Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 30

< November 29	December 1 >

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 Speedy delete just as AfD was made, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maytableinc

Non-notable Youtube channel, no reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 21:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)===Dana Galkowicz===[reply]

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

Dana Galkowicz was the first brazilian victim of a misseli fired from the Gaza Strip into israeli territory .

Many groups took responsability for this , among then : Hamas , Jihad and Fatah .

Text write by Natan galkowicz , father of Dana

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 03:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rezon8 Living

Does not appear to meet WP:Notability guideline. Appears to be vanity article. Definite WP:COI issues and questions. No hits on Google Book[1], Finance[2], News[3], searches. Yet when you do a Google Web search[4] I see a spam-like pattern PR campaign. I conclude that this Wikipedia article is part of that PR campaign. SaltyBoatr 16:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jonathan 01:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. Mukadderat 21:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom, above. Bearian 00:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the references provided in the article are unconvincing, and in fact can't be pulled up. No references found in searching. Only opened in 2007, and does not appear to mee WP:CORP. -- Whpq 17:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - company is subsidiary of Inzane LLC, all information provided is factual and relevent. rezon8living 19:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.71.146 (talk) [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 03:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ole Tronstad

Mayor of small place (pop 5,938), no big achievements outside of the field, so fails notability (see WP:AFDP). Punkmorten 23:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jonathan 01:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. 6,000 is quite a crowd. And longtime mayor, too. This encyclopedia has articles about rabbis with several dozen disciples. Mukadderat 21:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The last sentence is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, please avoid it, it adds nothing to the debate. Opinions should always be founded in a relevant policy or guideline. In case you didn't read the link in the nomination, here's the relevant part: "Mayors of major cities have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors, although they may be notable for other reasons in addition to their mayoralty". Let's look at WP:BIO as well: "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." - he fails. "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." - no coverage shown. "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone." - no such other reasons shown. Punkmorten 22:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All info here could be included in Inderøy article. Merge if there is a volunteer, but delete this unreferenced and therefore unprovable notable article Victuallers 22:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:BIO. Bearian 00:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable politician that fulfills all three base criteria (notablility expressed, followed lining people criteria and included non-trival coverage by reliable, third-party source). It further satisfies the criteria "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." This is because Tronstad has been a Mayor of Inderøy (a place of notable size) elected inn for a period that will total 12 years. A serch on among other places Sesam shows that Tronstad has been "written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." Due to both his position as Mayor and as Chairman in Nord-Trøndelag Centre Party he receives multiple press coverage from a range of regional media, including articles concerned soley about him and his position (including winning the election in Inderøy and appointance of Chairman) and these articles are non-trivial, feature articles. Thus, Ole Tronstad fulfills all relevant criteria for in WP:Bio. Arsenikk 13:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Are you kidding? Mayor of a town of 6,000, good grief. WP:BIO. Are we now to have an article on every mayor of every small town. Inderøy is not "a place of notable size". Merge with Inderøy would maybe be OK. Herostratus 18:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 03:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manufactured music

"Manufactured bands" does get some ghits and seems to be a term that is close to emerging from being a neologism. But I don't think it's there yet, not to WP's standards at least. Otherwise, this article is completely a work of original research, and the best I can do to remove the OR is to scale this back to a dictdef. hateless 23:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a series of interrelated neologisms with no clue as to where any of these come from. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This has been tagged for months and has seen no improvement. "Manufactured music" could mean a lot of things, from Muzak to Algorithmic composition. I agree that this is OR, and the details of how each of these bands were formed is a subject best left to the artists' individual articles.Torc2 00:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blanchardb Jonathan 01:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 11:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the current article is unsubstantiated original research -- Whpq 17:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 pending discussion. Core desat 03:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin (emulator)

This is a non-notable piece of software that does not have coverage in reliable sources, and will most likely never have anything besides self references to its official site. TTN 22:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. TTN 02:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Anyone who knows anything about Game Cube emulators will instantly recognize Dolphin. As for notability see http://www.emulator-zone.com/doc.php/gamecube/dolphin.html and http://www.vtemulation.net/emulators/ngc.php. Mdmkolbe 07:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I used to be quite big into the emulator scene. I did minor help on many of the more notable ones. Dolphin was instrumental in alot of the homebrew scene. NGEMU, a reputable next-gen emu news-source, has alot of info on this emulator. Smile Lee 12:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well-known GC emulator. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What reliable third party sources are published about this subject? RFerreira 08:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you can find a few reviews on most emulator sites.. Therefore:

