about business forums. 81.179.79.205 10:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your explanation. I see that you've referred to three websites so it does seem unlikely you own all three, but I can't see any evidence that any of them are government organisations. However this is mostly a side-point. The main issue, to me, is that the article as it stands reads more like an essay promoting business forums in general than like an informational encyclopaedia article. It's tricky getting the balance right, but the best guideline I can suggest is that Wikipedia articles should be based on information stated in multiple reliable independent sources. At the moment much of the article has come directly from your own knowledge, and the rest has come from a press release provided by a company which is biased towards promoting the concept.

If you can find newspaper articles (eg the Herald, Press, Otago Daily Times, etc) or journal articles (Monash Business Review, Journal of international business studies, etc etc - try your public/university/business library) or respected websites (this is trickier but ideally it shouldn't be run by volunteers and shouldn't be affiliated with the business forums themselves) which discuss the topic, then you can use information from those sources (restating in your own words and citing the source each time) to write an article of the sort Wikipedia wants.

Also, an article with this title should be talking not about business forums in general (that information would be appropriate in a general "Business forums" article), but specifically about New Zealand business forums -- is there something different about business forums here than in the rest of the world? A list of NZ business forums isn't sufficient, as that's more appropriate to a Yahoo web directory than a Wikipedia encyclopaedia article.

As the article stands, I'd vote delete, however if it's rewritten as above I'd happily change my vote. Also note that if it is deleted, there's nothing to stop it being rewritten and recreated -- it's just that if you do that it still needs to be rewritten in an encyclopaedic way or it'll just be deleted again.... I hope this makes sense and is useful. --Zeborah 21:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW as listcruft. Daniel Case 15:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of left-handed Presidents of the United States

WP:NOT#IINFO. Just creating a trivia list for the sake of it. Next week; List of spectacle-wearing Presidents of the United States. Masaruemoto 03:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and as useless listcruft... - Kneel17 03:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. listcruft. Though I am looking forward to List of Vice Presidents with blue eyes myself. Resolute 04:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious case of indiscriminate info. Spellcast 04:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivia WP:FIVE Corpx 05:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Pure cruft Rackabello 07:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft. T Rex | talk 15:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. However, there is a consensus that the article is quite awful and, to a lesser extent, an apparent consensus that a good article could potentially be written on the subject. Further discussion on how to go about fixing the article and on a possible merge, if temporary, into Numerology should go on Talk:Biblical Numerology. Pascal.Tesson 17:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical Numerology

AfDs for this article:

Article was just deleted less than five minutes ago (see this AfD); it has been re-created TWICE since then. The first version was nuked as a copyvio; this one is no copyvio but it's still a nuisance. Totally OR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - G4; no question asked. This is what G4 is for. — Coren ^(talk) 03:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete If I saw this article, I would tag it for speedy deletion. CSD G4. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 03:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've never seen a speedy, AfD AND prod on an article before... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, then delete This is not speediable under G4, because this version, unlike the previous one, is not copied from the other web site. TenPoundHammer is technically correct in saying it's been recreated twice since then, but one of those was an edit conflict, and he recreated it himself while nominating it for deletion. It happens. The next recreation was a good-faith attempt by the creator to start a version that isn't copied from the other web site. It would be at least possible to write a sourced article on this topic; there are certainly nontrivial sources that cover the subject. Based on the beginning, it looks like the creator is planning to create another work of original research, and if so, it should be deleted, but I'd like to assume good faith and give at least, say, 24 hours for writing and sourcing before deleting it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 03:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; It's been deleted. Please take it to deletion review. — Coren ^(talk) 03:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refutation The previous deletions were speedies for copyvio. This version, as far as I can tell, is not a copyvio, so a speedy deletion is not warrented. WP:CSD#G4 is for pages delted after full discussion, which this was not, and is only for content "substantially similar" to the previously deleted contet, which this also is not. DES ^(talk) 17:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind changing your bolding to something like "Wait, then decide"? Deleting at the end comes across to me as a bit too strong. FrozenPurpleCube 07:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My nonvote is based on the article as it exists now; if it continues in this way, then my nonvote is for deletion for original research. I have this discussion and the article on my watchlist, and I hope to come back and change my vote once the article is developed in a more useful direction. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it's sounding a bit too strong to say it the way you did. It kind of obscures the point of waiting, you see? I think if there's any problem, it's that the author doesn't know how to write a Wikipedia article. Deleting it once again won't resolve that, it'll just compound the problem. As this subject has been written about in many books and articles (see the links I provided), it's hardly unreasonable to opt for a rewrite over deletion. It's not like the current content is horribly bad. FrozenPurpleCube 17:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR, trivia. I suppose it is possible that this could be a notable topic, presuming it has been written about, but simply listing passages that include a number does not assert notability either. Resolute 04:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Without regard to the current content of the page. The fact is, numerology is a subject of reasonable importance and notability. This includes the bible. See [39] the many books covering it. See [40] the many news reports covering it. Seriously folks, at least consider the subject independent of the article. FrozenPurpleCube 05:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't tell much of what it's all about and/or it's history, more just what to look for. Interesting by its own right, but unless something can come up that gives more to it, this isn't going to survive. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above links for some possible sources. Adding that information would indeed improve this article. Their lack is not a good argument for deletion though, it's an argument for improvement. Here's one source [41]. What do you think of using some of its content to build a better article? FrozenPurpleCube 07:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No, this isn't very good as it stands. But the article now is not useless as it stands. That there is some sort of number symbolism in the Bible seems obvious; that it is sometimes murky is definitely obvious to the reader of Daniel or Revelations. We have an adequate article on number of the beast; our article on gematria needs some help, but gives a useful overview.
AfD is not cleanup. All of the problems in the current article are better addressed by editing it than deleting it. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with numerology. Wouldn't this fit better on the existing numerology page? I don't see why an article of this nature has to have its own page when the information it contains would be better served expanding an existing article. Sidatio 16:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup The subject is clearly notable, and IMO specifically biblical numerology is sufficiently distinct from numerology in general that a separate article is at least plausible. The previous deletion was a speedy, so G4 does not apply the previous "afd" was open all of two minutes, so it does not count. DES ^(talk) 17:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how one variety of numerology is sufficiently different from numerology in general to warrant a separate article. Biblical numerology is just numerology with a Biblical theme, from what I can tell. What makes biblical numerology so different? Sidatio 17:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it has been very significant in Biblical interpretaton through much of history. I think that the specific styles of numerological symbolism and intepratation used are also soemwhat different, but even if that is not so, the use of numerology specifically in interpreting the Bible has been widely prevelant and notable, so that I strongly suspect that a separate article is warrented. A merge culd always be done if that is the consensus of the editors involved. None of which denies that the currnt article needs drastic improvement. DES ^(talk) 17:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit vague for me, chief - no offense. The information in this article looks like it could fit under the Bible article or the numerology article, but I don't really see anything that would substantiate a stand-alone article on the topic.

My vote stands for a total re-write and merge with numerology. Sidatio 17:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a judgement call. A merge with possible later split, as Bgplayer suggests, is not an unreasonable option. If such a merge is done, i predict an eventual split back to this topic, and that would make the GFDL attributions a trifle akward, althopugh we have done this in many other cases. DES ^(talk) 18:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with numerology then clean up. Biblical numerology is a notable enough topic to be covered in an encyclopedia so it shouldn't be deleted entirely. The article in its current form is clearly heading for a WP:NOR violation, and should probably be scrapped and started from a clean sheet. It seems to me that the best place to start it anew is in the numerology article where there is a placeholder for it. If it grows into a large, quality entry then it can be spun off into its own article. Bgplayer 17:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup/source - Biblical numerology is a very notable topic in its own right, the subject of both scholarly research and books for public release. Examples include: Biblical Numerology: A Basic Study of the Use of Numbers in the Bible by John J. Davis, Numbers in the Bible: God's Unique Design in Biblical Numbers by Robert D. Johnston and various others. This justifies its indepdendence from both the Bible and Numerology articles. In addition, a brief scan of the Numerology entry shows that in addition to already branching off into separate related topics for Astrology and others, it primarily provides the principles behind numerology, not the specific applications as are covered in the individual articles about types - many of which differ with usage. As one poster said above, the Numerology article is an "overview," and should rightly be maintained at that level. The Biblical numerology article should be thorougly sourced to avoid OR concerns, but there is quite enough data out there to do this, and that is solved by tagging the topic appropriately, not an AfD. ◄Zahakiel ► 19:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I don't think two books and a few personal beliefs justifies spinning this topic off into its own article, especially when the main numerology article itself needs more information. Everything in this article currently would be best served on the main numerology page - that article needs help, and this information would definitely help it. Bottom line - there's nowhere near enough notable material here to make a separate article. If someone wants to submit a re-write, sure, I'll look at it. As it stands, though, this stub needs to be merged into the numerology article to bolster it. Sidatio 19:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. "Two books" were what I found in one minute of online research, and Des (below) has amply demonstrated a much more thorough potential bibliography. Personal beliefs have nothing to do with this; it is unfortunate you would even raise it as an issue, but as you have: I frankly think some of it's a stretch, so my !vote here is based upon the data available. Saying that the Numerology article needs more data is fine, but 100% irrelevant to this AfD, we're not here to discuss Numerology. You don't merge in side-issues that have more than enough multiple third-party notable coverage just to fluff out some other deficient area. ◄Zahakiel ► 02:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources:
- [42] Astrology and Numerology in Medieval and Early Modern Catalonia By John Scott Lucas
- [43] The Complete Literary Guide to the Bible By Leland Ryken, Tremper Longman, III, Tremper Longman
- [44] Every Dreamer's Handbook By Ira L. Milligan: "The Bible is the only legitimate source for the symbolic meanign of numbers"
- [45] Mercer Dictionary of the Bible By Watson Early Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard
- [46] Constantine's Bible: Politics and the Making of the New Testament By David Laird Dungan
- [47] Bible Explorer's Guide: How to Understand and Interpret the Bible By John Phillips
- [48] Religion in Victorian Britain By Gerald Parsons, James Richard Moore, John Wolffe, Open University
- [49] The Collegeville Bible Commentary: Based on the New American Bible With Revised New Testament By Dianne Bergant, Robert J. Karris
- [50] Number in Scripture: Its Supernatural Design and Spiritual Significance By Ethelbert William Bullinger
- [51] Numbers in the Bible: God's Unique Design in Biblical Numbers By Robert D. Johnston
- [52] Toward the Millennium: Messianic Expectations from the Bible to Waco By Mark R. Cohen, Peter Schäfer
- [53] The Blood of Abel: The Violent Plot in the Hebrew Bible By Mark Harold McEntire
- [54] Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible By Brevard Springs Childs
- [55] Fundamentals of Jewish Mysticism and Kabbalah By Ron H. Feldman ("One of the widely used methods of uncovering hidden meanings of the Torah is numerology based on hebrew letters called gematria--numerology.")
- [56] The Greek Qabalah: Alphabetical Mysticism and Numerology in the Ancient Worldy Kieren Barry
- [57] Encyclopaedia Judaica edited by Cecil Roth, Geoffrey Wigoder, Raphaël Posner, Louis I. Rabinowitz ("The sexagesimal method of calculation applies to other parts of the Bible, ... the kabbalistic writers laid great stress on numerology in various forms...")
- [58] Fundamentalism in America: Millennialism, Identity and Militant Religion By Philip H. Melling ("The ploy of attahing the numbe 666 to teh anme of the beast is a common example of the way fundamentalism reduces scripture to mechanistic numerology...")
- [59] The Third How to Handbook for Jewish Living By Ronald H. Isaacs, Kerry M. Olitzky ("Jewish Numerology -- The source: The Bible and various rabbinic sources")

The above are just a short selection of what is found in a google books search. DES ^(talk) 23:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references from specialized encyclopedias such as EJudaica alone are sufficient to justify the article. an extremely notable subject. As DESiegel says, the books are a very small portion--going back over the last 4 or 5 centuries, there are probably thousands. Frankly, I am beginning to think there is a repeated unconscious POV from those who seem to be inclined to think things related to the Bible unimportant. I'm sure it's merely ignorance of what through the last two or three thousand years has been the major element in cultural life of hundreds of millions of people. DGG (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny - I was thinking something similar of the 'pro-bible' camp. Let's not forget - 1/6th of the world is officially atheist, and another 1/6th practices Hinduism! What's that, you say? That doesn't pertain to the current discussion? You're right - and neither does DGG's opinion about those of us who have the audacity to question the existence of this topic as a separate article. Let's tone it down and discuss the merits of the issue, shall we?

A great many of the books on this list seem to deal with Biblical numerology only in part. Significant, yes, but here's the crux of the matter - the current article is simply dreadful, and its information at present would best be served bolstering the numerology article. I like the idea best about trying it out on the numerology article and seeing if it can build up steam to be spun off to its own article. That, or tear this one down and make it a great deal more presentable. In the meanwhile, why not take what little information there is here and bolster an existing article? Sidatio 01:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That many of the books only deal with the subject in part doesn't mean much, given their relative number, it still adds up to an effectively large amount of information which demonstrates both the viability and desirability of coverage. The crux of the matter, as you call it, is a clean-up issue, not a deletion issue. Me, I think the numerology article is better served by not including too much of this specific information, and that encouraging improvement would have been better served by not jumping to AFD so quickly. FrozenPurpleCube 01:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of your argument, Sidatio, is a very strange application of the WP:USEFUL argument to avoid. The information would be "useful," you think, elsewhere, so it shouldn't have its own article? That is not a valid reason to delete an entry. As you rightly say above, let's discuss the merits of this one. Wikipedia asks for notability; Biblical Numerology has that. It asks for significant third-party coverage; it definitely has that (a lot of books that deal with it "in part," and several of which actually have titles including the words "Bible and "numbers"). Even multiple sources that only dealt with it in part would be sufficient coverage, and that's without the books that make it the major premise. It asks for NPOV; even this current "bad" content is not out to convince anyone that the information is ultimate Truth. There's no policy of Wikipedia that's even close to violation here. ◄Zahakiel ► 02:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self - never attempt to write a counterpoint right after I have got out of bed. :-p It seemed a little rambling, and certainly wasn't very well thought-out, so I've taken the time to re-write it. My apologies for the inconvenience.

I'm having a hard time finding an encyclopedic entry for Biblical Numerology - my research seems to show the topic covered as a subtopic within Numerology as a whole. Does anyone in the Keep camp have an example of Biblical Numerology having its own coverage in a general (read: non-religious) encyclopedia? A search of Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, shows Biblical numerology as a subtopic within its "number symbolism" article[60]. I realize Wikipedia isn't EB, but it's a valid point nonetheless. If we write an article about Biblical numerology, we're not only going to be waiting a while for a valid, well-sourced, NPOV article on the topic, but another, established article will suffer as well for lack of information that could really help fill it out.

At present, the article is hovering dangerously close to violating WP:NOT#INFO - it's very little more than a list of interpreted beliefs. (And while we're on the topic of policies: WP:USEFUL? I don't understand what you're getting at, chief - perhaps we can go into that on my talk page sometime.)

The consensus, whether you're for or against it, seems to be that this article at present isn't Wiki-worthy at this point. It needs a complete tear-down and reworking to be viable. At least, though, if we merge it, that information has a place to grow and possibly one day (Sooner? Later? That's up to whoever wants to write it, I guess!) be an article in its own right. Personally, I think it's a workable compromise.

There - MUCH better than my previous, rambling, sleep-deprived rhetoric. If anyone saw that before I rewrote it, I apologize! Sidatio 13:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any degree of familiarity with Wikipedia will rapidly reveal that the WP:NOT#PAPER policy results in many articles that will not be found in a "general" encyclopedia, and even a "religious" one. Your premise, therefore, that since it's not in Brittanica it shouldn't be here is not going to stand up to scrutiny; so no, it's not a valid point. By the way, there are many articles currently here that are only found in specialized encyclopedias; there is nothing wrong with that. My statement about "useful" was stated above about as clearly as I can put it... it is a strange application, you think that "useful" information elsewhere is a valid reason to expand one article at the expense of another, and I don't think that is reasonable. Ordinary use of "useful" says we should keep an article because it is so, you're saying we should scuttle one to build another - see how it works?

Your other point, that we may be "waiting a while" is a little pessimistic, but even if that were true, there is no time limit, so that is also not a concern for AfD on individual articles. You realize, of course, that any article on religion is a matter of "interpreted beliefs," right? And that the coverage you find on this topic is pretty comprehensive for something vital to said interpretation of many of them? Your statement that "if we merge it, that information has a place to grow and possibly one day (Sooner? Later? That's up to whoever wants to write it, I guess!)" could well be used against many stubs on this site, and there are a profusion of those... small articles are not a problem as long as they adhere to the five pillars of Wikipedia, as this one does; and most hardly have the wealth of knowledge attached to it as the list above that's failed to impress you. You're absolutely right that the consensus states that this article is a bad one - this is why we have cleanup tags, even one for copy-editing to encourage rewrites - and, (once more) "this is not a matter for AfD." Even some of those adding to the "bad article" concensus are saying the entry should be kept and improved. That's the standard (and correct) approach to the problems it suffers. Basically... there are adequate tags for addressing your stated concerns; everything you mention that cannot be fixed with patient editing is simply a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:IDONTCARE. I'm still not seeing any credible argument from WP policy against this article. ◄Zahakiel ► 14:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming a little contentious, isn't it? Settle down, killer.

The EB reference was an example, not an argument on the whole. It simply exists to help bolster my view that, since this topic seems to exist as a subtopic to numerology in a variety of reputable encyclopedias, then it should follow suit here until and unless it becomes a stand-alone article in its own right.
There are SEVERAL well-sourced, objective articles on religious topics that refrain from delving into personal interpretation. This isn't one of them.
We're not discussing other stubs. We're discussing this one, right?
I'm not the one who called the article into question. Take it up with whoever called for this - or better yet, relax.
I agree that the article doesn't violate the Five Pillars. However, as it stands, it DOES violate WP:NOT#INFO, and an argument could be made for listcruft - and for all of the fervent arguing coming from the Keep side, no one seems to be fixing it.
I never said I don't like it. I also disagree with completely removing it (though you seem to think, Zahakiel, that I DO want it gone. Let me address this to you specifically, then: I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE DELETED.) I simply gave the opinion that, if it has to be torn down and re-written completely anyway, why not start it off on the numerology page, spin it off from there if it warrants it (just because it's about religion doesn't automatically make it pertinent, right?), and improve an existing article in the process?
You're taking this a little personally, aren't you, Zahakiel? If you can't argue the point objectively, perhaps you should take a step back and relax.

My opinion is just that - an opinion. I'm not about to get testy over a Wikipedia article, minor or major. If you don't agree with me, that's fine - it's nothing new in my world, I can assure you! However, I'd appreciate it if you were more civil about voicing your opinion, Zahakiel. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm attacking you, okay?

Thanks. Sidatio 15:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make this about me. You were the first to bring up issues of religious belief, if you recall, and I referred to it briefly and let it drop. My issues here about are about policy, which you haven't addressed. I am perfectly calm, thank you... I'm just not seeing your argument. Now letting all the rest of that go, let me just address the parts relevant to this AfD; if you have anything else to say to me you have the liberty of using my talk page.

You wrote, "I simply gave the opinion that, if it has to be torn down and re-written completely anyway." As I said above, there are tags for that; this isn't an AfD issue.
You wrote, "There are SEVERAL well-sourced, objective articles on religious topics [...] This isn't one of them." As I said above, there are tags for that; this isn't an AfD issue.
You wrote, "I agree that the article doesn't violate the Five Pillars. However, as it stands, it DOES violate WP:NOT#INFO, and an argument could be made for listcruft." Listcruft is not an argument for deletion, and as I said above, there are tags for that; this isn't an AfD issue.
You wrote, "...since this topic seems to exist as a subtopic to numerology in a variety of reputable encyclopedias, then it should follow suit here until and unless it becomes a stand-alone article in its own right." See above re: WP:NOT#PAPER; and as I said above, there are tags for that; this isn't an AfD issue.