Keep Since its the only good NGC emulator around Yzmo ^talk 13:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close without comment Emulator articles in general are currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Video game emulator articles - proposed deletions. I see no particular reason for this AfD to be continued at this time while that discussion is in progress. Anomie ⚔ 01:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I think the references given above show that the article passes WP:N so it can still be closed keep independent of how the discussion you reference turns out. Mdmkolbe 15:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close without comment per Anomie. The status of emulator articles, including a possible merge or other change in the topic is under discussion at the moment. The two sides that have to be weighed against each other here are the obvious notability of the whole scene and topic, and many of the biggest players there, including Dolphin, to the dubious reliability of some sources involved. User:Krator (t c) 15:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - May as well let the project discussion deal with it. I'll let someone else close it. TTN 21:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 03:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weapon balance

Complete and utter original research by the looks of it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, seems to be entirely original research. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete unreferenced, although the topic does seem important in gaming. Mukadderat 22:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 03:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big_Hairy_Object

WP:Neologism WP:RS Stub category since April. A Google search reveals only a few pages, most of which are references to Wikipedia. Verdatum 22:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. However, if adequate sources are found, then merge with God object. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jonathan 02:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Minimal notability and no reliable sources. Does seem to be a neologism. Tim Ross·^talk 18:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into God object. Bearian 00:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you give some support for why you feel this way? -Verdatum 06:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as totally redundant to God object and introducing neologism without any sourcing to suggest it meets the notability guideline or to satisfy verifiability/no original research policies. If a good source could be found, then perhaps a brief mention on the God object page. Other than that, there's no new information here that you can't find anywhere else on the Wikipedia. mike4ty4 —Preceding comment was added at 09:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. delldot talk 07:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odyssey (herb strain)

In the interest of being thorough, we ought to consider this article as well which details an unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis like the others mentioned today. Delete. Coccyx Bloccyx 22:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, notability unclear. Mukadderat 22:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Waht i found is an eassy called 'A Cannabis Odyssey'.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, single-line article about a non-notable strain of cannabis. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Based on a careful analysis of the arguments presented, I felt few of the reasons for deletion were compelling from a policy or guideline perspective, and many of the keep arguments were. Many brief comments citing a lack of notability for the article were unaware of the scope of coverage (local vs. national). Although an interesting comment was raised concerning International vs. United States bias, the fundamental question from this argument is: Do we remove content to counteract this bias, or do we attempt to improve coverage in other areas? It is an interesting question, but the location for this discussion is elsewhere. Coverage on a national level remains sufficient for WP:BIO.

Other notabilty concerns revolve around the notability of the target versus the event. As W.Marsh mentions, this can be solved by renaming.

Other arguments for deletion revolve around WP:NOT, particularly that Wikipedia is not a memorial or a news source. These arguments are compellingly refuted by John254's thoughtful commentary. The article does not function as a memorial to individual victims of a larger scale tragedy (cf. Virginia Tech Massacre). Contrast effects are important here when considering the scope and scale of events in real world terms. Neither has a compelling case been made for harm of living persons.

The arguments for keeping are consistent and center around the article's reliable and verifiable sources, and that the scale and scope of these sources confer notability per WP:N (at least to the event, if not the person herself). Although other arguments for keeping do cite articles on other dead white women, and this is apparently an argument that should be avoided according to some essays; the presence of these articles does indicate an overriding consensus for the inclusion of high profile murder victims should they pass the community-determined criteria for notability. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Sander