If you notice a pattern here, I assure you it's not a coincidence. Your perception of the state of my calm aside, there are no polices being violated here; you admit that, yet you want it altered to suit your tastes. I disagree, and I am not doing so in an uncivil way (I am neither a "chief," nor a "killer," but if you are at all interested in my state of mind, I do admit to finding those terms directed at me and others a little patronizing, and distracting from the issues at hand; no need to conjecture) - reciprocally, if you can point me to a statement I made above that you find personally offensive, I will apologize to you on your own talk page. ◄Zahakiel ► 15:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add something to that, because I'm with you in not wanting this to escalate... it is permissible for people to feel strongly about an issue and argue their points accordingly. This does not mean they are being uncivil; i.e., there are no personal attacks. That's a pretty loaded word that is not going to help any, so let's just stick to the issues of the article and the policies involved. I'm sure you'll agree that is best. ◄Zahakiel ► 15:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better - I appreciate it. Thank you. I also appreciate your offer, but I don't think that's necessary. I may not necessarily agree that one who feels passionately about a topic should argue their points accordingly (it's far too easy to be seen as condescending when doing so, for example), but that's the nature of life - we don't all agree on everything. :-) For the record, however, I will be more formal when addressing you in the future if you take offense to my references to you. That's how my friends and I refer to each other during our many discussions, and apparently I was wrong to use that approach with you. It's a mistake that won't be repeated, rest assured.

I will reiterate - I don't think it should be deleted. We seem to be in agreement there. Also, I agree that the policies I cited do not support deletion (which, again, I do not support). I cited those policies in support for an alternative to deletion. My argument is for merging, if you'll notice my vote. Whatever can be salvaged from an article that everyone seems to agree is unsustainable as a stand-alone as it is presently written would best be served improving the numerology article, in my humble opinion. From there, it can grow to be a stand-alone if someone writes a proper article on Biblical numerology. That way, we improve the existing article and not have one more fatally flawed article hanging out there, waiting to be improved. To me, this seems to be a more efficient use for the information.

Please understand - my vote is for a keep and merge after being suitably rewritten - not for deletion. If I haven't made that clear, I apologize - I was under the impression I was conveying this. Sidatio 16:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likwise, I appreciate your last post. I did understand you are moving for "keep and merge," yes. My contention is that, with the multitude of references available, the notability of this precise topic in its proper circles (and these circles are, yes, religious ones, since it is about "Biblical" numerology) and the degree of difference from the overall issue of numerology (some of the interpretations diverge widely) it has more than enough qualifications for a stand-alone. Since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, you are certainly going to find topics that have been placed together in published works like Brittanica separated here since they can be given a more thorough coverage, and we do have the resources to do that with this one. Aside from that, we'll just have to see how the consensus comes out. Thank you again. ◄Zahakiel ► 16:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also unconvinced that a merge is the appropriate action in this case. Some brief coverage of biblical numerology in the numerology article is important, yes, (and so is coverage on say, a page involving the Holy Bible) but that coverage can only be such a brief summary that it would not give an appropriate level of coverage to this important subject. Yes, certainly the current page isn't much, it might well be better to start off with a blank page, but that's a question related to a preference in how to build a better encyclopedia, not a question about the subject itself. Do any of us objectively know what goes into making a good page? I doubt it. It's not like a cookbook. We can measure the results, but the how? Far too many variables to get a grasp on that. FrozenPurpleCube 18:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment a speedy was just placed once again on this article as G4, ~~by Sidatio;~~ I do not think this is a correct representation of the present state of the AfD so I removed it. DGG (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, sir, you are mistaken. The template was placed by Blueboy96, and the reason given was for a G6, not a G4. It was removed by Philippe, with the reason given "removed repost- this is a significantly different version of the article, and not a copyvio, which is why the previous version was deleted". This is clearly stated in the edit history. [[61]] Since it seemed to be removed under the wrong pretense, and it was stated earlier in this discussion that we were giving the article 24 hours for better writing and sourcing, I was under the impression the decision had been made. So, I restored the template. I will not do so again, but I have notified the user who originally placed the template that it was removed and will point them to this talk page. If anyone is going to attribute anything to me, please make sure it is done so correctly. I make every effort to return the courtesy. Thank you. Sidatio 13:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to say the least, the history of this page is a little complicated! At the base of it, is that it was entered here twice. I have no doubt whatever that whoever replaced the template the different times it was replaced was doing so in complete good faith. At one point, it did look like a copyvio; at other points, it did look like a repost. So my full apologies, if what I said came out wrong. I do not think any of the re-placements of the template were attempts to short-circuit the discussion. Let us continue to have a proper discussion: there is more than one reasonable approach to the article. 19:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

G6 isn't relevant here, it's for house-keeping purposes only, in non-controversial circumstances. That is not an option here, given this very discussion. FrozenPurpleCube 19:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So, what are we doing here? No one's editing the article that I can tell, and we haven't had any more discussion on this. Sidatio 20:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting bull, I guess. If you want to discuss improving the article, the talk page is where I'd go, and if you need further help, there are some other avenues. If you don't care, then maybe list it and hope somebody else fixes it in the future? FrozenPurpleCube 21:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Sr 13 01:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Divinity Destroyed

Try as I might, this appears to meet none of the the notability guidelines. — Coren ^(talk) 02:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, not a notable band. ~~You might want to add their albums: Nocturnal Dawn, Divinity Destroyed EP, Eden in Ashes, The Plague EP.~~ Done. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... while I was doing it. Hence the conflict edits. :-) — Coren ^(talk) 03:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of 'em: none of the pages pass WP:MUSIC... you might want to also take a look at Beyond the Flesh, another NN "brother band" from the same label: Screaming Ferret Wreckords... - Kneel17 03:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I did, here. I didn't add it to this deletion discussion since, while joined at the hip, it is a different topic. — Coren ^(talk) 03:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:BAND.-- aBSuRDiST -^T J ^C- 04:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete similar to Beyond the Flesh above, shares lead guitarist. Still not notable. Vespid 05:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I rather like the record label's name, but the band is not notable under WP:BAND. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasprocedural closer as per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Discussion afd is not for content disputes, wikipedia is not a forumn/blog with which to attack/express dislike of a subject. Gnan garra 12:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Railpage Australia

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

Blatant vanity page for non-notable web forum backed up by self-published references. DFC Free Oz 02:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Surprised this has survived twice before. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, not notable. All sources are self published. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - notability was established in the previous AfD. I question the validity of the claim. Thin Arthur 03:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Railpage sucks doodle!!!! 200.143.129.98 03:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Teach the Jailpage kiddies a lesson. 222.135.79.155 03:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)— 222.135.79.155 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong delete, about time this pile of excrement vanity article was removed. 201.248.94.168 03:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. About time this page was deleted. Hopefully it will be voted out this time. Then we can all party while the kiddies have a cry! 222.135.79.155 03:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)— 222.135.79.155 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - very questionable anon IP submissions in rapid succession. Thin Arthur 03:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom... along with these comments above? Heh. :/ - Kneel17 03:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The page needs to be rewritten so that it's more fluid, but per Thin Arthur and past AfDs it is notable. Stupid of me to jump so fast. - Kneel17 03:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, despite the pretty clear indications of some kind of WP:POINT nomination, or more probably an off-Wikipedia feud, there do not seem to be sufficient reliable sources to pass WP:WEB requirements. It pains me to reward such obvious bad faith, but my hunch is that if we identify the sponsor of this little sortie, we could rebalance the scales. --Dhartung | Talk 03:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - these might shed some light on it. Usenet posts from a known Railpage critic. Note the article subject and the poster's tag line and compare it with the nominator.[62] The nominator is also a new account whose very first edit was to restore a previously deleted AfD for the article. Thin Arthur 03:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - This seems to explain the term "DFC" and adds to the context of my above comment and the account of the nominator. Thin Arthur 04:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Notability was established in the previous AfD. It appears that the push for deletion is coming from a small group of former or disaffected members. It is an EdNA Evaluated Page approved as a school resource - this is not just a mere link and every site approved by EdNA as a school resource has to be evaluated against educational criteria. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has used Railpage as a secondary source.[63] 5 citations on Google Scholar.[64] Railpage is also cited as a source in other Wikipedia articles, e.g. Transport in Iran, 4D (train), Gowrie railway station, Melbourne, Connex Melbourne, Rail rollingstock in New South Wales, Walhalla Goldfields Railway. Thin Arthur 03:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the "references" are poll results and server stats? What is this? At any rate, not notable, and the previous AfD's were infested by single purpose accounts so are of little guidance. — Coren ^(talk) 04:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 04:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE!

removed excessive and disruptive text. Otto4711 04:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are no reliable sources in this article, whatsoever. Why weren't they added last time? --Haemo 04:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. They were lost in the edit war and the flurry of deliberaty misleading information added by editors who are also critics of the site. See the talk page for details. The Null Device 07:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anon IP 202.108.12.194 has been blocked for excessive vandalism to this AfD, the Railpage article, and the user pages of various editors. --Canley 05:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep AfD is not article cleanup. Notability has been established, but the article just needs a bit of a rewrite and cleanup to get it to an acceptable level. The nomination screams WP:POINT as noted by Dhartung. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so it can be recreated entirely from material available at reliable sources by somebody with no conflict of interest. All the references are back to railpage so how do they meet WP:N - I don't care how often their stats have been quoted, nobody has written about the website.Ga rr ie 06:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Completely untrue. Articles about the site were mentioned in the previous AfD but lost in the edit wars, then the article was protected. The Null Device 07:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no reliable sources stated, nor could i find any. It also fails WP:WEB and WP:N. Twenty Years 06:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It has already passed WP:WEB and WP:N in the previous AfD. The Null Device 07:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has been quoted many times in major daily newspapers (see one example on the talk page) but not every Australian newspaper puts every article online. Google News Archive is not the be all and end all of the world's news. This search shows 895 Australian government web pages linking to Railpage. It is an EdNA Evaluated Page approved as a school resource (this is not just a link and every site approved by EdNA as a school resource has to be evaluated). The Australian Bureau of Statistics has used it as a secondary source[65]. Jim Betts, the Victorian Director of Public Transport, contributed to the site in an official capacity. (Taken from last Afd). Those asking why these sources weren't included last time would probably find that the page was protected for a period of time, and within a week or so of protection being removed we're back here again and have had edit wars holding things up. WP:POINT seems to be the big factor here. I'd like to remind contributors that if the article doesn't contain reliable sources, but they do exist - then it is not a good cause for article deletion, but is a good cause for the article to be rewritten or edited. 59.167.89.251 06:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've started a major cleanup of the article. I've trimmed quite a lot of the fat from it, and included a slew of major sources, as well as included sections on uses of the site, its hosting services, and a short summary of the major staff. The history section still needs some major work, but the changes made alone here should be enough to convince anyone that doubts the site's notability or ability to provide independant sources. More work to be done, but it's well one the way.
Strong keep. I concur with the previous comment.The article doesn't contain reliable sources, but they do exist. This is not a reason to delete the article. This was also discussed in the previous AfD. The decision of that AfD, even with the anon IP contributions, was keep and the article has since been cleaned up. The article remained protected until recently then the vandalism started again. Is it even legitimate that this AfD was sponsored by a newly created account, apparently created purely for the purpose of starting the AfD? Check the article history. An anon IP AfD was added a few days ago but this was removed as being incomplete. Then today a new account is created to do just that. WP:POINT is a major factor here. That is not a reason to delete the article, but it does need to be edited. The Null Device 07:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep A very notable website. This article requires a major cleanup, not deleting. Nicko (Talk•Contribs)Review my progress! 08:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A major cleanup is in progress and third party sources are being added. The Null Device 09:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Checking out the Afd information page on Wikipedia shows that "The accusation "VANITY" should be avoided, and is not in itself a reason for deletion.", however I notice that the reason given for this Afd begins with the term "Blatant vanity". 59.167.89.251 09:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Several issues in the wording of the nom. Vanity: as per above, not in itself a reason for deletion. Non-notable: notability was previously established and third party sources have now been added. Web forum: Railpage is not just a forum, in fact it is probably more accurately described a portal for many resources including a discussion forum. Interestingly it seems the forum is the main target of the critics. The entire nom seems to be quite biased in its wording to the point of being misleading. The Null Device 09:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt ask for a soap opera I said delete the page! JUST GET RID OF IT! CLEARLY NOT NOTABLE!!!!!!! Are you "keep" kiddies all Failpage members or what??????? Stick your views where the sun dont shine. Fundies are not wanted here!!!!! DFC Free Oz 11:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And with that little admission, I'd like to call for a Speedy Keep rather than my original strong keep. 59.167.89.251 11:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As recently as late 2006, The West Australian sourced the website for news about a railway project Recurring dreams 11:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Long-standing, notable website with semi-official recognition as detailed by others above. Article is in a parlous state, but that's a matter for cleanup. Orderinchaos 11:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Clearly a very, very bad faith nomination, courtesy of DFC Free Oz, and notability has been determined in previous AfDs. Agree this article needs sourcing improvement, can we nag tag it as such, perhaps alert the Article Rescue Squadron? --Canley 11:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 01:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paradox (English band)

No assertion of notability. Article's creator didn't even finish it. Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps an A7 speedy. No notability asserted -- although it seems much more smoothly written than the Wikipedia pages of most other nn bands. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; borderline speedy. Far from WP:BAND. (And, as an aside, someone needs to buy a tripod to that photographer). — Coren ^(talk) 04:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At least it uses a free photo. Band fails WP:BAND and has plenty of time to cite sources.-- aBSuRDiST -^T J ^C- 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete band doesn't even have a deal, nor does it advance its genre in some notable way. Just another pub band. Totnesmartin 14:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete Article is unfinished but not idle. Creater (myself) has not been able to edit recently, although this unforseen attack on its existence will push me to put more time in its completion. Totnesmartin has no grounds for stating the band's lack of 'advance in genre', not that this matters; many bands on Wikipedia have contributed very little yet have qualified themselves to remain on Wikipedia. 'Just another pub band' is also unnecessary and false, as the remainder of the article will aim to show. Please do not be so pre-judgemental.

Comment. I hope you don't take any of this personally. What your article really needs to establish notability is to cite third-party reliable sources such as magazines, newspapers, credible websites, etc. Be sure to read WP:BAND (the notability guidelines for bands), and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.-- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 19:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -FisherQueen (Talk) 02:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical Numerology

Totally obvious WP:OR essay job here. It sure is interesting, but it's not at all Wikipedia material. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! You recreated it immediately after I speedily deleted it for copyright infringement; you're almost- but not quite- as fast as I am. :) -FisherQueen (Talk) 02:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article was improved sufficiently. Daniel Case 00:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Small

He may be the COO of Dreamworks Studios, but I can't find a whole lot more than that online. Seems to fail WP:RS and WP:V (that is, I can't verify anything other than the fact that he's COO of Dreamworks). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ~~The creator of the Jeff small page~~ Another user left this comment on my talk page: "Err, oops? :-) The Jeff small article isn't mine— I just moved the new stub to fix the naming guidelines! — Coren (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)" Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because I'm not the creator! :-) I just moved the page to fix the name, apparently while you were tagging it up for AfD. I fixed the AfD page and index accordingly (I see you already moved the AfD template itself). — Coren ^(talk) 02:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, very notable executive of dreamworks and before that at revolution studios.Callelinea 03:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete; notability isn't transitive, but Dreamworks is very notable, and its boss, IMO, does get some notability. Probably not enough for WP:BIO, however. — Coren ^(talk) 03:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sufficient coverage of his career in pubs such as Variety. I wouldn't say very notable, and it isn't simply transitive, but COO of one of the largest studios in H'wood is, I think, notable. --Dhartung | Talk 03:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:BIO as an important figure in the film industry. Needs expansion, cleanup, etc.-- aBSuRDiST -^T J ^C- 04:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've tried to expand the article -- there just isn't much of anything out there on the 'Net about him. All I can confirm is that he's COO of DreamWorks and nothing else. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added material to the article yesterday including three other companies for which he has worked. It's a perfectly acceptable stub. Lack of expandability is not a rationale for deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 22:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps the article should be tagged with {{expert-subject}}, although I think a stub tag covers it.-- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 03:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not that we don't know how to find out information on him, it's that a bunch of it is behind paywalls. Don't worry, he'll be written about again in the LAT or wherever.--Dhartung | Talk 18:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly acceptable stub Recurring dreams 08:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to recent improvements. Bearian 22:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the improved sourcing did establish notability. — Coren ^(talk) 23:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 popcult listcruft. Daniel Case 13:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MTV in popular culture

AfDs for this article:

Delete - nominated once previously and closed no consensus, largely it appears on the strength of earnest declarations that the article could be "cleaned up." As with so many such earnestly kept articles, this cleanup hasn't happened and the article remains a directory of loosely associated items which have nothing in common with each other beyond some reference or other to MTV. Collecting a list of every time MTV is mentioned in the lyrics of a song or on a TV show says nothing about MTV, nothing about the items that mention it, nothing about their relationship to each other and nothing about the world. Note that the article mentioned to support the existence of this one, Jeopardy! in popular culture, has been deleted. Otto4711 02:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This couldn't even be a section of MTV per WP:TRIVIA.-- aBSuRDiST -^T J ^C- 04:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:FIVE and others. Crazysuit 05:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure trivia - WP:FIVE Corpx 05:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because a) these popular culture articles among the most intriguing and interesting on Wikipedia (I'd like to see many, many more of them actually) and b) in this particular instance it concerns a rather revolutionary TV channel that has had a strong influence on subsequent TV networks involving music. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're interesting, but dont you think this information is trivial? Corpx 05:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all as it provides insight into how the subject has pervaded popular culture and by being in list form provides a useful list for anyone researching the topic. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make this connection borders on WP:OR; there are no reliable third party references that state conclusively that these small nods to MTV's presence in pop culture somehow prove the subject matter's importance. If those were available for such trivial items, then I would agree with you, Le Grand. As it stands now, it's unsourced and unencyclopedic, and therefore does not belong on Wikipedia. I also argue that WP:USEFUL should not be applied here because Wikipedia is not a directory for trivia. María (críticame) 02:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the very first, totally unsourced, paragraph might be cleaned up, and put into the main article. Maybe. If you could source it -- which I doubt. The rest of it is a laundry list of trivia; random mentions of MTV in any context, in any popular culture medium. --Haemo 06:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Corrs once mentioned MTV in a song, South Park mentioned MTV a couple of times - so what? It's pure OR to suggest that this list of loosely related trivia is evidence of any notable phenomenon. It might be possible to write an encyclopaedic examination of the pervasive influence of MTV on popular culture, but it would be done by reference to published sources which examine the topic, not by collecting random facts. Iain99 08:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ATRIV was made for a reason. Delete this along with all the other trivia articles in Category:In popular culture (as of typing, there are 121 other articles on Wikipedia like this). Spellcast 12:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can we have a bot that gets rid of all "in popular culture" lists? Please? pretty please? Totnesmartin 14:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. StudierMalMarburg 19:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another one of those, although some elements have sources and those can be merged into the MTV article.--JForget 23:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above and all other 'IPC' results ad infinitum. CaveatLector^Talk 01:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of WP:NOT#INFO. María (críticame) 02:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is a list of indiscriminate, unrelated trivia entries that does not assert the notability of the topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of these sets of scrappy un-filtered notes can ever become a encyclopedia article. Golfcam 17:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lilya 4-ever. MastCell ^Talk 21:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dangoule Rasalaite

Article seems to be mostly OR. One reference to a Swedish newspaper is provided but... the article is in Swedish. Doesn't seen to be enough to establish notability. The Parsnip! 02:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of evidence of notability independent from the film, which Google searching has failed to provide, merge with Lilya 4-ever. Espresso Addict 02:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Swedish Wikipedia has no article on this - Totnesmartin 14:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Case 04:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, for if the Swedish wiki has no article, and notability cannot be confirmed, merge per above.Ravenmasterq 06:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the Swedish Wikipedia is not that large, so it can't be expected to have articles about everything related to Sweden. I'm somewhat leaning towards keep, by the way. Punkmorten 08:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the documentary gives historic notability as required by WP:NOT#NEWS Corpx 16:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. None of the English language publications I turned up when researching this mentioned Dangoule Rasalaite explicitly; the claim that she is the inspiration for the film (by no means a documentary), as far as I'm aware, rests on the Swedish newspaper. Espresso Addict 10:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since Dangoule Rasalaite is dead, this can't be a BLP issue. However, our unsourced article remains the #1 Google hit for her name. I think it's unwise to preserve unsourced information indefinitely, since there's no guarantee that it is correct. Our existing article on the film Lilya 4-ever preserves the name Dangoule Rasalaite, so the connection is still there. I think we should not have a free-standing article on Dangoule unless we have sources. I read the New York Times review of the film, but it doesn't mention her name, possible due to the difficulty of checking the facts. There is no Babelfish available for translating from Swedish to English, so it's hard to figure out what the Swedish newspaper is saying. I'd believe the quoted date of her death, since no translator is needed for that, but it doesn't seem enough for an article. EdJohnston 20:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 01:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wall (video game)

Non-notable video game, seems to be as hory article due to the WP:CRYSTAL nature. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I think it's fairly clear that when basically all fields of the infobox are "TBA" there's a WP:CRYSTAL problem (as well as unestablished notability). — Coren ^(talk) 02:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only for the sole reason that it is not notable and we can't predict... would like to see this back eventually, though. - Kneel17 03:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Dont those IGN articles talk about the game? I think info is available due to their appearance at E3 Corpx 05:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All those TBAs in the infobox say crystalballery to me. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its not notable at all. (Woggy 06:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
'Delete Definitely fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N No prejudice to recreation if notability can later be established. Rackabello 07:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and recreate once it appears (looking at Duke Nukem Forever this can take a while..) and notability can be established with independent reliable sources. --Allefant 13:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was smite per Ezekiel 27:17. Daniel Case 00:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pulp Fiction in popular culture

Delete - another directory of loosely associated topics. These things have nothing in common other than a reference of greater or lesser triviality to the same film. This list, seeking to capture every time a particular film is referenced or parodied in any other medium, tells us nothing about the film, nothing about the fictional items from which the references are drawn, their relationship to each other or the real world. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight Club in popular culture for one of many similar articles which have been deleted. Otto4711 02:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the other foo in popular culture deletions. Indiscriminate, trivia, loosely associated topics, etc. Resolute 04:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this couldn't even be in Pulp Fiction (film) per WP:TRIVIA.-- aBSuRDiST -^T J ^C- 04:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Trivia - WP:FIVE Corpx 05:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thorough and easily verfiable list that shows major influences on culture of a significant, award-winning/nominatd film. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "major influences" -- like, say "An episode of According to Jim contained a MacGuffin briefcase which, like the Pulp Fiction briefcase, contained an entrancing, glowing light.", or perhaps "In a recent T-Mobile commercial one of the characters states "You don't give another man's girl a foot massage" most likely a reference to the conversation Jules and Vincent had.". This is a laundry-list of trivia, with no encyclopedic merit. The article doesn't even try to address the topic, it just launches into a list of every cultural reference to Pulp Fiction, no matter how trivial, and with no context as to its importance. --Haemo 05:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Along with all the other XXXXXXXXX in Popular Culture articles Rackabello 07:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ugh! Another list of loosely associated trivia. It's original research to suggest that this random collection of facts is evidence of anything - the article certainly contains no sources to tell us so. Iain99 09:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ATRIV was made for a reason. Delete this along with all the other trivia articles in Category:In popular culture (as of typing, there are 121 other articles on Wikipedia like this). Spellcast 12:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE, MOTHERFUCKER. DO YOU SPEAK IT? (er... per WP:TRIVIA) Will ^(talk) 16:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR Jay32183 16:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as another exemple of IPC articles are not useful in separate articles.--JForget 23:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at the very least as a collection of non-notable information. There is some room for categorization here, but that's a bit sketchy. CaveatLector^Talk 01:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know what they call an indiscriminate list of trivia article in Paris? ...Nope, that's all I got. Delete. María (críticame) 01:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They call it: fr:Wikipédia:Ce que Wikipédia n'est pas. --JayHenry 23:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I just snorfed root beer up my nose. ;) María (críticame) 00:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of these sets of scrappy un-filtered notes can ever become a encyclopedia article. Golfcam 17:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all X in popular culture type lists please. Do it now. Burntsauce 18:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Daniel Case 15:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

07th Expansion

This page was originally tagged with {{db-corp}}, but I thought that this made no sense since it's importance is stated in the lead as being the company that spawned the Higurashi no Naku Koro ni franchise, which has quite a few articles on Wikipedia, and not to mention that the first anime series has been licensed, and relased, in English by Geneon. 十八 02:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As stated above.--十八 02:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. Notability seems to be asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable. Doceirias 02:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep WP:OSTRICH _dk 03:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, they are notable as the authors of a major visual novel with an anime adaptation, and only made further notable by their amateur status at the time they created the game. --tjstrf talk 03:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep For every reason stated above. Deleting the article isn't logical. -- Psi edit 03:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Close for the above reasons and due to the SNOWBALL caveat. Kyaa the Catlord 04:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep meets notability. --Squilibob 05:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep certainly notable Rackabello 07:50, 23 July 2007 (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 Keep. Numerically things are near equal, and If I were goinge purely on numbers I'd clsoe as no consensus. But the delete argemetns are a combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the assertion that having a category would be better. But such lits are clearly supported by guideline pages linked by those favoring keep, and the maintenence argumetn would be stronger in the presence of evidence that maintenence had in fact failed. Cats take maintenence too, if not quite so much. DES ^(talk) 04:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of action films: 1970s

Yes, I realize this article is tagged with {{underconstruction}}, but this list is a disaster waiting to happen. "Action film" is purely OR, and the list itself will become horribly unmanageable.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that this list is useful and encyclopedic. The average user using wikipedia doesn't browse through cats, and I'm actually trying to create a list that will clean-up and give useful information from the previous List of action films page. Plus, as those pages go, it will eventually be far far to large. That is my statement for keeping them. Andrzejbanas 02:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment The lists if allowed to be completed serve a much greater purpose than categories - they will provide an overview of specific genre and therefore become encyclopedic. ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 13:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Listcruft, highly subject to opinion (what constitutes an action film), nearly impossible to manage accurately. This is why we have categories. Readers will find the cats if they are linked from a main page such as Action film, or a redirect could do the job. Realkyhick 02:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Realkyhick. WP:NOT IMDB. eaolson 02:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, for one "Action films" is subjective and WP:OR. What about comedy/action? And so forth. Secondly, the fact that some users do not know about categories doesn't mean we should start doubling all of them up with articles. Wikipedia is not a directory of arbitrarily associated stuff. — Coren ^(talk) 04:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all This list is unmanageable. Why not add all the B movies and independent "action movies" from those time frames? Corpx 05:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with a category if the genre can be cited from a reliable source Corpx 14:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot them! Blow them up good! Zap! Pow! per nom. Forbidden Planet is listed as a 50s action flick?!? Can Shakespeare in Love be far behind? Clarityfiend 06:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep what are you doing? List of action films already existed for many years -the creator is taking it to the next level by formatting it into encyclopedic lists which provide information. Action as a genre is pretty defined -POV? I don't think so. PLease give these lists time to develop ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 10:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: again, this is different then cats. If you don't agree with a film being marked by a genre like action, then it can be removed. I think that science fiction film mentioned above was added due to it having sci-fi action tagged to it, with laser guns and what not. This list is important as it can list films that aren't on wikipedia, for articles that can be created as well. That is why I suggest it stays kept, it had different uses then simply the Category command and gives more information. Andrzejbanas 15:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just pointing out that it's difficult to decide what is or isn't an action film. Clarityfiend 17:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop right there Lets first have a good look. First off all, lists and categories have different purposes and the existence of one is never a good argument for deleting the other (see also Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes). Second, for those who state that "Action films" is subjective, we already have Category:Action films, which suffers from the exact same problem. Just like a movie can be removed from a category, it can be removed from a list, no problem there. Third, comments like "Shoot them! Blow them up good!", although meant funny, are actually quite untactful considering the well meant effort someone clearly has been putting in these lists. Did anyone ever think of contacting the orginal author rather than listing it them here at AfD within minutes after they were created? Although I am not yet convinced that we either do or do not need these lists, I have seen no good, decent argument for deleting them up to this point. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. How about Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information? IMDb lists 22,943 films in the action genre.[66] And as for "Shoot them! Blow them up good!", ok, so it wasn't especially funny, but we're not dealing with some sacred topic that must be approached with kid gloves. Any article that includes a mention of Battlefield Earth and The Adventures of Pluto Nash should expect to attract a bit of ridicule. Clarityfiend 22:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is mainly referring to whether or not to include articles on specific topics. Lists are a way of navigating through these articles, just like categories. As we are trying to write an encyclopedia for everybody here (not just for ourselves), lists like these serve a purpose, because they are considered easier to navigate than categories by many people. And no, this is not a sacred topic, but from the way the articles were started it was obvious the editor who started them was willing to spent time to make them into something useful, which at the very least earns him the right to be treated respectfully. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has never been the case that we delete articles that can be improved instead of improving them. At least, it is not supposed to be the case, but these AfDs, & the arguments being used to justify them, look very much like an attempt to do just that. DGG (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This must be the 200th list deletion debate in the last week. I saw about 20 in the prod category earlier - mostly established lists. Does anyone actually read WP:LIST? Or glance at Wikipedia:Featured lists? Lists can contain information apart from the name of the article, lists can be used to see changes without having every single article on your watchlist (click related changes on the sidebar), lists can be used to keep a record of redlinks for articles that need to be created. Lastly lists and categories are indexes and they are complementary - not exclusive of each other. Both can be used to navigate wikipedia and both have advantages and disadvantages. Frankly, the reasons for this nomination are just not valid. "...a disaster waiting to happen" is not a reason for deletion (and is pure emotive POV)."Action film" is purely OR" is just inaccurate - the categorisation "Action film" is widely used and recognized in the film industry, in film reference books and ironically in Wikipedia categories as well. finally, "will become horribly unmanageable" is more emotive POV, crystal ballery and ironic considering these articles were created to help manage an unwieldy list. For those voting delete (or nominating articles for deletion because they have 'list' in the name) please read Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes to understand how each of these things are valuable components of wikipedia - being a list is not a reason for deletion - current fashion notwithstanding. To borrow a phrase from another editor in a recent debate "How can we build an encyclopedia if we keep deleting the indexes?" Paxse 14:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merged - I've merged the loose lists onto the main page and with the details is encyclopedic and useful . Now surely you won't delete this after the effort of many ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 21:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; note that amount of work is unrelated to keeping an article or not— it's all about what an encyclopedia is and is not, notability and verifiability. Those lists are not verifiable (who decides if x is an action film or not), not notable (unless the action-ness of movies per decade is discussed in an independent, reliable source as a topic and, ultimately, just not encyclopedic. There is something to be said for the category, but a list article? Not. — Coren ^(talk) 22:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am gonna give this one the benefit of the doubt for now, I wanna see how these lists develop in time. For my objections against the reasoning supplied for deletion, see my comment above. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, and move relevant bits to WP Films for utility in identifying missing films. I am tired of constantly seeing more and more of these articles which are transparently and precisely what list articles are NOT supposed to be. Wikipedia is not a database. (Okay, it's run on one, but the articles aren't one in and of themselves.) The common cry I keep on hearing is: "but I can't track category changes!". Yes, and this is a problem. But creating a completely unmanageable page is not the answer either. Please respect MOS instead of trying to wikilawyer around it. Girolamo Savonarola 18:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC) I still have many reservations, but I think I'd actually rather stay on the sidelines for now and wait for a guideline debate instead... Girolamo Savonarola 18:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was bludgeoned repeatedly until no data can be recovered. DS 03:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Head Trauma (film)

Doesn't seem to be a notable film. Reads as if it may be a copyvio. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: as copyvio. Shows up in full here and in partials here. Article also includes the phrase 'Written by Mark Olson from the LA Film Fest catalog' blatantly. Sounds like a good movie though! - Kneel17 02:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as copyvio. God, I love Twinkle. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with no prejudice towards future notability. —Kurykh 23:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anakrid

Appears to be a non-notable artist. The creation's edit summary says "created by artist" so I smell a conflict of interest here. As the article stands, he fails WP:MUSIC by a long shot -- despite a myriad of albums he's released them all himself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Chris Bickel in this nomination, an equally non-notable member of said group. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~both~~ Anakrid per nom. Fails WP:BAND and appears to be PR spam. "Official website" is a myspace page. --Evb-wiki 02:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article re Chris Bickel may be notable for his other work and probably deserves a weak keep. --Evb-wiki 19:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as COI. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both for no assertion of notability using reliable third-party sources. COI and NPOV are also concerns here.-- aBSuRDiST -^T J ^C- 04:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The most "notable" link I could find was from discogs, but it still doesn't make the cut. There has to be multiple, reputable sources that recognise this band. Spellcast 13:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the article and I get the picture guys. I'll try again in a few years when I'm more "notable". Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.63.240.80 (talk) — 70.63.240.80 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Well, I wish you all the best in your endeavours and maybe editors will be editing an article about you in the future. ;) Spellcast 13:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are a few other sources: Drawer B, Garage band, and BLR Records. The issue is whether those sources are notable in itself. Spellcast 14:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another note here from the author. In my defense, I'll say that I entered this article merely for informational/documentational purposes. I'm not trying to use Wikipedia for PR or self-promotion. If I were interested in popularity, I'd definitely be operating in a different field of music! I tried to avoid any kind of language in the article that was promotional or self-serving. I do understand the points made here though, and there will be no hard feelings if the editors find my entry not notable enough for inclusion. Thanks to user Spellcast for at least being very polite in this discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.63.240.80 (talk)

And thanks to you, too, for being so polite in this discussion as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BAND The Rhymesmith 06:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bickel has a long and respected career in music, notably in the hardcore bands In/Humanity and Guyana Punchline. His experimental music project Anakrid records for Beta-lactam Ring Records, which is a reputable label for experimental music. While the audience for such music is admittedly small, it should not be treated as insignificant. As a professional editor (and former music editor), I believe the Anakrid entry should stand. Dan Cook — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.60.116 (talk)

Another note from the author. Thanks to Dan Cook, editor of the Free Times (www.free-times.com) for coming to my defense. Both In/Humanity and Guyana Punch Line are well-documented on the internet. Allmusic Guide (www.allmusic.com) even gives the In/Humanity discography four and a half stars. So, I don't know if that will be a testament to "notability" for the editors or not, but I'm glad Dan threw that out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smashism (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. —Kurykh 23:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Family (album)

Another future album which also makes claims to WP:CRYSTAL by saying "Nothing is known about the album at this time". Delete until more info is available. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:MUSIC -Flubeca^Talk 02:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in part per FlubecaJForget 23:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DES ^(talk) 01:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guest Appearances Vol. 1

Future album with no verifiable information or track listing. Article even makes claims of WP:CRYSTAL with the "whether or not" part. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to check this yourself, visit IAP Store and scroll to the bottom and you will see "T-Rock - Guest Appearances Vol. 1". Follow the link and you will see where I got my information. User:L-Burna

I did check that page. The page you showed me gives me nothing more than a release date -- not good enough. And please don't rip off my signature again -- use four tildes to sign your posts, please. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V, (no WP:RS) along with the crystal ballery. Re-create the article if and when the album actually comes out. Precious Roy 21:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 hoax. Daniel Case 03:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dying to Meet You

Fake album entry, variation on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forgive Me -- CJ Marsicano 01:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Album does not appear in artist's discography--Sethacus 01:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)(formerly Ispy1981)[reply]

Delete: Other albums in the series skip over it, no credible outside resources to even hint it's not a WP:HOAX. - Kneel17 01:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, unless reliable sources can be cited.-- aBSuRDiST -^T J ^C- 05:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as a hoax. WIsh I could call it nonsense. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to List of Warcraft characters. Sr 13 01:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Razorgore the Untamed

Non-notable boss strategy guide Pharod42 01:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, how-to, etc. Spiffy looking boss though (and I'm not even a gamer). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per TenPoundHammer... it is a pretty spiffy boss. Plus, it already has it's place on the WoWWiki. - Kneel17 01:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE I think listing the all the characters in an MMORPG would stoop to a game guide level. Plus, is there any real world coverage of this fictional character? Corpx 05:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Abadi

Article does not assert notability or contain any references to support it. Ozgod 01:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, totally non notable actress, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 get rid of that iPod shuffle section as truly unencylopedic. Daniel Case 03:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Gleeman

Article contains no references to assert WP:Notability. Ozgod 01:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He's been featured in Sports Illustrated and has written a number of articles for USATODAY and I'm guessing this is his article on NBCSports.com. I think he's pretty notable. - Kneel17 01:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Strong keep. Very notable writer, contributes to several notable works. I would imagine that the popularity of his blog alone (3 million hits in one month) is enough to assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seams notable.Callelinea 03:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but most definately needs to be referenced. Pastordavid 16:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs a lot of clean-up though, since it mostly consists of random trivia pulled from entries in his blog. --Kjackelen05 22:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above but delete the listcruft in that one section. Bearian 22:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel Case 02:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

João de Deus (medium)

Fails WP:BIO. I can also see this as an article that will never be accurate because there aren't enough scientists debunking him. — Selmo ^(talk) 00:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DisagreeThe article should be improved not deleted just because there is not enough scientists debunking him. Unexplained phenomenon will never be 100% accurate Bananas21ca 00:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The phrase "...although no reliable testimonies have been published." sums it up. —« ANIMUM » 00:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit Conflict) What you have quoted refers to the 'healings' in relation to the subject. This AfD is about the article, not about whether or not the claims made by the subject are true. the_undertow ^talk 00:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see a deletion in your future. Most of the sources seem to be the medium's website. The fact that it even states its own unverifiability is definitely the icing on the cake here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the number of sources discovered below. Hey, I'm no psychic, I was bound to make an erroneous prediction. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, being a psychic wouldn't have given you a better chance of success, just more skill at rationalizing your error into having been correct in the first place, only that you were misinterpreted. :-) — Coren ^(talk) 18:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ABC News, this book, and this book are enough to show notability. the_undertow ^talk 00:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this needs major work, but the guy is obviously notable. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. seams notable to me. Callelinea 03:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; that malignant crook is, sadly, notable. — Coren ^(talk) 04:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable fraud. Needs to be monitored for NPOV.-- aBSuRDiST -^T J ^C- 05:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per undertow's links - they establish notability Corpx 05:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. No reason to delete him, due to the coverage. Yeah, he's a fraud, but that alone makes him pretty notable - if only in a back-handed way. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:RS and WP:N. He ~~may be~~ is a fraud, but that doesn't automatically make him "not notable" - many notable individuals were/are frauds (which is itself a POV, I suppose). -- MarcoTolo 16:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pigasus Award

Delete The "award" is solely the work of James Randi. No significant, independent media coverage found of the award itself. It's received trivial mention at the end of attack articles directed at some recipients.wp:rs,wp:n Page has innate pov issues as all refs are tied to James Randi. Purpose of the award is to ridicule and humiliate the recipients, at least one of whom was awarded for his religious beliefsIsaac_Bashevis_Singer. Full list is essentially using wp to host an attack page. Horrorshowj 00:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, definitely not -- if you look at these, you can see that's it received at least some news coverage directly about the award:

Randi's Pigasus Awards go to prayer study, psychic travel, Ramtha 'bleep' film
SCIENTISTS, PSYCHICS HOG DUBIOUS HONOR (Get it -- "hog" tee hee)