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

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

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

Delete. Notability not established, just another unfortunate murder. WWGB 22:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep A search for "Emily Sander" brings up 2000 or so results from recent news. This has captivated the attention of the American Midwest, appearing on many headlines of the largest newspapers, and becoming one of the most discussed murder cases this year. It greatly exceeds notability guidelines. EgraS 22:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Extensive nationwide US press coverage (754 plus articles on news.google.com right now) clearly demonstrates at least transient notability. Claim that at the moment she's not notable is ... silly. Georgewilliamherbert 22:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~speedy~~ delete Does not belong to wikipedia We cannot put each and every event into wikipedia. This one belongs to the sister project, wikinews. `'Míkka >t 23:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under which speedy delete criterion? ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 23:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of stated notablity. Being killed is not among claims for glory, just bad luck. There are plenty of obituaries to fill wikipedia with, just open the door. `'Míkka >t 00:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh we only need to follow the policies he happens to agree with, I think. --W.marsh 23:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant disrespect duly noted again. `'Míkka >t 00:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are these comments supposed to be some kind of threat? You're the one who's called me abusive and a POV pusher. I've merely pointed out your mistaken grasp of policy here and there. --W.marsh 00:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CSD a7: "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. Now, once again I am asking: please explain why she is notable? Besides being killed is news, but hardly a fame. `'Míkka >t 02:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She is notable because of coverage by the Houston Chronicle, Associated Press and ABC News, which the article asserts, as well as the thousands of other news stories out there right now. Whether WP:NOT's concerns about long-term importance overrides that notability is impossible to determine right now without a time machine. --W.marsh 02:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki/Delete. This is a news story, not an encyclopedia article. Being a random white woman who is murdered is not notable. Reso lute 23:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't transwiki to Wikinews. It operates under an incompatible licence. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 23:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for now; this can be addressed sans drama later. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 23:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now We are not a news aggregation. If this is deemed as important a few months for now we can reconsider, when the drama dies down. --Doc^g 23:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage by unrelated Wikipedia:Reliable sources determines notability. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per WP:NOT#NEWS, currently it's news, if importance shows in a few months, we have WP:DRV This is a Secret ^account 23:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia does not report the news. Mr.Z-man 23:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per my other comments... too soon to tell so it's just more pragmatic to generate a good article now if people want to write it than turn away editors for bureaucratic reasons then hope they're around in a year or whatever if this does turn out to be important "enough". --W.marsh 23:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And she is notable for what? For being killed? How many murder cases do we have in the world daily? All of them are in most reliable sources: police reports and court cases. Coming to court cases. Petty theft and wife battering are also recorded in these same reliable court sources. How would you like to have a wikipedia article for each reported wife batterer? 23:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikkalai (talk • contribs)

Drop your uncivil tone Mikkalai, it's not helping you or your case any. — Save_Us_229 00:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teach your buddies manners first. What exactly uncivil in my text? `'Míkka >t 00:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'll hope you also realize that court transcripts and police reports are primary, not reliable, sources. The comparison doesn't hold. Someguy1221 00:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes reliable they are. Please learn how primary sources are used in wikipedia. `'Míkka >t 00:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know how they're used. I just hope that you know they don't prove notability, and they aren't used as sources for BLP information (the perp, for that part). Someguy1221 00:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They can be reliable Mikkalai, but they are not prefered over news sources. If you had nothing but primary sources and it was fair quailty it might be acceptable, but secondary sources are far prefered over things like court transcripts and police reports, which are hardly anything to make an article out of. This individual was reported from multiple secondary sources, so your argument about police reports and court transcripts is moot. — Save_Us_229 00:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Many many independent news sources exist which established notability. Nobody of Consequence 04:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have an article on Natalee Holloway? Sometimes the level of media coverage makes someone notable. This person has 1,600+ Google news results at last count... I have no idea if they'll get the absurd level of coverage needed to justify long-term importance, nobody does. But "when in doubt, don't delete" was the foundation of deletion policy on Wikipedia... some of us still believe in that for the most part. Waiting a few weeks avoids needless drama here... --W.marsh 00:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because even two years after her disappearance she is STILL getting mentions in the media. Yes, she is not notable in her own right, but her disappearance and the lack of information regarding her disappearance has stayed in the media's eyes for two-and-a-half years now. will381796 15:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would mean we're in 2009 now. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 16:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about, she disppeared in 2005, not 2007. — Save_Us_229 17:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the article's introduction paragraph: Emily Sander (1989 - 2007), was an 18-year-old American college student and nude model reported missing on November 23, 2007 and found dead six days later. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

will381796 was talking about Natalee Holloway's notability, not Emily Sanders.. — Save_Us_229 17:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deemed notable by a very long list of completely unrelated reliable sources, so not just an isolated news story. Someguy1221 23:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per the keep reasons above. Notable subject. — Save_Us_229 23:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep as others -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:NOTNEWS. She is only really notable for being a victim, I find this article and its focus on her nude modelling rather revolting, I'm very glad those disgracefully inappropriate categories have been removed. RMHED 00:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT doesn't fall under speedy deletion criteria. — Save_Us_229 00:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... And we're not censored, anyways. We have articles on notable porn stars, notable crime victims, and unfortunately Ms Sander appears to be both. Georgewilliamherbert 00:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, is any of her nude stuff still available? (I mean that on that level, for what I literally said, and nothing more, with no intended implications - I'd just like an answer).-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found some of it through Google Images, although many of the sites have taken it offline now.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Eventually it will have to be deleted anyway, and probably sooner rather than later. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 00:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read 'Not Memorial: Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. This is an individual who's murder has been published by secondary news sources and is written in a neutral point of view. So how does this article fall under 'Not Memorial' again? — Save_Us_229 00:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This woman's passing is her only claim to notability. So this article belongs in Wikinews, not Wikipedia. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 16:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - both sides are calling for a "speedy" conclusion. There's no need for that. There's obviously a debate here, so unless there's a violation of core policy do this very very slowly over 5 days.--Doc^g 00:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Mikkalai is blasting me for calling for a speedy conclusion, then calling for a speedy conclusion himself. --W.marsh 00:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Speedy Keep Open And Argue For A Long Time! Sorry, couldn't resist. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I quote from the oft-cited WP:NOTNEWS: "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial". There appear to be substantial sources that likely establish notability per WP:BIO. I agree that a future analysis of the sources may be appropriate and a lack of any further coverage could merit deletion. A WP:NOT#MEMORIAL argument seems silly to me, as it clearly indicates that demonstrated notability trumps any "memorial" concerns. This article meets absolutely none of the speedy deletion criteria, so those are poor quality recommendations in my opinion. — Scientizzle 00:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikinews & delete A sad story indeed, but odds are good that in a month this will be forgotten. She is not notable as a porn star & being murdered does not confer notability. will381796 00:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As said above, Wikinews apparently uses a different license so we cannot transwiki there. --W.marsh 00:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At the moment, this has failed to establish itself as being more notable than any other murder. I don't disagree that there's potential there for this to become a drawn-out, tabloid-esque drama -- but it's not yet, and WP:NOT a crystal ball. The comparison to Natalie Holloway is a good example of how an article like this became significant enough to merit an article. If it becomes more significant in the future, great -- the content will be preserved in the logs. For now, it needs to go. Tijuana Brass 00:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~speedy~~ Delete This is news and as such belongs in wikinews. Who was Emily before she was killed? I'm not a rabid wikipedian. I don't know all the policies, etc. But as I read the article, the first thought I had was 'Why is this here?'—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.56.191 (talk • contribs) — 24.23.56.191 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This article does not meet any speedy deletion criteria by stretch of the imagination. — Save_Us_229 01:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I'm new around here and don't know all the policies. I've changed my comment to Delete'.

Delete for now. Although I usually defend articles like this, it has only been in the news for a week and has a very high likelihood of fading from memory after the case is officially solved. Unless something big happens in the case, I would just chalk this up as another instance of missing white woman syndrome (maybe the proper place for mention of her).Sectryan 01:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had just about enough of political correctness. She is notable because she was in a small community which all came to protect one of their own, not due to race. Sure, some may not like the article, but Wikipedia reports on notable events and the high amount of media coverage more than exceeds the notability guidelines. Saying it should be deleted because of the supposed missing white women syndrome is the worst reason I have seen. EgraS 01:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, I could be persuaded to revisit this at a later date, but this story has gotten some national media coverage and could be considered at least marginally encyclopedic. Mikemoto, 01:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Georgewilliamherbert. Claiming that she isn't notable as of now...just silly, as GWH said. Jonathan 02:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now. Let the tide settle, and see if WP:PSEUDO applies. Certainly there are reliable sources, but whether a biography is merited is dubious right now. Also, anyone suggesting a speedy delete does not understand the speedy deletion criteria.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the speedy delete criteria, I'm just applying WP:IAR in this case. The article isn't encyclopaedic, it adds nothing of value, it is a relatively minor news story about a murdered young woman. Its creation in my opinion does more harm than good. RMHED 02:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What harm will it do? EgraS 03:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep An example of posthumous notability that meets WP:N as of now per above , which also means the future as well which is covered in the section WP:N#TEMP, saying she wasn't notable before death has no bearing. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 02:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC) change to relist at a later date see below.[reply]
Speedy Keep per national media coverage. --Born1913 03:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)— Born1913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
speedy delete This is a 2 week story. If she had not posed online we wouldn't be talking about her. I do not mean any disrespect, but that is reality.May she RIP. Historystudent2010 02:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a pretty moot point. There are plenty of articles that are 1 day old articles about news on Wikipedia about today. Her being a porn star doesn't even make any relevance as to the main reason she has an article. — Save_Us_229 03:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep so far, the details appear slightly more sensational than the Dru Sjodin case, but there were some notable repercussions from that case, at least in North Dakota. This may turn out to be a case of a young woman who made some unfortunate choices and suffered some consequences that others in her position haven't, but at this point, it's equally possible that there may be some lasting cultural shifts because of her unfortunate death. I'm willing to give accurate and impartial updates to the page benefit of doubt until this has matured another few weeks.