In addition, there are dozens of reliable sources which talk about it, in the context of a larger story. Definitely notable. --Haemo 00:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first is a press release from an organization with which Randi has a long association. The award has been around for 20+ years correct? If it's notable there should be multiple articles about it from independent sources. There's articles every year about the Ignobel Prize, Razzies and even the Bullwer-Lytton contest. If there's only 1 independent article about the results in 20 years, that's not notability it's random chance and a slow news day. Google news archives has 30 total hits, most of which are from it's trivial mention in the wire service article about Michael Guillen. Horrorshowj 01:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think there has been independent coverage in Skeptical Inquirer and probably in Skeptic, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 00:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of which can be considered independent. He is a founding member of CSI (nee CSICOP), publisher of the first, and frequently contributes to both. Press releases in advocacy magazines with which he has a long standing relationship are not independent.Horrorshowj 01:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum-according to Skeptic Randi is on the magazine's editorial board. Definitely not independent.Horrorshowj 01:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garry Kasparov was on the advisory board of Chess Informant. So if Informat carries something about Kasparov, is it independant? Bubba73 (talk), 01:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Chess informant has an article about Kasparov's rock band does that make the rock band notable enough for a wp entry?Horrorshowj 02:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if Kasparov gives an award for best played chess game. Bubba73 (talk), 02:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept it as verification that Kasparov, whose notability is established, was giving out a personal award whose notability was not. I'm not questioning that it exists, I'm questioning that it's notable enough to warrant it's own article. Skeptic Inq and Skeptic need to be considered primary sources due to Randi's long association with them. A write-up or description of the award should be in James Randi but it doesn't warrant a stand-alone article.Horrorshowj 03:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) I'm honestly not opposed to making it a subsection of James Randi, and redirecting there, but the notion that the CSICOP article should be disregarded is a little silly. "Association" with a sources does not make the source unreliable; if this were the case, we would have a devil of the time with academic journals and articles. --Haemo 03:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already decided at one point to move it out of either James Randi or James Randi Educational Foundation, I forgot which. Bubba73 (talk), 04:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - seems like WP:IDON'TLIKEIT might be a factor in this nomination. Randi is extremely notable within the Skeptic movement. There may be some argument to merge this with James Randi, but even so - do we get rid of the Emmy awards article because they're handed out by a pro-television organization and written about in television advocacy magazines, no doubt with ties to the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences? Apologies if Randi hurts your feelings, but WP:NOT#CENSOR. --Action Jackson IV 01:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the reason for the nomination. Nor is Randi's Amazing a valid argument for keeping it. I'm not questioning Randi's notability. A list of people he despises doesn't inherit that notability, it has to meet wp:n independent of him to warrant it's own article.Horrorshowj 06:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sufficient notability from independent sources. It is in the nature of awards that they reflect the biases of those awarding them. If a biased award is notable, we have an article about it. That includes the gladhanding types of awards as well as the calumnies. --Dhartung | Talk 04:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a CSI run award with a jury, or any other method of attempting an objective selection, I'd agree and wouldn't have nominated it. Its criteria may be biased, but the process was not. This is 1 person's opinion. Blackwell's list generates a lot more coverage, but doesn't get it's own article. An individually created award needs to be very notable to justify it's separation from the one awarding it. Pigasus is not. It doesn't have enough independent notability to warrant an article.Horrorshowj 20:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep; or, in the alternative, merge into James Randi (or the JREF article). The award itself is notable as far as I can tell, and the fact that that some people would prefer it did not is immaterial. Enough for its own article? I think so, especially since there seems to have been consensus to split from the main article. — Coren ^(talk) 04:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Dhartung (sufficient notability from independent sources). J. T. Lance 08:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Four minutes on Google turned up this link from the American Physical Society on the 2004 awards (also an older link to the 2000 event) and a reference from the New York Times. Seems to pass WP:RS and WP:N to me.... -- MarcoTolo 16:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Robert L. Park is a prominent member of the APS, and he is also a fellow of CSICOP. So you can't trust the APS! :-) Bubba73 (talk), 16:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rats - you've uncovered my plot! <grin> I briefly considered citing Park's What's New, then had a line of thinking similar to yours.... and then decided I was thinking about it entirely too much. -- MarcoTolo 16:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm a fan of Randi and also appreciate the info this article provides, but this joke award is 100% Randi's baby. We don't have whole articles on joke themes of other performers. We should meld this info into Randi's article as best we can. --Wfaxon 19:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If Randi were to create a restaurant award that probably wouldn't be encyclopedically notable, but this article directly concerns the reasons that Randi himself is notable. The article is too long to be a good merge candidate, and trimming it to make it fit somewhere else would decrease its quality. Quale 19:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Miami Herald and American Physical Society articles noted above constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". DHowell 01:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 I do however think that the concerns raised by those in favor of deletion have merit and the article should be pruned and merged back into the parent article. Pascal.Tesson 21:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In-N-Out Burger menu items

A detailed analysis of a fast-food restaurant's menu is trivia -- RoySmith (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as indiscriminate collection of information --Action Jackson IV 02:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate list. Trivia. Barely sourced. Over the top. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate list of information and barely sourced. Oyster guitarist 03:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought I would point out that this 'list' is inclusive of menu items, making in discriminate. Indiscriminate means random. the_undertow ^talk 03:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - within the larger context of Wikipedia, yes, this information is indiscriminate. Refer to WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, and keep in mind that any of those examples (FAQs, plot summaries, lyrics, statistics, and/or news reports) would themselves be inclusive of some other subset. I don't think an article could be literally "indiscriminate" without failing CSD G1 - General Nonsense. --Action Jackson IV 03:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but as a space-saving fork from the parent article, it is not indiscriminate in the larger context of Wikipedia, as it was forked for a reason, and is a tangent to a larger article. the_undertow ^talk 03:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't understand where on WP:NOT#IINFO you feel this article belongs. None of the examples fit, and in any case, many of them explicitly state that the solution to the problem is editing to an appropriate style, not deletion. As I said below, instead of blindly referring to policy, I'm going to ask that you articulate your objection more expressly. FrozenPurpleCube 04:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I get the feeling you won't be satisfied unless WP:NOT#INFO explicitly mentions "lists of menu items from In-N-Out Burger", how about WP:NOT#DIRECTORY - specifically, "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages.". Current schedules are to radio stations as current items on the menu are to fast food resturaunts. --Action Jackson IV 17:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really no, since the very same entry you noted specifically includes an exception to the rule. Besides, this page ISN'T about only having the current menu. It's obviously capable of giving a historical perspective. Perhaps you might want to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of programs broadcast by networks. Those pages are not program schedules. This is a program schedule [67]. I get the impression that you don't realize that the problem with referring blindly to rules without making an argument as to applicability is hardly convincing. Not when it's clear that the so-called rules have been misinterpreted before, but the consensus was against that interpretation. There's a reason why WP:BURO says that the spirit is more important the a literal interpretation of the rules. I just haven't seen a good argument from you or anyone as to why this should be removed. Merged might make sense, but I can see why it might not be on its own. FrozenPurpleCube 18:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I understand why the editors of the main article wanted this list out of it. It didn't belong there any more than in its own article. — Coren ^(talk) 04:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep contrary to the unsubstantiated claims given above that this is an indiscriminate information, it's hardly anything of the sort on its face. It's clearly describing the product line of a given restaurant chain. This article is not a FAQ, PLOT Summary, Lyrics, raw statistics or a news report. All of those examples are found at WP:IINFO. None of them are applicable here. Trivia does not apply either, since this is hardly a long list of loosely related information. At most, trivia is a reason for cleanup anyway, not deletion. (And I wouldn't call this page a detailed analysis of the menu anyway). It's obviously describing the products of this company in the same way many other pages do. See previous discussion involving McDonald's. You might convince me to merge this back into the parent company, but there's no way this information shouldn't be present in some form on Wikipedia. Especially not when the complaints made against it are not backed with strong arguments explaining why. Really, isn't covering the individual menu of a restaurant chain an obvious thing to include in some form? FrozenPurpleCube 04:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; well, simply put, no. I can't think of a single reason why the menu of a restaurant chain should be included at all unless the menu itself is notable for some reason. Have some independent, reliable sources discussed the menu itself? (That, by the way, is the case for McD's). And while as a rule notability isn't transitive, there are implications that cannot be denied. Or are you arguing that In-N-Out is anywhere near McDonadl's in notability? — Coren ^(talk) 04:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The menu is notable, as the article says for its simplicity (3 items) and for the 'secret' ordering process. It is the topic of many sources available online. the_undertow ^talk 04:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "stripping naked and dancing around the burger while praying to your dark gods" Now that's my idea of service (some of the time anyway)! Clarityfiend 05:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry. Not going to fly. The argument so far has not been primarily based on the question of sources (sources have come up only as a secondary concern). The arguments for deletion have been focused on different issues, which would exist regardless of sources. If you wish to argue for notability, then I'd point out that In-N-Out burger is a reasonably notable chain of restaurants. As such, it would be quite silly to imagine you wouldn't cover its menu in writing about it. If you wish to ask for better sources, that'd be a fair question for improving the page, but not for deleting. And here's one [68]. Here's a few more that indicate the menu of the company is relevant. [69][70]. Somebody else can probably find more. [71] gets plenty of hits, but so many are subscription, I don't feel like looking for them. As for the question as to whether or not this chain is more or less important than McDonald's? That's irrelevant. They clearly meet any reasonable threshold for inclusion since they're on the R&I Top 400 list. [72]. FrozenPurpleCube 05:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can find blogs (not, to my knowledge, that blogs of any sort constitute reliable sources) that mention the catalogue of Wal-Mart, or the number of back-hairs on Joe Don Baker's body. Wal-Mart's catalogue can be mentioned within Wal-Mart (example, "Wal-Mart is known for an eclectic selection of merchandise, including, but not limited to, (item) (item) and (item)), and Joe Don Baker's back-hairs can likewise be mentioned within the main Joe Don Baker article. No need for Wal-Mart catalogue items or, God forbid, back hair on Joe Don Baker. Sourcing has nothing to do with it - WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, WP:NOT#INFO. Also, see WP:USEFUL. --Action Jackson IV 17:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said my position on the issue of merging. Here it is again: You might convince me to merge this back into the parent company, but there's no way this information shouldn't be present in some form on Wikipedia. If you wish to make that argument, that would be one thing, but none of the rest of what you're saying has any particular relation to that issue, which is about the scope of the content of an already existing page. They're not even correct substantially correct. As I said, there's nothing obviously applicable in WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR is equally flawed. This is not a list of loosely associated topics, a phone book or genealogical entry, a directory of current events, or really a sales catalog. There is no way this page could be considered solely or primarily a sales catalog, the chain doesn't conduct business over the internet, and there are no prices on the page anyway. As far as it goes, I do think describing the services and products offered by Wal-mart is reasonable as well, and should be mentioned on the appropriate page. This may or may not be an individual page, depending on the individual content available. But that would be a question for those pages. FrozenPurpleCube 18:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, you're mistaken that Blogs do not constitute any kind of reliable source. There are many blogs which are professionally produced, and are highly reputable. See blog for some discussion of the subject. While it's true many blogs are just individuals of no import, there are people and websites that are import and do have a reputation. FrozenPurpleCube 18:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid fork from parent article. Is not indiscriminate, as it is a tangent to a larger article. Sourced. Notable as per links above. the_undertow ^talk 04:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Neutral Do we really need a list of items sold by a vendor? Imagine how long Items sold by Wal-Mart would be. I would classify this under "indiscriminate collection of information" Corpx 05:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wal-Mart is a retailer that offers thousands of items (if not tens of thousands) in a single store from a variety of manufacturers. It would be unreasonable to try to create an article describing all of them because the scope would be far too-encompassing. This is more comparable to the products of a company like Toyota, Microsoft, P&G or well, Wal-Mart itself. I doubt any restaurant's menu would compare to the wide scope of a Wal-Mart's inventory. If it did, this would be a more valid objection. FrozenPurpleCube 05:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but what if you restrict it to only the Wal-Mart brand (generic) items sold by wal-mart? Corpx 05:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this article isn't restricted - it's complete. the_undertow ^talk 05:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was just a follow up to my earlier comparison about products sold by Wal-Mart. User:FrozenPurpleCube brought up the point that wal-mart sells products made by other manufacturers, so I narrowed my earlier comparison to just products sold by walmart that are made by (for) walmart. Corpx 05:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to re-read what I wrote as your reply doesn't seem to address what I said very well. I'm certainly not understanding why you're asking that question. FrozenPurpleCube 05:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying that you cant exclude "List of products produced and sold by wal-mart" solely because of the sheer size. I dont think the
Wal-Mart does make its own products that it markets. Its listed at List of Wal-Mart brands I dont think such a list of products would be appropriate for an encyclopedia either Corpx 07:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well, obviously I disagree. I think the list is a highly useful one that identifies the products made by the company (or made for it rather). Why wouldn't you include it? Try to take a step back from the Wal-Mart issue (why that always comes up I don't know) and look at the other examples instead. FrozenPurpleCube 17:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldnt a list of products essentialy be a sales catalog? (WP:NOT#DIR) even though its not listing the prices? Corpx 17:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a word...No. In more words: No, absolutely not. It is a given that there are companies that are obviously going to be included on an Encyclopedia. They are notable, mentioned and described in numerous reliable sources, and otherwise meet the existing criteria for inclusion. Since what they do is meaningful to creating an appropriately informative article, that information needs to be included as well. This is especially true for companies that make products that are themselves going to be included on Wikipedia, such as automobile companies and software firms. Including this information, particularly in list form, is helpful in organizing Wikipedia as it provides helpful links to the appropriate places as well as a framework to build upon. You can quibble over the level of details if you want, but I would not support a prohibition that banned any such pages at all. If you can't tell the difference between pages like the ones I mentioned above and a sales catalog, well, I don't know how to help you any further. FrozenPurpleCube 18:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A menu is like a sales catalog, and the article reads like a how-to guide for ordering burgers.-- aBSuRDiST -^T J ^C- 05:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Along with everything stated above, what's notable about a burger joint selling burgers? Only referenced by the store's own material. Article seems more like a dare or prank. Vespid 06:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, because that's what they do? Not covering their line of business in some form would be rather silly, to the point where I wonder why folks are even making this argument. Would you suggest not mentioning a pro football players sports career? An artist's works of art? I suppose it's reasonable to differ with regards to the extent of coverage, but that's not the question here. That said, if you're curious about what people find notable about In-N-Out, maybe you'd care to read some of the sources already mentioned. FrozenPurpleCube 07:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - consider that this was split out of the original In n Out Burger article, and that these items in some cases are part of the cult following. I really want to vote keep, but that would admittedly be an WP:ILIKEIT vote - so I shall abstain. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't think of this AFD as a vote, but rather as an opportunity to share your views, whatever they may be. If there is indeed discussion of the cult following of this burger chain, which includes the menu, then that would be a valid reason to keep. FrozenPurpleCube 07:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A google search of 'in-n-out cult' will turn up many sites that document the menu and ordering process as part of the phenomena. the_undertow ^talk 07:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think any of them are reliable sources though. Corpx 07:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Reliability seems to be an issue with that search, however I did provide links above to the Herald Extra and New York Times. the_undertow ^talk 08:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want mainstream news sources, search the Google News Archive [73]. First result listed is from the New York Times. If you'd prefer to read about In-N-Out Burger's Secret Menu in Chinese, try this article from the World Journal. — VulcanOfWalden 08:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reference better Just in this weeks New York Times there is article on McDonalds menu. [74] Menus are notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 09:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT article is not so much about the McDonalds menu, but fits into a series the NYT has been doing on obesity in our society, and uses McDonalds as just one example (it also mentions Burger King and Wendy's). It is also one installment of a new, monthly column about the food and beverage industry. In that context, it makes sense. If this were WikiFood, it might make sense here too, but even then, such "information" as For eat-in orders, the bottom patty is placed on top of a burger wrapper, alternating meat, cheese, meat, cheese would surely have to be classified as cult trivia. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifood would be about, I suppose preparing food. However, the subject of food, restaurants, and so forth is clearly encyclopedic, as it is something that people do consider worthy of discussion and information. If you don't believe me, go watch the History channel program on American Eats. Whether or not the arrangement of food on their burgers is relevant content to include would be a discussion for the talk page though, not an argument for deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 18:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Merge into Parent The only thing particularly notable is the "secret" menu, which is easily sourced. The rest of the article can be basically summed up as "they make burgers and fries using quality ingredients". While this sort of trivia may be useful to some, it's still largely advertising/marketing. The secret menu, however, is notable simply because it is "secret". It can be sourced from in-n-out's own website, so it is official in nature and should be given a list on the main in-n-out page. But it does not deserve a forked page of its own. Otto42 16:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit savagely and merge with prejudice; I can see how the secret menu thingy is notable enough to be mentioned after all, but certainly not a whole article's worth and there is little point in elaborating in detail about how to order every item or variation thereof. — Coren ^(talk) 18:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Holy cow! NN in many ways (about a local restaurant) and lack of citations. Portions can be merged with the main article.JForget 22:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, In-N-Out Burger is a local restaurant? Over a hundred locations is hardly a local restaurant. Regional, maybe, but several states is a rather large region. 00:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The NN argument isn't very strong here, as multiple, reliable sources have been listed throughout this AfD. the_undertow ^talk 18:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The restaurant is notable, but the menu? Merge relevant info into main restaurant page, if it seems necessary.-- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 18:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I personally find it hard to fathom creating an article about a restaurant and not covering the food to some extent. The question of the extent of the coverage is another matter. Note however, this article is not a simple repetition of the current offers, but provides, however minimally, some examination of the menu by including reactions to it. FrozenPurpleCube 00:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "secret menu" cited as the most encyclopedic portion consists of such information as "Regular Onions is what a customer receives by default, if they want onions. This refers to one full slice of onions that is not cooked, but rather placed on top of the center patty or cheese slice while the meat is still on the grill, giving the onion time to warm and soften its flavor". alternatively, move to BJAODN, if it still exists. 00:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)DGG (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why BJAODN? I mean, this is neither a joke nor nonsense. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(forgot to sign above--BJ because the very idea of thinking that a list devoted to different combinations of ingredients to put on top of hamburgers at one particular chain--when nothing or almost nothing about them is distinctive--can possibly be encyclopedic-- strikes me as both hilarious, and sort of stupid as jokes go. But agreed, it might also be thought of as a good joke at the expense of WP, but I'm not sure we have a category for that. this is the type of article that makes us look foolish. DGG (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Californians take this 'secret menu' as seriously as those on the east coast treasure their White Castles. This isn't a comment to keep, but to I would like to say that this menu was only recently published. The 'coding' to order existed only by word of mouth and it was no too long ago that the restaurant decided to follow the trend the public started - just like when Chex Mix and Rice Krispie treats were introduced as commercial products many years after the public was already making them. It's really not a joke, nor something that would make wikipedia look bad. It may be regional, and may not survive inclusion, but it would deserve a merge into the parent article as it is certainly the subject of many independent sources. That being said, I think a paragraph could cover the phemonena, and an external link to the menu would provide the curious with everything they need. the_undertow ^talk 07:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I forsee with a merge though is that this was originally split out of thei INO article, as the latter was getting too unwieldy. I, personally, would support a merge. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just mentioning that White Castle is more a Midwest thing than an East Coast thing. According to this map, the only states on the Atlantic with an actual White Castle resturaunt are New York and New Jersey. I'm actually finding it hard to think of a fast food chain that's exclusively - or even primarily - on the East Coast - maybe Roy Roger's? :) --Action Jackson IV 01:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, details such as this help illuminate the nature of In-N-Out. If you want to understand the difference between In-N-Out and McDonald's, consider the difference in how they handle onions on their burgers. With In-N-Out, it's "one full slice of onions that is not cooked, but rather placed on top of the center patty or cheese slice while the meat is still on the grill, giving the onion time to warm and soften its flavor". With McDonald's, it's "rehydrated onions". — VulcanOfWalden 15:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As much as I enjoy an In N Out Burger when I visit SoCal, I don't think knowing that they carry Coke and Dr. Pepper is really encyclopedic. As long as the secret menu items are verifiable, then they should be merged. You just have to watch that for the random dimwit who adds the "Harry Potter" or some concoction that he just thought up. Not sure ALL of the detail about every food item is necessary, but he (or she) who merges can make the call on what to include.Montco 01:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting and verifiable content. --W.marsh 16:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (all lists of menu items) - unless there is something historically significant or otherwise notable about a particular menu item, there is no reason whatsoever to contain the entire menu's details on Wikipedia. I understand that we would definitely like to have the maximum amount of useful information possible on this free encyclopedia, I don't see how having a list of menu items provides any encycyclopedic value whatsoever.xC | ☎ 03:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just like to point out - McDonald's menu items also exists, which would also fall under this discussion. That page was AfD'd twice before (1.keep 2.no consensus), those past AfDs might be worth looking at. As for the details of the secret menu, they were on a seperate page, which was deleted - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In-N-Out Burger secret menu. That link might also be worth a look at. Regards,xC | ☎ 03:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that if the article was written correctly, it would have some substantiation as to what the secret menu is, how it evolved, and what it means as of today. This would be quite different from a list of menu items. Granted, as the article exists, it is a list that spawned into a tangent of the ordering principles, which is the opposite of what I would have wanted to see. the_undertow ^talk 07:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If In-and-Out Burger is relevant to this site, then information about their menu items certainly belong as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.183.224.16 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 26 July 2007.

Comment. Disagree, notability is not inherited.-- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 14:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the notability to have its own article. Could easily be covered under the In-N-Out Burger article with a small paragraph describing the types of food served, and interesting facts about the menu. All that is missing is prices and we would have a menu that grants In-N-Out Burger free advertising and thats not what Wikipedia is. --Gonzo fan2007 (Talk ♦ Contribs) 23:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Given that In-N-Out Burger is renowned for its food; that there are multiple, independent sources that discuss the topic; that the article gives a thorough description as to the food In-N-Out Burger serves; I say that the article should be kept in its current form. I also think that not everyone has a great enough interest in the topic to want to read the unabridged version of the article. For those readers, I think the best alternative is to port over a subset or summary of this article back into the main In-N-Out Burger article. In essence, a restoration of both articles back to the rough division that they existed in between the time that the Secret menu was first moved into its own article on 05 Sep 2006 and when the Secret menu article was deleted on 24 May 2007. This way, both those who want a thorough examination of the topic and those who want a focused article can be kept happy. The balance between what belonged in which articles changed over time, but that is something resolvable through the normal editorial process.
        When I was looking through Flickr for food photographs to better illustrate the article, I also made a casual search with McDonald's and then Burger King as keywords. In comparison, photos of McDonald's or Burger King often involve buildings, people, or their trademarks. Decent food photography often involved someone taking a photo of the advertising on a paper place mat or the advertising on a wall. In contrast, many of the photographs of food for In-N-Out looked good enough to be used as advertisements. This isn't an original observation of mine; I read it as a passing comment in some news article, but forget where. Nonetheless, I've found it to be a true one.
        With few exceptions, the food that a restaurant serves is an essential part of the restaurant. Most fast food restaurant chains, through their sheer ubiquity if for no other reason, have such a large effect upon diet, particularly in the United States but increasingly worldwide that an examination and description of the food they serve is worthwhile.
        Much of what In-N-Out has renown for is the quality of food they serve. Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation, comments that "It isn't health food, but it's food with integrity. It's the real deal." The late Julia Child was a fan of the chain. Thomas Keller describes the inspiration for Burgers and Bottles, a planned burger and wine shack as his "version of In-N-Out" (has yet to come off; ad hoc, the restaurant he stuck in the planned building as a stopgap, proved very successful).[75] Heck, even the Governator doesn't seem to think too badly of their protein-style burgers[76].
        When Robb Walsh, restaurant reviewer for the Houston Press and better known for his Tex-Mex cookbooks, writes about a new burger shop in Houston with its "Animal burger" and never-been-frozen hamburgers, he suspects the influence of In-N-Out.[77] When one of the founders of Pinkberry describes an available, but off-menu item, he says that ordering "[i]t is kind of like going to In-N-Out Burger and ordering 'animal style.'"[78] Folks are using the In-N-Out Burger secret menu as an allusion to describe other things. — VulcanOfWalden 23:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I commend you on your exhaustive research, I do have to point out that most of these articles would support an article called In-N-Out Burger - which, surprisingly, exists! This goes back to the Wal-Mart catalogue argument outlined above: while Wal-Mart (and In-N-Out Burger are undeniably notable, suffice it to say that the utter minutae of each is not. There's no reason the In-N-Out Burger article cannot have a section labelled "menu", with whatever notable facets of the menu detailed there. --Action Jackson IV 01:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which brings us back to my first paragraph — a split article gives a page layout that allows for both a concise summary, for those who just want the quick facts, and an unabridged version, for those who want the full details. — VulcanOfWalden 02:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - One man's minutiae is often another man's basic details. In this case, if you want to propose a merge after the AFD, then try it on the talk pages. This discussion indicates to me that there needs to be more thought before doing that. FrozenPurpleCube 03:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since you still feel the Wal-Mart argument is in play, I'll say a bit more here. In-N-Out Burger is both the producer and retailer of its own goods, whereas Wal-Mart is solely a retailer, thus In-N-Out's connection to the food it sells is much tighter than that of Wal-Mart. Also, it's not unreasonable for an article about an author to contain a complete list of his books, such as with Isaac Asimov, but for an article about his publisher to only list the authors who write for them.
    Scale matters. In the context of a Wikipedia article, a couple dozen items is easy to list exhaustively. Increase that number to a hundred thousand and the tools available to a single Wikipedia article become insufficient. — VulcanOfWalden 14:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Original Research and seems like an ad. -Flubeca^Talk 02:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Original research that can be sourced to the New York Times or other mainstream newspapers generally isn't considered original research. Where incorrect facts are inserted into the article, these can be corrected by referring to them. See Talk:In-N-Out_Burger#Whammy_Burger as an example. There are issues with tone and phrasing that need to be fixed in the article, but those are editorial problems. — VulcanOfWalden 02:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As an added note, if part of what caused you to say this looks like an ad are the quality of the photos of the food, you've noticed something essential about the chain. At many fast food restaurants, the food that gets served doesn't look like the photos in the advertisements. At In-N-Out Burger, it does. — VulcanOfWalden 03:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The sources establish, unarguably, that the restaurant is notable. The coverage of the menu remains trivial.-- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 17:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The text does contain valid references and I've even heard this article receive attention on a radio show I listen to. I have never been to an In-N-Out restaurant, but I do find this article interesting and believe that it meets our criteria for inclusion due to the coverage received. RFerreira 20:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, in-universe original research. I am willing to move the contents of the page to userspace for anyone who wants to transwiki. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Wizarding War

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

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

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

The phrase "Second Wizarding War" is purely some user's invention, so the article can't stand at its current title. Apart from moving it to "Second conflict between Voldemort and Order of the Phoenix in the Harry Potter series," there's nothing to do but delete and/or merge this sprawling plot summary. Deltabeignet 03:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google search returns over 1,200,000 results: 
Search of "Second Wizarding War": 2,510,000 results
Search of "Second Wizarding War Harry Potter": 1,200,000 results

Clearly this is not "purely some user's invention". -- Kerowren ^{(talk • contribs • count}⁾ 02:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search of (with quotes) "Second Wizarding War" and "Harry Potter" returns 901 results. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take out Wikipedia and you get 751. Cut out blogs, forums and wikis, you have 275, with only 28 being unique.-Wafulz 21:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by the simple fact that we can provide sources we prove that the name was not the invention of the original author, therefore making this AfD irrelevant. But in case that is not enough, a concrete reference is made in these three sources:

Final Potter Book - MSNBC.com
HPL:The Death Eaters
Battle at the Department of Mysteries -- Kerowren ^{(talk • contribs • count}⁾ 16:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you know, two of those are fan encyclopedias, which are not considered reliable. Then again, the title is probably the least important part of this article.-Wafulz 18:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not this again! If you don't agree with deletion, could you at least comment on the title? Deltabeignet 04:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it might be better located at Wars in the Harry Potter series or Battles in the Harry Potter series; of course, the information is very in-universe now; considering the book just came out that will be cleaned up in time. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong with the title, unless it's now against policy to in order?First Wizarding War, Second Wizarding War. Simple, as far as i'm concerned. Killswitch Engage 04:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is against policy to make up stuff - see WP:OR. There is too much fancruft with no basis in the published novels around at the moment. Sophia 04:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Go to Wal-Mart. Buy all the books. Read them if thats not too hard. You'll read everything in the books. Unless the officially released books don't count??? If you must, just move contents to a page called Conflicts in Harry Potter. Killswitch Engage 04:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Excessive plot summary under a fanmade name. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Original research unless you can source the fact that independent sources call it that. That's bound to be difficult since that term does not even appear in the books! — Coren ^(talk) 04:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might as well. While your doing this I'm gonna go recommend the Battle of Isengard be deleted. And The Clone Wars. Killswitch Engage 04:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not disrupt to make a point. The examples you gave are different since the names actually are used by the fiction in question, and referred to as such (one, for that matter, is the title of a whole movie). If you feel the article should be kept, there is nothing to gain by attempting sarcasm this way. Try to provide policy or guideline to support your position, instead. — Coren ^(talk) 04:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' I don't ever remember anyone saying "Hey, we just made it through the Battle of Isengard", or "we are fighting in the Clone Wars. Please point me to this so called reference to the use of the names in the books, oh wise one. Killswitch Engage 04:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's referred to as the Battle of Isengard in both the relevant parts of Two Towers and in retrospect in Return of the King, and the first reference ever to the Clone Wars is Obi-Wan Kenobi mentioning them by name when he notes that Luke's father battled in them. (Plus, you know, the game, animated series, and two comic series about them named "Clone Wars" or some variation.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... yeah, what he said. (Jinx!) :-) — Coren ^(talk) 04:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, LOTR is a bit too far but it is, at the very least, the title of one of the chapters. You need only go as far as Episode IV to get "clone wars"; just listen to the first exchange in Obi-Wan's house. Luke: "You served in the Clone Wars"? — Coren ^(talk) 04:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, alright, but couldn't we just move the stuff instead of delete it? It is notable as content and deserves a page, just under a different name. Killswitch Engage 04:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC) P.S.: Attempted sarcasm? Do they give Nobel Prizes for attemted chemistry?:) Killswitch Engage 04:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move it where? Each book article has at least 10K of plot summary, plus the articles on every single event and every single character and every single place and every single thing. It's just plain redundant, as it's more excessive plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see on this page on the Lexicon, "although these larger battles have not been named in the books, we will refer to them with names to identify them in the Lexicon." They're just calling some battles by their own names for purposes of ease; we can't do that here on Wikipedia. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 17:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that this is only an argument for renaming?

I have added my opinion on the naming only. I am choosing to abstain on the keeping or deleting of the article. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Coren. Maxa megalon 2000 05:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fictional event that's lacking "significant coverage from independent (real world) sources" Corpx 05:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Note For those claiming that the article title does not show up in the book, I direct you to Chapter 38 of Order of the Phoenix which is entitled, "The Second War Begins." Further, the Harry Potter Lexicon uses the phrases "First Wizarding War" and "Second Wizarding War" in several places. (No, I am not going to go hunt them all down for you. I have better things to do.) While the Lexicon is a fan-run site with no direct affiliation with J.K. Rowling, Rowling has said on her official site that she has referred to the information on the Lexicon about series canon while writing in order to keep facts straight and ensure continuity. So, now that I seem to have settled the particular issue that seems to be nagging most of the 'Delete' voters (that the war to which the article title refers does in fact appear within the books as much as the Battle of Isengard, etc. appear in their respective works of fiction), we can leave well enough alone.LaMenta3 05:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not Rowling used the Lexicon, that doesn't make it not a fansite, nor does it keep this from being Yet Another Redundant Plot Summary Dump. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it might make it a reliable source. Not all fansites are necessarily unreliable. JulesH 14:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Lexicon is also the source of the timeline on the DVDs that was approved for inclusion by Rowling. (Third heading down the page, "The Official Timeline.) LaMenta3 17:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Lexicon is a fansite pure and simple and is not canon. The fact that JK throws the fans a bone by saying that she looked at it makes no difference. Most importantly, she did not say that she used the Lexicon on anything related to the issue at hand in this AfD, including the phrase "Second Wizarding War." Savidan 23:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REGARDLESS of whether or not the Lexicon is a fansite, it still remains that Rowling herself (through OotP Ch. 38) has referred to this event as "The Second War". At the very least, this should be a brief synopsis of the war. A lengthy article is not a necessity. Hans404 04:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LaMenta3. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then all we should do is move the page from Second Wizarding War to The Second War (Harry Potter). Killswitch Engage 05:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Shorten. I agree with LaMenta3 but this article is way too long. Comment: Where's all the made up "stuff" anyway? The details in this article are directly from the books, so the fact that this article is based on so called "made up information" cannot be a reason to delete this article.— *H ¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 06:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Taken directly from the book," which in this case means that it's a chunk of plot summary, with a dollop of personal interpretation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh. Why is everyone so persistant on killing this article? I don't see the problem. It's not like this site is going to get overloaded and die. -- MisterRandom2 06:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not trying to sound like a smartass, but see WP:HARMLESS. Corpx 06:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!! Do you hate this article that much??? It's an officially refered-to-event with enough content to exist on its own. -- MisterRandom2 06:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't have enough content to exist on its own. That's the whole point. It's Yet Another redundant article retelling the plot of the Harry Potter books. How many times do we need to rearrange the same seven stories? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it DOES have enough content, actually. -- MisterRandom2 06:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please point out the non-plot-summary content in the article, then? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that these arguments would apply to essentially all of the Harry Potter articles that aren't directly about the books. Are you voting for the deletion of all the character pages, the page on the Ministry, on magic, etc.? Mrobfire 20:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those articles also need to be deleted or merged, yes. There's a huge walled garden of in-universe HP articles, and it's high time something was done about it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a lot of OR here. I've read all seven books and I'd never heard of the "Second Wizarding War" until I came here. PageantUpdater 08:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has more than enough content — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.93.247 (talk • contribs)
Keep per LaMenta3's argument. I agree with Killswitch though - it should be renamed, "The Second War (Harry Potter)". —Kanamekun 09:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing but a plot summary with original research.-Wafulz 12:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) Keep, shorten, and rename to The Second War (Harry Potter) (the canonical name from Order of the Phoenix). It's certainly a major plot spanning the last three books (like Horcruxes in the last two), so notability is fine. But the plot summaries are rather unweidly. Will ^(talk) 13:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Article covers a major plot of the story that deserves treatment in a centralized location. I agree with Sceptre that it should be renamed The Second War (Harry Potter). This is how it is referred to in the novels. Mrobfire 16:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Wikipedia is not a fan site or a cliff-notes substitue. Slavlin 17:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO as an extended plot summary. This duplicates information already existing in other articles. EyeSerene^TALK 17:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of ability to write an out-of-universe perspective. Phil Sandifer 17:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the grammar is totally incorrigible!!. Krishvanth 19:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That said, poor grammar is not a reason to delete. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 19:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Good grief. Strategy analysis of a fictional battle, and nary a reference. Entire text is essentially one huge plot summary or original research (as is the title) in any case. Length of content is entirely irrelevant for keeping an article, if that content is not worth keeping. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 19:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vast chunk of plot summary with a crust of original research. ♠P M C♠ 20:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keepper LaMenta3Ravenmasterq 20:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since other fictional unniverses are extended the same liberty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.14.60 (talk • contribs)

See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Corpx 22:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mrobfire
I have difficulties for a clear position here. Sure, plots are not recommended in separate articles, but there is no sources really to support the elements. I would say merge (although likely big chunks are already in the various Potter articles/films and character articles, which would make just some duplications over several articles. The lack of sources leans me more towards the Weak Delete although some elements that are located elsewhere (which is doubtful considering there are lots of repetitions amongst various articles) can be transferred to the appropriate articles on films/books/characters or any other Potter related articles. Oh and I forgot there is this too.--JForget 22:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) Keep and rename to something more like The Wizarding Wars or something similar. Describes content merititorious enough for its own article page, but the lack of reference citations leads to the weak categorization. Side note: These constant AfD nominations are getting ridiculous. Reputation 23:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say that there's "content meritorious for its own article page." Can you point out to me the parts of this article that aren't plot summary or personal interpretation? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a plot summary, yes. However, it provides clarification of the "Wizarding Wars" that occur in the series without having the need to go through multiple articles/novels. That is why I classified my opinion as weak, as well. Reputation 23:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not reprint the plot of stories so that people don't have to read the stories. That's the heart of Wikipedia is not a repository of plot summaries. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged, nicely proven. Reputation 00:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article is very important to the Harry Potter section on wikipedia and is the only article that really summarizes the wars on Harry Potter. User:Nationalboard.
Each of the articles and films has a lengthy plot summary. We also have articles on each place, person, and thing. This is redundant with each of those. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetically, what would happen if this article was NOT deleted? -- ChromeZero 00:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC) — ChromeZero (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I dunno. We'd probably have to rename it, depending on the sources. Probably, I'd break it up and merge the chunks of plot summary into the novel articles and redirect it to OOTP. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to The Second War (Harry Potter) per LaMenta3. NawlinWiki 00:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep its important too Harry Potter fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.51.14.14 (talk • contribs) — 76.51.14.14 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep or move to Harry Potter conflicts. Brisvegas 03:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Referenced in the book 5 via a chapter title and the plot lines of book 6 and 7 follow this conflict. While the title I will agree is unencyclopedic and should be changed it should not be one of the bases for deletion. I suggestion would be to one change it to Second War (Harry Potter) and Two Wikify it and give it a decent copy edit. I would also strongly sugggest that all other articles on the Second War's battle be merged into this one to reduce any possible redunancy. there thats my two cents feel free to disagree :) Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 05:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would still be a violation of WP:NOTE due to the lack of "significant coverage from independent sources" Corpx 05:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. The Second Wizarding War was the backstory to the entire Harry Potter series, and the series is discussed at great length in many independent publications. Thus, the backstory is notable. I don't have any refs handy, but I'm sure that this argument could be backed up. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, given that the article is summarizing plot points from several works, verifiability isn't a problem because one can use Self-published sources to reference facts. I'm sure that secondary sources can be found in time, though. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must be misunderstanding. The policy on self-published sources (that you even link to) says explicitly "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." In what way, then, can these be used for verifiability? I'll concede that it does provide for their use, if "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" [emphasis at source] — but still, it warns against even that. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 12:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't flow your argument there Corpx. Can you explain how it violates the Notibility policy in that reguards? Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 05:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That comment was based on the lack of notability for this current article, because there was/is no significant coverage established from (real world) independent sources. Corpx 14:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename - Rename to fall in line with a consensus on a proper title. If this was never referred to as the Second Wizarding War in the books, then I do agree it ought to be renamed. However, the article itself must be preserved (note: I support it remaining as one entity, not a shoddy merger in with a generic Potter conflicts article) The article itself is of good stock and overall good quality with minor issues which would merely require a rewrite. We already have a good example of a fictional war's representation on Wikipedia, reference War of the Ring which in itself is not greatly notable, and is an article moderately detailed, written based upon the text of the story and devoid of secondary sources (otherwise known as Original Research if this page's interpreters of original research be followed). This being the case, and applying the deletion rationales presented on this page, then the War of the Ring page must be immediately and without delay deleted out of concern for even enforcement of no original research, notability, and plot summary reasons. I see no clamor over the War of the Ring article's grievous infractions of these same principles. As it pertains to no original research codes, it is asinine to wait for a published secondary source merely to corroborate a summary any reader of the pertinent portion of the Potter series can verify. Notability should not be at issue in this case as this plot line has transferred itself into a multi-billion dollar enterprise and is now a part of a series of films. If this needs to be rewritten to ensure it abides by expanded plot summary so that it offers, "detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot" then do so. This is eminently possible, if not easy to achieve. Auror 13:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a redundant article and is already covered elsewhere. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Also, dubious title. Madhava 1947 (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename this is a well-written article but also provides comprehensive facts about the second wizarding war. Skhatri2005 18:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~(rename if you'd like)~~ - It seems a bit malicious and ill-thought out to delete the entire article because of its title. In the the Order of the Phoenix it is referred to as the Second War (see last chapter Second War Begins). Perhaps we should rename to that? -- Kerowren ^{(talk • contribs • count}⁾ 20:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Second War (Harry Potter)"? The name shouldn't be a problem, not when there's a convenient move button right on top of the page. --Kizor 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What's the big deal if there are individual pages on the books. This is a chronology of the major battles and events in the books.Rockules318 20:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not everyone can recite the events documented in this article. This is an encyclopedia, not a Harry Potter fan club that you can't get in if you can't recite the books word for word. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 21:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LaMenta3 Lemonflash ^talk 23:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - until someone at least asks JK Rowling for an alternative name for the page - this sounds like a perfectly reasonable title.
Keep per above comments. --musicpvm 02:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plentiful information here that provide good facts. And this article is not a plot summary of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, content from other books in the series is included. Nazgul533 ^talk ^contribs 03:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
Not a single one of the above eight votes (and that's what they are) address the WP:NOR and WP:NOT#PLOT issues. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, voting is evil, we don't vote on Wikipedia Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 03:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Man In Black was commenting that the above were votes, though, and not !votes (pieces of discussion). --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can never remember which is which. --Kizor 04:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename I suggest that we cool down a little and think of the situation we have in our hands first. The most pressing matter that pertains to this article is the name. Personally, I do not mind it, but the evidence shows clearly that it is unacceptable, and thus needs to change. My preferred solution would be to move it to "Conflicts in Harry Potter" (see below for more details).
As far as the deletion of the article is concerned, however, I disagree with it completely, not only because it is a centralised article discussing a major series of conflicts (which spans several books) within a fictional universe that sets in motion all other events within said universe and is thus rather notable, but also because it has the potential to evolve into something much more than a simple plot summary.
Besides those reasons, it is, in my opinion, too soon to make a decision as important as the deletion of an article while the whole category of articles is so unstable. I mean, a week has not passed since Deathly Hallows was published, a little patience would not harm any one.
So, what could be done to save the article?

For one thing, it could be an article about "Conflicts in Harry Potter" in general, something which would allow the article to address both Wars; since there is not enough material for the first War to create an article that is not too short, this could be an acceptable arrangement. Apart from that, the first war is not covered in the books in a linear fashion and so the information about it would not be a simple plot summary; instead, it would be information gathered from all the books, but still not constituting original research.
And now that I think of it, we could generalise it and also add short sections about all conflicts, including the Giant Wars and the Goblin rebellions. "Conflicts" is a rather embracing term.
Many notable writers and editorialists have discussed and/or written on various aspects of the Potterverse, including the Wizarding Wars. Quoting their opinion about the significance of these wars within the fictional universe of Harry Potter, about the possible reasons for their development in the way they have turned out, as well as about how plausible and real they look, would be acceptable published work and would not qualify as original research. Mind you that the series has just been concluded; much more such works are bound to be published in the following months, or even weeks.
Apart from the books, there are also the films. Only Order of the Phoenix has been finished, but the other two films are bound to come, and the portrayal of the Wizarding Wars in the silver screen would be an interesting addition to the article. We all know how much is left behind, after all. And again, the importance of the Wizarding Wars would make a section about their portrayal very different from anything that can be found in any of the articles about the books or films (plus, it will be centralised).
And, of course, the spelling, syntax, and grammar of the article should be immaculate, and its structure perfect. I know the opposite would be no reason to delete an article, but still.

All in all, I believe the article should be kept, or at least the discussion about its deletion (but not renaming) postponed until the situation is more stable.
I hope there is no problem with my post being so long. Waltham, The Duke of 07:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You call that a long post when it doesn't even have its own subheadings? :P Don't worry about the length. --Kizor 10:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename and shorten It's a useful article covering a great deal of ground, but there is a lot of crossover with individual book, film and character articles. A lot of stuff could bve removed and linked. Also needs some serious referencing. --Worm 11:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not convinced that all of the material which has some basis in JK Rowlings books could be much more efficiently covered in the articles for the books. The battle templates seem to be more of an opportunity to introduce fancruft and original research (in the form of deciding who "won" a "battle" and what the "causus belli" was) than anything else. I also suspect that the metastructure of this article itself is original research as these events are not clearly demarcated from the rest of the plot as the "Second Wizarding War." Merge is just an excuse to keep this content up longer; the plot summaries for all seven books are ample, and will be well-written without this as a guide. Despite claims of some keep votes, I have not seen a single out-of-universe source for this which is further proof that it should be covered in the same manner as all plot summaries. Examples of other fictional battles are misleading because those works are fundamentally different from the HP series; JK gives far less detail and does not publish extra in-universe items with the intent of filling these out as "wars" or "battles" in the same way that Tolkien, Lucas, etc. do. I would also suggest Harry Potter Wiki or Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter for such articles that have zero out of universe value. Savidan 15:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Thorough article on a legit subject. -- Voldemore 15:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. this is the major theme of the fourth through seventh books of Harry Potter. Valley2city 22:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, move and edit. The conflict between parts of the wizarding world and in particular between Harry and Voldemort is integral to the series. Saving the world doesn't count? I would move to British Wizarding Civil War (Harry Potter), since there's no indication it moved outside of Britain more than once or twice, and provide a general review of the background to the war (issues of blood purity, class, etc.), then present the first civil war and aftermath, calm, second civil war and aftermath. Most of the content is good, just prune for unsubstantiated statements.--Aaronhumes 22:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colorful suggested titles like this one should be a good indication of the non-canonicity of most of the content of this article. The fact that its hard to agree on a title is not a coincidence; JK Rowling did not intend for these events to be seen as separate from the overall plot of the series. Savidan 23:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

which is exactly why we should be re-arranging events and presenting them in a way which makes more sense to readers. No one said Rowling wanted her books to be obvious, but it is our job to present information clearly. Sandpiper 21:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your proposed title, British Wizarding Civil War (Harry Potter). Obviously, you simply made this up. What was wrong with The Second War (Harry Potter), which is the proper name, given by Rowling herself in the fifth book? — *H ¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 02:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is completely in-universe and provides no indication that the subject has been covered by reliable third-party publications. 17Drew 01:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I agree this article appears to be nothing more than a plot dump, the argument pointed out above concerning the LOTR series is also quite relevant. The Battle of Isengard should also be deleted, because it too is nothing more than plot summary. The same can be said of any article involving parts of a book, or parts of a "universse", including anything Star Wars, Star Trek, LOTR, Harry Potter, Wheel of Time etc...Kilroy55 13:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm going for keep on this, because it does something rather more useful than a plot description of just one book. The HP series is really one very long book in installments, and its plot ought to be treated in the same way, as a whole, or in related chunks drawn together from different books. For completeness, and for the benefit of actual encyclopedia users wanting to look up an individual book, each book article needs a plot description, but it is also important to draw together the plot as a whole. I am also not hung up on the title issue. Having read the books, the existing title is entirely understandable and consistent with references within the books. There is no reason a title needs to slavishly copy a reference in a book rather than being descriptive. Sandpiper 21:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL --Action Jackson IV 01:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which gives the classic example of something which is useful yet would not be appropriate to include as a telephone directory, or similar list. This is nothing of the sort. Sandpiper 22:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point out the non-plot-summary content in the article, then? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sandpiper. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While useful, informative, and perhaps even interesting, this is really nothing more than a fancrufty essay, suffering from WP:OR and WP:V issues. Hence, strong delete. Don't get me wrong - it would be a star article on a Harry Potter wiki, and I admire the passion and the thought involved in the creation of this article, but Wikipedia is not Sparknotes, and until we have decades of crticial hindsight, this is just as notable as, say, the war between Freedonia and Sylvania in Duck Soup. It may well be a central theme to the book(s) in question, but divorced from those books, it's just another plot element in another book series that some people read and some people liked. I really hope that the closing admin keeps in mind that AfD is not a vote, and that no matter how many people are arguing keep, if those arguments are simply impassioned retellings of WP:ILIKEIT, they are inherently poor arguments. --Action Jackson IV 01:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is a huge difference in notability, however. I do not believe it is fruitful to compare a single film with a heptalogy that has tens of millions of readers and has already spawned five films. In addition, the central theme of Harry Potter spans several different books and thus cannot be analysed in the separate book articles as easily the central theme of a single novel or film can. Waltham, The Duke of 08:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; you pretty much shot down your own argument, there. Analyzing themes is original research and does not belong on Wikipedia. If independent reliable sources have done this analysis, then talking about it with proper citations might be appropriate— but even then probably not in a separate article. Notability requires significant coverage from reliable sources. — Coren ^(talk) 10:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, he doesn't. It is important to distinguish between analysis of a source which gives rise to original ideas, and analysis which creates a well ordered presentation of existing information. This is the latter, and as such research that consists of collecting and organising material...is encouraged, though I see someone has been hacking away at that fundamental necessity for writing an encyclopedia. Sandpiper 22:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An analysis that arranged cherry-picked fictional events into an entirely new narrative is original research. Plus, this is still all plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research and a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. --Farix (Talk) 14:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it but change the title and expand it to include wizard wars in general in the Harry Potter world. O.B. Haive 15:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~KEEP, this page is the key information of books combined into one conveint article, this should should stay.→041744 19:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; too much key information. 64.91.201.195 21:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep; undoubtedly the article needs work, and maybe a new title, but not deletion Tphi 12:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Title makes sense. Far too much information to delete. Well-written. -- Thefreemarket 14:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is essentially an extended plot summary. With Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince we simply moved the extended plot summary and other such material to Wikibooks. Is there a good reason not to do so here? Phil Sandifer 15:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DES ^(talk) 04:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wavis O` Shave

AfDs for this article:

Originally speedied as a G4 (repost), but seems significantly different from the version deleted by the first nomination. No vote. ugen64 05:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - 120 google hits but no news coverage. Addhoc 22:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: although probably no longer notable, notability is just about established for a long-enough period to satisfy WP:NOTE. Seriously needs wikifying/copyedit though EyeSerene^TALK 17:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the Viz founder's autobiography isn't web searchable, which explains why he doesn't produce any google books results. Given this a biography of a living person, the sourcing isn't very good, however I'll strike my vote because there are possibly valid sources listed. Addhoc 18:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep because he seems / it asserts notability, but it needs a radical cleanup. Bearian 22:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 spam. Daniel Case 04:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

110mb.com

non notable web hosting. looks more like a advertisement anyway Viewplane 05:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - doesn't seem notable, and yes, sounds like an advertisement. But then, Rapidshare, Megaupload, Sendspace and even, Comparison of one-click hosters should be deleted too. — *H ¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 06:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a lot in notability, and the article reads like a critique and "how to deal with them". --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Very advert like. I get worried whenever .com is in the title of an article Rackabello 07:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising/text dump. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete especially the last half of it due to blatant advert.--JForget 22:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable--a quick Google search turns up very little independent secondary coverage. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be spam for a company with no obvious/discoverable notability. Nuttah68 16:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has been tidied up a little, but it is still essentially an extract of the company's own advertising - the remainder being conjecture and guesswork. User:prole 22:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel Case 05:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yaacov Perrin

This person is totally not notable. Violates WP:NN. Many "rabbis" have delivered eulogies at the funerals of controversuial people, but that should not be the basis for launching articles about them which also violates WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. IZAK 09:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons. IZAK 09:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources about the person, only two about the quote, and they barely say anything at all. Jon513 10:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete quote does not make notable. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since the only references concerning the subject appear to relate to a controversial statement at a eulogy, fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). MPerel 15:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't prove its notability, as well there is no sources.--JForget 22:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there was a news article in the times--tho only a subsequent letter to the editor is listed, (Also art in the Daily New Feb. 28, 1994, p.6, and other papers--and about 40,000 ghits. Notable bigots are notable. DGG (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't even know that this guy actually exists. Letters to the editor are NOT proper sources. As per nom, it's unsourced soapboxing. <<-armon->> 23:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per <<-armon->> Abberley2 01:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perrin may be notable, but his article doesn't even pretend to explain why. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DES ^(talk) 01:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Taylor Friedman

This person is not notable. Being female proto-"clergy" is not significant (especially in Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism) so this violates WP:NN. Within Orthodox Judaism the function of sofer ("scribe") is reserved for male practitioners according to Jewish law and custom, so to imply that females can do so would violate WP:NOR. By its self-laudatory nature this article would also seem to violate WP:COI as well as WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. IZAK 11:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons. IZAK 11:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with IZAK. I would also add that as Friedman only coverage is because she is a novelty (female torah scribe) it is not enough (per WP:BLP) to have an article about her. The subject can be better dealt with in Sofer#Women and Sofrut. Jon513 11:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there is some significant/novel information in this article, if only because it seems to contest the (POV?) description of the Sofer#Women and Sofrut piece. Indeed, that she acts as a sofer against Orthodox custom is what makes her work significant (and including this fact is hardly original research, contra IZAK above). Accordingly, I recommend moving her info into that piece of Women and Sofrut. Otherwise, she doesn't seem independently notable at this time. HG | Talk 18:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given there are a fair number of references in the mainstream press, I can't see how this constitutes original research. I also fail to see how it can be "self-laudatory" unless you're alleging that the subject of the article wrote it herself. As for the argument about who may act as a sofer for which documents, I think that is better described in Sofer than belaboured in AFD. Pseudomonas_(talk) 23:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether the Orthodox Jews consider her legitimate is besides the point--in fact, if this is controversial, it's all the more reason to keep the article, and include the discussion. The sources are sufficient. DGG (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep There is no question that she's notable. Her article has links to four independent news articles about her, including one that ran on the Associated Press, a national news service. If the article is "self-laudatory", edit it to change its tone; don't delete it. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've spent some time cleaning up the article, improving it I hope. I would also note that, contrary to IZAK's comment, Friedman is neither "proto-'clergy'" nor is her vocation unremarkable for women in the liberal Jewish movements — she is one of five known soferot in the world. (And she is a traditional, halakhic Jew, FWIW, although she doesn't identify with any movement.) I would encourage those who favor deleting the article to read the latest version. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 05:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: non-trivial coverage in multiple independent verifiable sources --Pak21 14:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems to be notable enough. --Eliyak T·C 07:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the bulk of non-trivial coverage about this subject, passes WP:BIO well. RFerreira 20:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep All delete opnions cited notability as their sole reason. ources that pretty celarly establish notability were provided (and should be linked into the article). No one subsequently favored deeltion, althopugh the discussion laste a further 3 days. DES ^(talk) 01:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shlomo Porter

Run of the mill and non-notable rabbi. One of thousands of such people. Violation of WP:NN. This article reads like a self-advertisement and also violates WP:COI. IZAK 11:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons. IZAK 11:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two of the links for Baltimore Jewish Times articles don't work. It is hard to judge his notability when most of the references are no longer online. Jon513 11:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons. --Jayrav 16:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Abberley2 02:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 05:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is the director of a very notable orginization. If you say we shouldn't have this page, then the Henry Lehmann and Congregation Shomrei Emunah pages shouldn't be here. just my 2 cents. --Shuliavrumi 02:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Go ahead and nominate those who fail Wikipedia's standards. There is a glut of non-noteworthy clergy that need to be trimmed. IZAK 06:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rabbi Porter is not (as IZAK said) "a run of the mill ... Rabbi" He was one of the forerunners of the Baal teshuva movement is the 70s and also unique that is not Chabad. He has been the subject of a cover story (not a passing reference) of the Baltimore Jewish Times (here) as well as multiple other stories [79], [80] and has also often been quoted as a reputable opinion in matters relating to kiruv [81], [82], [83]. I assume that IZAK's concern of conflict of interest stem from the fact that IP edit are from baltimore however I don't think that is enough to base anything on as it is to be expected that there is greater interest about a Baltimore rabbi in baltimore. Also, while User:Crzrussian is no longer active he has expressed his opinion here that the article should be kept. Jon513 18:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Appears to have been the head of or leader in notable organizations. --Eliyak T·C 07:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 while it's about 50-50 keep delete votes, most all the keeps reaches the WP:ILIKEIT or WP:INTERESTING category while most of the delete votes have merit. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Note: Before commenting on this discussion, please familiarize yourself with the information contained at WP:USEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. While these are only essays and not binding policies, this will give you important context when deciding how to make your argument. Thank you.

Listcruft - WP:NOT#INFO, etc, etc Will ^(talk) 16:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge This is a difficult one. It is a great reference that should be on Wikipedia somehere. The ideal would be on the Deathly Hallows page, but this is a big spoiler so having its own page makes sense. Just deleting the information is the worst option. Casaubonian 10:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like others have said, a good reference. Plus if people don't want to know who dies, then don't click the link! Rudeboy2025 02:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discounted Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A really good reference for all of the links. Seperates some major spoiler type information from the main article. Also, having this list in the main article would make it quite a bit longer (in terms of screen size). Bjewiki 13:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge* I, for one, was hoping this list would be made as I wanted to know without having to go back through the book and find the details. This is also good for referencing for the purposes of Fan-fiction, Role Playing and generaly settling arguments.
Unsigned discounted Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This cycle is getting ridiculous. People are interpreting "cut back on the information" as "bloat the information and create sub articles".-Wafulz 16:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I called it. The list is in-universe and has no apparent out-of-universe importance. 17Drew 16:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO if it can't be merged into the parent article. Listcruft. EyeSerene^TALK 17:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge WP:NOT#INFO clearly applies here, but it is also useful information (yes, yes, I know that is not a valid argument in AfDs, but bear with me here). Who dies in each Harry Potter book is definitely notable information, and the section in the article proper is a little sparse at the moment. We don't need this comphrensive chart, but I think the main article should at least say a little more about the number of characters who died, e.g. listing the main ones or something. Seriously, this kind of crap will get play in mainstream news sources, so notability is not in doubt -- it's just that the chart is excessive. --Jaysweet 17:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main article already says who dies in the plot summary. 17Drew 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, and again I know I am using the fallacious WP:USEFUL argument here, but I really don't care about the plot of Deathly Hallows; I just care who dies ;D --Jaysweet 18:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — a real-world notability argument could be made, since so much of the pre-release publicity for Deathly Hallows focused on the question of who will die (see, for example, here, an article which was headlined in the print edition with the question "WHO WILL DIE?"). I don't have strong feelings on the matter myself, but I think that if defenders want the article kept they should be looking for secondary sources which discuss the question (thus indicating its importance). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would this benefit anything? Instead of having this information and its buildup in the main article, we would just end up having it in the main article and somewhere else.-Wafulz 18:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not if summary style guidelines were followed properly. I don't care whether this information is in the main Deathly Hallows article or on its own page, but I'm just pointing out that a real-world notability argument could be made — thus refuting the argument that the list is indiscriminate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obvious listcruft, but the important characters who died should be found easily in the article as that is what a lot of people will want to see. Millancad 18:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please Keep. A useful list... {{unsigned|128.2.20.102}
Discounted Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 18:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my previous comments here and here. --Farix (Talk) 18:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because VOLDEMORT KILLS SNAPE! —Malber (talk • contribs) 18:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While a bit silly, this comment here is sort of why I think the section on character deaths in the main article should be expanded just a little bit. There are a huge number of folks who just want to know what all the Harry Potter fans will be talking about, and the answer is: Voldemort kills Snape. (I don't even know who Snape is, but I am pretty sure if I say those three words to a HP fan who hasn't read the book they'll get really mad at me, ha ha ha) Obviously "Voldemort kills Snape" can't go in the lead cuz it is a spoiler, but it ought to be really easy for visitors to the page to find. Delete this silly chart, though. --Jaysweet 18:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it's also not true. Seriously. If you'd read the list (ie, looked at the page, the way so many people don't bother with AfDs, because they *know* what's on it), you'd know that Nagini kills Snape. So really, what it does is let people be dicks by saying things like this, and backing it up by saying 'It was on Wikipedia.' (despite the fact it isn't). --Thespian 04:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we're going to argue that, Voldemort technically did kill Snape, seeing as he set Nagini on Snape. We all generally accept that Hitler killed the Jews during WWII, but he didn't necessarily raise his own hand. I don't mean to Godwin the AfD, I'm just saying. Regardless, there is no real need for this list. But honestly, your tone makes me think you're being a bit of a dick, so calm down, it really is just an AfD. I think Malber was kidding. Innappropriate, but kidding nonetheless.Vaguely 06:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my reply was to JaySweet, not to Malber. And my point was actually that people here and in other AfDs aren't actually reading the pages, they're basing their 'votes' on impressions of the page, personal agendas ('I don't like lists') etc. This was even information on the page itself; but the tangent that Jaysweet went off on proved my main point; people aren't reading AfDs, and if you're not at least spending the time to fully read the page, you're actually damaging Wikipedia by participating in AfDs. --Thespian 14:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my mistake here sort of proves the point of why this chart is completely over-the-top. I did in fact read through the chart before commenting, but since I am not a Harry Potter fan, I am sorry, but I apparently failed to memorize every bit of important information.

However, the fact that Snape is killed, as I am gathering, is a very important point because it makes Harry Potter the only whatsitcalled. Or whatever. My point is that this information is not easily accessible either in the main article (unless you read the whole many-paragraph plot summary in very great detail) or in this chart (unless you are a HP fan capable of sifting the notable deaths from the non-notable deaths in a gigantic comprehensive chart, which I wasn't, even though I did read the chart).

The chart is a pile of obscure information, with a little bit of notable info mixed in. What I advocate is to trim it back to a few sentences of prose that capture the notable information in this chart, and merge it with the main page. I am not an HP fan so I am not 100% certain if I have the notable information correct, but what I am gathering is: A huge number of people died, particularly in the Battle of Thingamajig; some dude named Snape was killed by one of Voldemort's minions, meaning Harry Potter is now like some kind of last surviving Jedi or some crap like that; and Voldemort was finally defeated by getting a nasty spell reflected back on him or something. Oh yeah, and Potter himself lives. Are there other notable deaths (from an encyclopedic standpoint) besides that? --Jaysweet 17:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discounted Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. Anyone really important will be mentioned in the plot summary of the main article, everyone else will be mentioned as being dead in their own article. ♠P M C♠ 20:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC) ♠P M C♠ 20:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this is deleted, I think Deaths in Harry Potter—a list that comprises all the books, including a Deathly Hallows section that overlaps with, without being identical to, this list—should be deleted as well. Not surprisingly, a spate of partially or entirely redundant articles on the HP universe seem to have been created in the last few days. That many of them are ~~catalogued~~ categorized poorly, if at all, makes them hard to find. Deor 20:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back Come on this is silly. A few hours ago, this table was on the main HP page. Why has a new article been created. Speedy delete and merge back . Why are we wasting time on something so pathetic? If there were an article named Deaths in Harry Potter it could be merged to that- but not a separate article! Dewarw 20:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have just noticed that there is an article called Deaths in harry potter. Therefore, Speedy Delete.' This is a duplicate page, what are we waiting for!!!Dewarw 20:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and speedy merge As above. Wrawed 20:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discounted Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the main deaths page. There's nothing I can add that hasn't already been said. Natalie 20:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge either to the Deaths in Harry Potter list as described above, or back to the main book article, which currently has a section about deaths which is about 2 lines long. This table should be in that section, or if not, the contents of the table should be evaluated in that section as prose to add more context. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 20:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge, it absolutely belongs in the main article. However, it keeps getting deleted and re-added, so perhaps a cooling period of a few days would be good before this is done.Lilac Soul 21:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Salting the earth is a better idea than a cooling down period. Natalie 21:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge, either back into the main Deathly Hallows article and/or into Deaths in Harry Potter. With those two pages existing already this page is very redundant. Mazca 21:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into Deaths in Harry Potter. There's no reason for this book to have its own list, especially if the more notable deaths are already mentioned in the main Deathly Hallows article. Duckyass 21:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The only reason this list is here is because people keep removing it from the Deathly Hallows article. If people didn't keep deleting it then there would be no need for it. The bottom line is that it is important and encyclopæedic and so belongs somewhere on Wikipedia. Valley2city 21:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP. Very useful and timely list. and other way more inane lists survive here. J. Van Meter 21:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:USEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And judging by your edit summary, WP:JUSTAVOTE. 17Drew 22:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for not being more specific about the reason for my vote/opinion. wikipedia is THE place that people shop for this exact type of information. it's clear that many contributors have spent time doing the research to create this list, which, i believe is unique to wikipedia. this is useful information to anyone doing any research on the harry potter series; and having it here as it's own article keeps the size of the deathly hallows article more managable. several other useful lists exist regarding the harry potter series and it seems to me that there's not a substantive reason to delete this one. J. Van Meter 16:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If people are coming here for indiscriminate collections of information, then simply put, they're at the wrong place. Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia, so any information that has no impact on the real world does not belong here, no matter how many people are looking for it. Your other comments are simply variations of WP:EFFORT, WP:USEFUL, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. People researching minor in-universe details about a fictional universe should be at a fansite, and the solution to having other inappropriate lists on Wikipedia is to delete them, not to make more. 17Drew 16:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-well then it seems to me you've got hundreds of articles on the simpsons, south park, magic the gathering, family guy, pokemon, the sopranos, yu gi oh, dungeons and dragons, dune, star trek, star wars, bugs bunny, nancy drew and the hardy boys that should all be immediately deleted. quick -- go get 'em - they're destroying wikipedia as we know it.J. Van Meter 18:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay on-topic. This is not about other in-universe articles. It's about this article, and your veering from the point only suggests that this article is inappropriate for inclusion. 17Drew 18:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--no: I think if you're going to make sweeping statements about "in-universe articles", you can't single out just one to attack. and, for the record, there's really nothing "indiscriminate" about an examination of the exceptionally large number of deaths occuring in a book whose sales have broken all records and whose plot and ending were affected, according to the author, by the events of 9/11. J. Van Meter 18:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] I'm not attacking just one. I've supported the deletion of other articles or tagged them with {{in-universe}} on the same basis. And that information is pertinent to the Harry Potter article. This article, however, has nothing about sales records and shouldn't. Because Voldemort killing an unknown foreign witch has no real world importance, no matter how many copies the book sells. 17Drew 18:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dicounted Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge back into the HPATDH articles or Deaths in Harry Potter. Book 7 is particularly notable in that it is a bloodbath compared to the other 6 and that needs to be communicated somehow. Spoilers should have no bearing on content decisions such as this. Savidan 21:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't that fact be communicated with a simple sentence in the main article stating that the death count in this book is much higher than previous books? A completely cruft-tastic article is not the only way to convey that information. Natalie 21:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge This could easily be merged with the main article on the book. As the book is out, it no longer counts as a spoiler. This is, however, very useful encyclopedic information about the book.
- - This is exactly my position.. The main article needs a little bit more about it because, let's face it, the death of Harry Potter characters is damn notable. But it doesn't need this chart. That is just way over the top. --Jaysweet 22:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge Who keeps making these? This is like the fourth one, it's getting ridiculous. This was previously accepted to be on the main page, and can be useful as trivia. There is no need for a second page to be created just as a list of those who died in the novel, but it does little harm on the front page. When separated, this list becomes trivial and redundant. Reputation 22:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was never a consensus to have it on the book's article, mainly because as you pointed out, it's trivia. 17Drew 23:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to clarify. It was acceptable on the book's main article until someone decided it was noteworthy enough to deserve its own article. Afterward, it was nominated for deletion. Reputation 00:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. WP:NOT#INFO. And it spoiled the book for me :( Giggy _U^CP 22:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I said in the other similar afd Harry Potter list article, until more info is provided this should be only mentionned in the respective episode articles in which the deaths occured.--JForget 22:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps such articles should be considered temporarily relevant, if not in keeping with standards. In six months, no one will care. For now, it seems to have some relevance. People are interested in this information, at least for the time being. No, it does not merit being a permanent addition to Wikipedia. However, people come here for information that is current and dynamic. Maybe a "Spoilers" link concept should be implemented for such info and broken out from the main article. After a certain grace period, these sub-articles are either deleted or merged back into main.-Michael
There is no "grace period", and notability is not temporary. 17Drew 23:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That fictional characters "Colin Creevey" or "Ted Tonks" died in a work fo fiction has no relevance to anything. Note the important deaths in the article's plot section. In prose. ' 23:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and forget. Significant deaths will already appear in the timeline article and, in context, in the plot summary of the article on the seventh book. This material may be undeleted for the purpose of transferring to a fan wiki under the GFDL. --Tony Sidaway 23:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No other site has a comprehensive and easily accessible list. It is useful and relevant. It would take up too much space if it were all incorporated into prose. It is silly to suggest that since it is in-universe, it should be removed. There are many in-universe articles for other works of fiction, and Harry Potter is arguably the #1 most famous work of fiction today. This page would be visited by many. Supertigerman 00:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The solution to having inappropriate in-universe articles is not to go make more of them. 17Drew 02:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. The fates of this article and Deaths in Harry Potter, which is also the subject of a current AfD, would seem to be inextricably intertwined. Both were created in the past couple of days, and might be be a good idea for the same admin to deal with both articles, so that (1) similar articles are dealt with in a consistent fashion and (2) if the consensus is to merge one to the other, the other will still exist. Deor 00:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not quite the slam dunk that most of the other listcruft is out here, but close enough. Montco 01:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable listcruft. Marc Shepherd 01:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge For heaven's sake, people. It's kind of cool, people clearly put work into it, obviously a few others will enjoy reading it, it hardly takes up that much memory on the wikipedia server... why do you have to go all OCD and delete stuff like this? --Hermitage 02:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Specifically the sections It's interesting, People put a lot of work into it, I like it, and It doesn't do any harm. 17Drew 02:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP! I think this is so cool, and it's important to those who are researching Harry Potter! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookworm415 (talk • contribs) 02:38, July 24, 2007 (UTC)
Please read the above discussion. You'd have seen that WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to have an article. 17Drew 02:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO, WP:TRIVIA and WP:LISTCRUFT -- Jelly Soup 03:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge. I think all deaths in the Harry Potter books should be in one place and then identifying which death happened in which volume. Sid 03:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merging information back to the Deathly Hallows page. This is getting ridiculous. Espresso Addict 03:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion To prevent some unfortunate person from accidentally stumbling onto this page and ruining the book for him/her maybe have a prepage that warns that this page contains spoilers.

To be completely honest, I hate the fact that Wikipedia even has spoiler warnings on it. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia and I feel that spoiler warnings in and of themselves are too fannish. As such, if a fan is too much of an idiot to realize that there are spoilers on Wikipedia, then they shouldn't be browsing the internet to begin with. Vaguely 07:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, the more critical deaths should be in the main article.Marlith 04:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
definitely keep this list, this is the only place on the internet where i could find a hard list because i was trying to remember everyone who had died as I have already finished the book. It is a matter of fact who dies and therefore has no reason to be deleted. If people do not want the plot to be ruined for them, then they shouldn't be reading a synopsis of the entire book — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.237.4 (talk) 05:11, July 24, 2007 (UTC)
Not every matter of fact belongs on Wikipedia. See WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. 17Drew 05:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. I have a feeling it is going to be a long time before these little fandom things stop popping up on an hourly basis. Vaguely 06:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many of the deaths are not stated in the plot summaries, and those which are stated in the plot summaries have to be ferreted for through much other text. Anthony Appleyard 06:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a significant death is omitted from the plot summary, edit the plot summary to include it. If it isn't significant, it shouldn't be in the article. --Tony Sidaway 07:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability oftern is temporary. Very many things have happened which at the time were very significant and everybody's concern or talk, but now they are old footnotes in history. Anthony Appleyard 06:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, notability is not temporary. Please read Wikipedia:Notability. Specifically the section titled "Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary". 17Drew 23:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The plot summary in the book's own page is enough; this is just fanwankery. (Note: I'm a Potter fan myself.) If you want to know that badly who dies, you can read the book itself, or there are plenty of places online to find out; Wikipedia is not the place. Roccondil 07:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything above. •97198 talk 07:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above. Wikipedian06 07:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: if you do not wish to read spoilers, dont read the page. simple. Although it might be a little too detailed for encyclopedic standards, but never the less, imporant. NeoDeGenero`
'Delete and DO NOT REMERGE into the Deathly Hallows article. No sooner do we get this in-universe trivia out of one article than someone puts it somewhere else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. This is an important part of the book. Not all of the deaths can be woven into the Plot synopsis. That's what this list is for.
Keep. As I was reading the book, I was wondering if somebody was keeping a list of everybody who died in it... there's enough that you need a scorecard to keep track of them all. *Dan T.* 10:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful in the context of the main article; but a sensible editorial call to make it into a separate subpage. Reasonable and not out of proportion, in the context of the rest of our Harry Potter coverage. Jheald 10:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list should be merged into the article in the form of a side table. Madhava 1947 (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Valuable information that shpuld not be deleted.--Veracity-or-mendacity 12:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God damm keep this page. it is obvious that a lot of people want this info in so if they keep deleting it from the main page then this is what happens. Now leave this alone and understand that other people have a right to see it. Rant over, Delighted eyes 12:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the point of Wikipedia, which you should know. I would love to have an article about my left big toe, but I am certainly not going to put up an article about it, not even if all my friends wanted me too, because it doesn't fall within Wikipedia standards. Merge this article with the Death Hallows page and be done with it. It does NOT warrant its own page, it is simply listcruft. Vaguely 18:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge. This is a list for the sake of a list. Brianga 12:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Atlant 12:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This information is already included in the Harry Potter Timelime article. I do not see the need for a book specific article (especially as the main article covers the important death information anyway)62.134.226.55 13:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've read the book and I came looking for a list of all those who died because there are so many. --Trödel 14:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- or at least merge. I agree it's a good list for researchers' purposes.--68.251.145.16 14:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge. Keep the lists in Deaths in Harry Potter, don't branch unnecessary individual lists for each book. • Maurog • 14:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would really like if everyone would read WP:JUSTAVOTE, WP:USEFUL, and WP:ILIKEIT. I see people making all three of those fallacious arguments just in the last five or six "votes." (Granted, my endorsement for merge is a little bit based on usefulness, but I'm at least keeping in mind that it cannot be my sole criterion) --Jaysweet 15:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a highly useful list for any fan of the book, whether they are interested in analysis or merely in keeping parts of the plot straight in their head. So I say, KEEP! Rachelos23 16:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the discussion before commenting. WP:USEFUL is not a reason. 17Drew 16:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, merge to main HP7 article later - This is a significant and sensitive bit of information. Since the book has just been released the information shouldn't be listed at the main article since anyone can very easily stumble upon it and ruin the story for themselves. Normally this wouldn't be an issue, but since the list of deaths is large I think it warrants its own article for now. After a few weeks I think it'd be fine to merge to the HP7 article. - Throw 16:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our job to protect people from spoilers. If they don't want to read spoilers they shouldn't be reading the article. Natalie 16:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not our job to protect people from spoilers then why does Wikipedia have spoiler tags? - Throw 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the question. All the HP plot summaries are spoilers. It's about whether this list of deaths and details is needed at all.--WPaulB 16:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it's necessary since the list of deaths is so large. One or two wouldn't matter; the death of Albus Dumbledore in book 6 would've have warranted its own article, but this is a list the lenght of most peoples' arm. - Throw 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which it isn't, because the deaths can be dealt with in the main article without creating a page for a list of everything that happened in DH. I feel like we should get a stick and beat off the Harry Potter fans, eh? Vaguely 18:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. - Throw 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and Merge - If another page already exists where the other book deaths are written, then this listcruft can be added to at least make one listcruft rather than many. I am a Harry Potter fan but nothing says that Wikipedia has to be the authoritative source for more detail-oriented fan groups. There's an entire list of people named and unnamed that died in this book, most of them because Voldemort killed them or made other people do it - casualty of evil and war, and I see no reason why we should honour fictional ones more than real people in war. The only notable ones are the ones that moved the story along - Pettigrew, who allowed escape, Snape whose death revealed the truth of many things to Harry, Potter himself and then Voldemort. Those are easily reportable in the main book's plot. This is an encyclopedia, but even an encyclopedia doesn't include all the possible listcruft - they provide main points, examples, or neat little condensed tables. These are not repeated on new pages, it's done once and referenced.--WPaulB 16:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This Afd is completely stupid! This list was on the main Deathly hallows page and then moved. instead of this ridiculus afd, someone should have simply put the material back where it belongs. If this page is deleted, the info will re created either on this article, or on a differnet one. Why don't we do this now, and get this pathetic Afd out of the way! Dewarw 16:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please Keep* This article is extremely useful and should most definately be saved. - Mike, Harry Potter fan and reader.
Please read the discussion before commenting. WP:USEFUL is not a reason. 17Drew 16:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should go back and read WP:USEFUL again. To quote:

In spite of this, there are some times when "usefulness" can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest (as in the New York phone listing example) or a matter of opinion as in the restaurant guide example. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how broad a segment of the population will consider a piece of information "useful."

In particular, usefulness on its own is not a criterion for inclusion; but usefulness in the context of a topic that Wikipedia already covers is such a criterion. Note also WP:LISTCRUFT,

In general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article. It is very appropriate for the article on Zoology to include a list of important zoologists within it, and for the article on the fictional series character Rick Brant to include a list of the Rick Brant books. Valid examples of standalone lists would include List of University of Chicago people and The Oz Books. In both cases, the lists correspond closely to encyclopedia articles—University of Chicago and L. Frank Baum, respectively—and in both cases the length and detail of the list justify breaking them out.

What people are telling you is that this list is a valuable addition to WP's encylopedic coverage in this area. This is not just a random list (the main target of WP:USEFUL), it is a reasonable and proportionate addition to WP's HP coverage. In that context, the fact that a wide range of people are telling you that this is useful, and testifying personally to that relevenace, is 100% on topic. WP:USEFUL in no way excludes such testimony; in fact it encourages it. Jheald 18:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with votes that only say it is useful. If you check my vote for "trim and merge," you'll note that I did acknowledge that part of my reason for retaining a "List of deaths" section is that this information is useful. But that can't be the only criterion. In this case, I feel that the deaths of some of the characters are notable in an encyclopedic sense, and that it is also useful to have those in an easily accessible location. But I don't feel that all of the deaths are notable, and while they may still be useful to have in a list, their lack of general notability (outside of HP fans) means, in my mind, that this chart is way over the top. If people want to say it is useful that is fine, but they should say more than just that. --Jaysweet 20:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but IMO it's more useful (and encyclopedic) to have a comprehensive list of all the identified deaths, than a selective list of just the "useful" ones (as decided by who?) Jheald 20:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge back into the main bok article from whence it came. Man, I'll be glad when Pottermania runs its course. Realkyhick 16:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge - --SkyWalker 18:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above. Wikipedian06 18:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; WP:NOT#INFO and not a notable enough topic for a seperate article. If this isn't deleted it sets a bad precedent for hundreds, possibly thousands, of similar pointless lists. Masaruemoto 19:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see no reason for the deletion of this page as it is useful to clarify who killed whom and when and how. It should not make any difference to the enjoyment of the book which comes from reading the story. If the story line is so poor that revelations about the outcome make reading it unnecessary then then book is not worth reading. Many classics are read and re read even though the reader knows the plot the characters and even word for word what is on each page. Pleasure is still gained from reading the book. Keep the page. 81.148.160.130 (talk • contribs). — 81.148.160.130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. List of deaths in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is a good sub article for the actual book. Moving this information into the main article may take up too much space. In my opinion, this list falls into a situation when information needs to be split out of an article. (WP:SIZE) Such a situation exists here. In addition, I do feel as if it is notable enough to be mentioned. Chupper 20:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page is clearly named, even in the URL. Once you are on the page it is obvious what it is about. You still have to make an effort to read all the deaths. At any point, someone who travels to this page can make an effort to not read it and not be spoiled. This is great information for those of us who have read the book and want to quickly reference who died and how.Darthrazorback 20:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A handy reference to the world's greatest-selling book. Most definitely can be used as a comprehensive link-to from HBP-related articles referencing deaths. Auror 20:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find the Bible is still shifting well in excess of 20 million copies every year; but other than that you make a good point. Jheald 20:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merely attempting to satisfy the notability policy fiends' bloodlust. Auror 21:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Keep - I've found pratical use for this list several times while discussing the novel, the list should be included somewhere either here or in the original article. I would prefer the list be included within the article, but if it needs to be a seperate page for space or layout reasons that's acceptable. -Kode 20:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Although this is not an article in itself, it most definitely is useful information about the plot. Also, one of the main focuses of the pre-release was who will live or die. If someone who hadn't read the book wanted to know about deaths, this would be a perfect resource. However, since this is all it is, it should be merged into either Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows or Deaths in Harry Potter (if it isn't deleted). Laptopdude 22:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- people who wish to delete have said it all already. It reminds me of a trivia list, and this stuff can be integrated into the plot summary. CarlosTheDwarf 22:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this listcruft. What is this list for? Completely useless. -- Ekjon Lok 23:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge I think for the time being it can be kept and then possibly merged. All of the deaths are a mjor part of the story this time soo they should stay. Csloomis
Keep Great list, very useful reference which I just used. If you don't understand the importance of this list, please don't vote. It's not for you. MaxWilder 23:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just reread the AfD guide, and there doesn't seem to be any valid arguments to keep... By the general guidelines, this article seems to be too much detail for an Encyclopedic entry. Sad that something that is useful, notable, verifiable, and such does not qualify it for keeping. I love Wikipedia for its usefulness and detail, not its brevity and Encyclopedic restrictions. I say, the more information the better, as long as it is well organized and cited. MaxWilder 00:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Not For You. - --Thespian 06:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good list, interesting. Chris H 01:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, do not merge. The purpose of this list is to list this information without the readers having to ferret through other text. Anthony Appleyard 05:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's accessible by going to Deaths in Harry Potter and clicking the appropriate section in the contents. A separate list saves exactly one click for the user. • Maurog • 05:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per WP:NOT#INFO. Douglasr007 08:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge This stuff is NOT trivia to Harry Potter fans, and not everyone who is a fan has had a chance to read Book 7 yet. Merge it maybe in a year, when the fan sites have had a chance to reproduce it. I like that Wikipedia does include spoiler warnings, so that those who want to be surprised can still be surprised, and those who want to find out everything can have that chance. Userafw 11:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC) — Userafw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, as a separate page. If we put it back to being a section of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, likeliest someone will delete it, and someone will restore it, repeated indefinitely, and this table would come and go repeatedly like owls in the Hogwarts owlery, and people arguing about this would get wordy and then abusive, etc etc. Anthony Appleyard 13:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - having this separate improves the quality of the main article Percy Snoodle 13:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The major issue, based on reading previous comments, is whether Wikipedia will forever be a secondary source, and whether analysis of contents is itself valuable content. The seventh book of the Potter Cycle is a major event. The deaths of characters is very important to the story line and of great interest to readers. That such a list may not appear elsewhere is in no small way due to the fact that it appears in Wikipedia. Why would there be other lists created when this is available ? If Wikipedia is a signifcant source for many people, lack of secondary references can no longer be a valid justification for deletion. Secondly, this compilation is a valuable summary, that does not fit into a narative summary as an entire list. The main article provides a sequence of the book, plus events around its release. Tables such as this belong on separate pages, as analysis of other content. It may be approprite to merge with the "Deaths in Harry Potter" page, but there is no reference in the main article to this other page. Changing the reference to that page would not improve Wikipedia. prwiding 13:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC) — Prwiding (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
We don't want to be more than a secondary source. Actually, we don't even want to be a secondary source at all. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, an article should not exist unless there are secondary sources about it; since we're using secondary sources to write articles, that makes us (and most encyclopedias) tertiary sources. 17Drew 23:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft. Fancruft. Fancruft. --Guess Who 14:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is complete trash. These characters' deaths should be mentioned in the plot summary of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows; it definitely does NOT merit its own article as it is simply a list, and Wikipedia is NOT a bunch of lists, especially meaningless lists such as this. Titanium Dragon 23:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article list has no real world context. Fails per usual WP:PLOT and WP:IINFO reasons. UnfriendlyFire 01:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep information. I was actually asked the specific question of exactly who dies, and came here to check it. Only one article about deaths in HP is needed, so at least one merge is needed, there is an Afd on the other article about deaths in the series mentioned above also. The information could perfectly well also be re-merged into the Deathly Hallows article whence it came, and where it fairly obviously belongs. Sandpiper 08:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having checked the other Afd for HP death lists, I saw that someone suggested merging that list with Chronology of the Harry Potter series, where it all already exists. Very sensible. This article should be deleted or turned into a redirect. The information here should be reinserted into 'deathly Hallows' article whence it came. Now two people have asked me specifically who dies in the book. Not other plot details, just who dies. The advertising campaign made quite a point of it. Sandpiper 20:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Deaths in Harry Potter. It's already been merged into the article. --musicpvm 09:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable. One of the best selling books of all time. Covered in numerable articles. Of major world interest. MightyAtom 14:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frag to MightAtom and others, yes the book is notable, but that does not make everything in the book notable. The notable bits of the list could easily be tucked into the main article. We shouldn't separate spoilers from the main article in detriment to the article (and anyway, it says who dies in the plot summary, thus this is incredibly redundant with the Battle of Hogwarts article). David Fuchs^(talk) 14:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: basically all I can see for 'keep' votes is " WP:EFFORT, WP:USEFUL, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.", as someone said above. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, and in-universe info with no important outside the work should be sorely wanting in our eyes. David Fuchs^(talk) 14:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You wouldn't have a list of characters who live in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, so why emphasize the deaths? The information can be contained in the plot summary, and it does not serve as a table of contents. Especially if the Deaths in Harry Potter article exists. Olin 16:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. Two years ago, we did a very nice job of moving this crap to WikiBooks. Is there a good reason we can't do it again this time? Phil Sandifer 20:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For that matter, is there a Harry Potter Wiki that this information could be sent to? -- Jelly Soup 10:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research for which there are not enough reliable sources independent of the book Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows to verify the List of deaths in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows material. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a very stupid argument for deletion. Phil Sandifer 17:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Plain and simple, people have been reading these novels for 10 years. The should be no site that contains this type of material for ANY book. It is obvious that someone put this here to be mean. People have been chomping at the bit to ruin a good book for millions of people. DELETE this article. This is copywrited material that they are messing with and no one asked them to do this. It's absolutely dispicable.69.53.203.123 19:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nonsense. Fang Aili ^talk 19:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Student Day

not notable, can't find Google reference, created by vandal Ttwaring 16:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense. EyeSerene^TALK 17:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, though I am going to check for copyvio. Until (1 == 2) 17:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Leading Hotels of the World

This has not been justified as notable and has been noted as needing such since May 2007. Also, this seems to be entirely a marketing organization. Slavlin 16:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: although this company is probably important in its niche, this is not the same as notable. I couldn't find anything that would satisfy the WP:ORG requirement of reliable, independent secondary sources - I suppose this sort of thing doesn't get written about outside of travel industry promotional material. EyeSerene^TALK 17:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There does not appear to be any assertion of notability of the subject (CSD A7). Agree with EyeSerene, too. --Deskana (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no connection with the hotel industry but I have heard of this. Many of the member hotels are extremely famous (plenty of them have articles). I would say that this is more notable (and more likely to be looked up), than the articles about many hotel chains that meet WP:CORP. Golfcam 17:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though it needs work. This organization has been around for a while and has global reach. It has been written about in the travel press (that's how I knew about it before I saw this AfD), but a Google search turns up quite a few hits. I'm going against my natural deletionist tendencies here. Realkyhick 18:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending sources required per ~~WP:CORP~~ WP:ORG. Most of the article reads like a copyvio, probably from http://www.lhw.com/download_s/Company%20History.pdf. Sandstein 21:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and that notability is not inherited from its member hotels. Bearian 22:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Golfcam. Sources are not required to prevent deletion if the topic is significant. This page is not for cleanup. Abberley2 01:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Abberley, assertions of notability are required to keep it and that assertion would need to be backed up by a source of some kind. If it is challenged, as this is being, then the challenged content needs to be sourced or removed. Slavlin 03:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added an assertion of notability. You are incorrect to say that being unsourced is in itself an adequate excuse for deletion. Trying to get articles on legitimate topics deleted on technicalities is destructive to the development of Wikipedia. Beorhtric 11:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was not saying that a lack of sourcing is excuse for deletion. (I do believe that no article is better than a lousy one, but that is not the issue at hand.) What I was saying is that lack of notability is justification for deletion. As long as this article has been around without assertion of notability and with the general appearance of it as a marketing organization, I would want the sourcing for the notability. According to the sourcing guidelines, it is the responsability of the person adding content (assertion of notability in this case) to provide the source for it or it should be deleted. Slavlin 15:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I did a gsearch and got 417,000 hits; that would seem pretty notable. This organization represents some of teh most significant hotels in the world (I have no conflict here, but I have stayed in these hotels when in Europe several times). The article does need work, but it is notable. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:GHITS a google search is really not an assertion of notability. Slavlin 15:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can look up sources as easily as anyone else. Beorhtric 11:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not if I don't have thos trade journals that other people are citing as justification to keep it. Slavlin 15:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the most notable organisations in its industry. Have any of the delete voters looked through the leading business journals and academic books on the hospitality industry and on marketing, and failed to find verification of the notability of this organisation there? I doubt it, because I'm sure you would find some. I expect you have just used google, and its going to be hard to find quality sources there because when you do a google search for anything to do with hotels, you just gets sites that want to sell you a room. But that's just a systemic failure of google, not a reflection on the subject at hand. Your (and my) lack of easy access to good quality relevant sources should not be used as an excuse for deleting this article. Beorhtric 11:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should it not be used as an excuse to delete it? If the creator or other editors cannot source the notability of the organization, then it should be deleted till someone is willing to provide those sources. A larger Wikipedia is NOT a better one. Slavlin 15:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look at it per WP:HEY. BTW, I have been awarded the volunteer of the year by a not-for-profit hospitality group (HI-USA) and have stayed at a couple of the members of the "Leading Hotels". Bearian 17:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That shoulds perfectly reasonable to me, though please remember that those hotels being notable would not necessarily make the organization notable. What I would really like to see is some kind of reference to articles about this organization, paper would be fine as long as it meets the criteria for reliable sources. Slavlin 17:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - as per Beorhtric, this is an extremely notable group of hotels in the world, and I've stayed personally at at least ten of these myself. Don't let the hyperbolistic name get in the way of recognizing it is an important, notable and legitimate organization. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited from the member hotels. The hotels may be notable, keep their articles, but if this can't be shown to be an independantly notable organization, then it needs to go. Again, not saying I think it has to go, just that it needs to have some work done to keep it from just being a marketing hit on google. Slavlin 15:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not a group of hotels. A group of hotels under common ownership or mangement might very well be notable, and sometimes even a better choice for articles than the individual hotels. But this is "a U.S. based marketing and trade association" the provide PR and advertising. they dont operate the hotels. I do not want to Speedy in the middle of an afd, and I am very reluctant to speedy any improvable article, but if I had encountered the article I would have said speedy delete as G11, commercial advertising -- just read the article--irremediable spam. DGG (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, I'm disappointed in your reasoning after having put reasonable comment on the Article Rescue Squadron page. The Leading Hotels of the World is a notable trade group, and while the article is indeed lacking and spam filled, this is not "Articles for Deletion Because of its Current State." If it can be a "Keep, but needs heavy revision," it should stil be a "Keep." You should judge the deletion not just on the contents of the article, but on the article title and merits of the subject. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel Case 04:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24/7 English

AfDs for this article:

No indication of notability. Very few Google hits. Definite conflict of interest; see the original author. ♠P M C♠ 19:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Young Digital Planet, the company that makes it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The COI is a big problem. NN software. Shalom ^Hello 23:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability, no reliable sources, seems to fail WP:CORP. -- MarcoTolo 23:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very advertisementish. That could be fixed, but no notability assertion. i ^{(said) (did)} 20:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be one of a series of COI articles created by the same user. Other articles created include Young Digital Planet and Universal Curriculum. --El on ka 21:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the above reasons. Spam. Bearian 22:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in Harry Potter

Listcruft, Wikipedia is not a collection of... Will ^(talk) 21:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 21:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this could become a real article in addition to just a raw list. Published sources discuss the number of deaths in HP. Some people claim the books are inappropriate or try to ban them because of the deaths. Savidan 21:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is, and almost certainly never will be, any real world perspective in a list of in-universe events. 17Drew 22:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Right now until more elements are provided this should be only mentionned in which of the episodes in which the deaths had happened, otherwise, it does not add that much to what it is mentionned in each of the articles right now.--JForget 22:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What with the vast number of deaths in the seventh book this is a valuable article for knowing who was killed and by whom.--Benjamintchip 23:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In response to 17Drew's comment ("There is, and almost certainly never will be, any real world perspective in a list of in-universe events"), the real world perspective is completely irrelevant because this article refers to what happens in a work of fiction. If real world perspective were a criterion for keeping articles then every article on Harry Potter and every article on any other fictional literary, television, or film series should also be deleted. This, of course, would be insane and contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. --Benjamintchip 23:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In response to JForget's comment that "it does not add that much to what it is mentionned [sic] in each of the articles right now," I'm going to have to counter that it provides a convenient one-stop list for anyone looking to see who was killed when and by whom without having to dig through dozens of other articles to try and find out the answer. It also makes it much easier for anyone who is trying to find out just how many people have been killed throughout the series.--Benjamintchip 23:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Please do not bold the word keep multiple times; this is not a vote. You don't appear to understand what in-universe means. A decent article about a, for example, fictitional character will not be in-universe since it should contain real world information such as how the character was developed, how the character was received by critics, etc. As a good example, note how at least half of the Jack Sparrow article is about non-fictional aspects of the character. There's little, if anything, non-fictional about Voldemort killing some Bulgarian woman. 17Drew 02:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Savidan -Lemonflash ^talk 23:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TRIVIA that has little baring on the encyclopedic treatment of the Harry Potter series. --Farix (Talk) 23:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While narrative information is all well and good, a table can often help form connections that my otherwise be missed. For example, after reviewing this table, I realized that the only student that is credited by name with actually killing anything is Neville Longbottom, who kills the snake Nagini. Harry never kills anyone directly. He kills a diary which ends a not yet fully corporeal Tome Riddle and the wand kills Voldemort. So Harry has not actually killed any humans. Only the Basilick in Chamber of Secrets. With all the spells flying, is seems that a student should have killed someone, if only by accident during one of the seven books. I never would have realized this without this table. --Bogert 00:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC) — Bogert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keeep works of fiction are part of the real world, and a description of what is in them is appropriate for an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fictional works are part of the real world. That's why, for example, the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows article exists and provides a non-fictional context, such as details about its release and the reception from critics. But minor plot details do not have any impact on the real world. 17Drew 02:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, since the decision about what to do with one of these articles may affect the decision about what to do with the other. Deor 00:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Seems like terribly trivial information.Montco 01:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TRIVIA Marc Shepherd 01:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and add citations to reviewers commenting on the number of deaths in the novels. (As I noted in the other AfD, in my local newspaper this article was headlined "WHO WILL DIE?". The question of who dies in HP books has been the subject of non-trivial speculation in mainstream publications.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO, WP:TRIVIA and WP:LISTCRUFT. -- Jelly Soup 03:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In no way does the profusion of HP-related sub-articles meet WP:FICT. This accumulation of trivia is damaging to the reputation of the encyclopedia as a whole. Espresso Addict 03:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All this is is a list of fictional characters dying (most of whose deaths, I assume, would also be mentioned in the plot summaries of the books in question). If there was non-trivial independent coverage of the speculation about who might die in a given book, the place to mention it is in the article about that book. If there was/is a concerted objection to the novels because of the number of deaths, then there's an article on objections to the series into which that information can be merged. It should also be pointed out that, at least at the time this opinion is being expressed, all that's in this article is a list of names and causes of death - no coverage of speculation or of objections to the series is present. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many of the deaths are not stated in the plot summaries, and those which are stated in the plot summaries have to be ferreted for through much other text. Anthony Appleyard 06:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a very useful, organized list. Many of these deaths are not mentioned in other articles. --musicpvm 07:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USEFUL is not a valid reason. If important deaths are not mentioned in the plot summaries, they should be added. If the deaths aren't important, they're trivia and don't belong on Wikipedia. 17Drew 16:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an essay, not a policy or even a guideline, so carries no weight whatsoever. Reference to it should be something to avoid in deletion discussions. Golfcam 17:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With or without the reference to WP:AADD, the fact remains that usefulness is not a factor for inclusion. Plus, Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections is a guideline, and having an entire article of trivia is completely unacceptable. 17Drew 17:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the "guidlines" you linked to are not factors for deletion. The article doesn't even fit the definition of trivia given in WP:ATS, which talks about avoiding "loosely related" trivia sections in articles. It in now way relates to this list. --musicpvm 09:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia is defined as "items of unimportant information". Voldemort's killing an unnamed German-speaking woman, for example, has absolutely no real world importance. 17Drew 15:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that is not what the guideline you linked to defines "trvia" as, so that guideline does not apply in this case. The example you have given may not be very important, but death and loss are major themes in the Harry Potter series, especially in this final book. Almost every review of Deathly Hallows has stated the importance that death plays in the novel. For anyone wanting to research the major themes of this popular series, this is a very notable list, and not one policy that supports its deletion has been linked to. --musicpvm 22:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This Afd is completely stupid! Instead of this ridiculus afd, someone should simply put the material back where it belongs- on the relevant book pages. If this page is deleted, the info will re created either on this article, or on a differnet one. Why don't we do this now, and get this pathetic Afd out of the way! Dewarw 16:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It is appropriate to break a list out when it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article (says WP:LISTCRUFT). The list at HP7 reached that length. Jheald 19:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not having thorough coverage of a topic of such widespread interest as Harry Potter would be damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia. Golfcam 17:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some reason to believe that having an article about minor plot details (with no real world importance) of a fictional series is helping Wikipedia's reputation? 17Drew 17:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Oh my... I don't see a single valid reason to delete. "Deaths in Harry Potter" are the subject of multiple non-trivial secondary sources. Matthew 18:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Delete ALL SUCH LISTS, of which there are a staggering number. For some reason most don't come under scrutiny of the anti-Harry Potter editors. -JNF Tveit 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without reading it (Spoiler alert!!)I would say delete. There will almost certainly be no reliable sources to qualify notability for the entire article, and I believe most of these are from the last book correct? Unless its exceedingly long, it could just be mentions on the various book articles, and a possibly long list on the DH page. It would still be a bit crufty even then; since important deaths would be in the plot summary. The only thing that might keep it as a list is for ease of viewing. But still delete or merge. I ^{(said) (did)} 20:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For same reasons as already presented. Auror 20:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a separate page. If we put it back to being a section of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, likeliest someone will delete it, and someone will restore it, repeated indefinitely, coming and going like owls in the Hogwarts owlery. Anthony Appleyard 05:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rework A single list of all of the deaths is a very useful tool and should be kept. I only suggest that instead of using a list it gets changed to a table format as seen in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, because I believe it to be easier to comprehend and more organized. And then all of the other separate articles can be deleted.Csloomis 06:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - listcruft. Better to have the list broken up into the articles on the different books, if anywhere. - 52 Pickup 12:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info: I have changed Deaths in Harry Potter from a list into 7 tables (one per book). If you do not like it, revert it to [84]. Anthony Appleyard 16:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcrust/fancruft. Having it in fancy tables doesn't make it any less of a list. --Guess Who 07:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - with Chronology of the Harry Potter series#Deaths, they are all there already anyway.... Gran² 10:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have to say that is one of the most pertinent and sensible comments I have seen here. I wholeheartedly second that and also suggest

Merge to Chronology of the Harry Potter series, which does indeed already provide a home for exactly this information. Sandpiper 19:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is very useful for quick reference without having to siphon through the book series.
Merge into List of characters in the Harry Potter books, which can be argued to be "useful" information and an adequate table of contents for characters in the series. Olin 16:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Chronology of the Harry Potter series#Deaths, thanks for the tip, Gran. Claudia 17:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this is not encyclopedia material, original research, unsourced (outside the fiction itself) and, ultimately, not notable. — Coren ^(talk) 23:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information with no real-world impact, and take it to a Harry Potter Wiki if you want. There's no sense in having "List of [event] in Harry Potter". Some of the entries are just bad: "12 Muggles" in the third book. The last book's deaths were notable because everyone was wondering who dies- we can mention that people were wondering who would die and talked about who did die. We don't need an article documenting every death in the series.-Wafulz 18:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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