joshschr 03:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find the article, it appears to have been replaced with a breaking news story/memorial? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 03:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My reasons are given on the talk page. Basically I wish it wasn't notable, but it is, so it stays. Manning 03:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia's general notability guideline states that
A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
The extensive media coverage of Emily Sander in multiple reliable sources cited in Emily_Sander#Notes clearly establishes a presumption of the notability of this person pursuant to the criteria established in the general notability guideline. While WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is often misinterpreted to imply that "subjects whose notability is derived solely from the manner of their deaths are not notable for Wikipedia's purposes", the plain language of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL clarifies its purpose
Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.
Thus, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is a mere restatement of the applicability of Wikipedia's notability guidelines to deceased subjects, and does actually furnish independent grounds for deletion. WP:NOT#NEWS has also been advanced as an argument for deletion. Whatever the merits of ever raising WP:NOT#NEWS in any deletion discussion without claiming serious WP:BLP issues^[1], WP:NOT#NEWS clearly does not furnish a valid rationale for deletion here. Indeed, WP:NOT#NEWS expressly states that "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial"; the massive media coverage of Emily Sander cited in Emily_Sander#Notes would therefore suggest that this person is, indeed, an "encyclopedic subject". The purely subjective assertions of non-notability advanced by editors supporting deletion of this article fail to outweigh the presumption of notability established via the general notability guideline through objective evidence.

^ WP:NOT#NEWS was added to WP:NOT during the controversy surrounding the events considered in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, admonishes editors to "[keep] in mind the harm our work might cause", and advises that "While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news." The extent to which WP:NOT#NEWS ever applies to any articles other than biographies of living persons that present a substantial risk of causing serious embarrassment, humiliation, or other harm to their subjects is therefore doubtful. Archetypical of the sort of article that clearly qualifies for deletion under WP#NOT:NEWS would be a biography of a person whose sole claim to notability is an arrest for driving while intoxicated, where the event was only covered in two local newspapers.

John254 03:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This has been covered massively in the news media and is about as notable as notable can get. AfD has no merit. Nobody of Consequence 04:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability WWGB 04:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are we supposed to wait months and years before writing an article? This logic is a misinterpretation of the Notability policy. A short-term burst would be a couple days. This has been going on for over a week and has been covered by major news sources on a national level. Nobody of Consequence 17:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:NOT#NEWS. Although having a brief appearance in the news, the subject is not encyclopedic. --Strothra 04:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - add it to wikinews. --Philip Laurence 04:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really have to say that this "missing white women" has gotten out of control. Most of the population of the USA is white, and so is the percentage of missing persons. By simple population, there will be more coverage of whites. It is another weapon used by black supremists to destroy MLK's dream of equality. Today, one has to be pro-black in order to be "non-racist". How ironic. EgraS 05:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally the last person to argue for political correctness in any sense, however, this is actually a real thing. While I believe that none of these cases are ever worthy of national level media attention, the media does focus on missing white females far above and beyond missing black women. Not only this, but white and black males are both underrepresented by coverage.[5][6] The focus is far more heavily weighted toward middle class white women. The total number of missing women reported in the media at all is far lower than the national total which means that we already know that the media chooses what cases to broadcast based on their ratings potential.[7] There is a connection between racial representation in the media and its viewing. Most people who watch the television news are the white middle class, thus, the media is going to cater to that audience plain and simple - that's called business.[8][9] --Strothra 05:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, if she is currently presumed "notable" because of all the media coverage that is taking place right now, how much time must pass from the last media mention before she is no longer "notable?" She can't be "notable" forever simply because the media sensationalizes for a couple of weeks the fact that she was a porn star that just happened to get murdered. will381796 05:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If third party reliable sources treat a topic as notable by providing significant coverage of it, we should not be second-guessing that determination. John254 05:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can verify that people who have obituaries in the local newspaper are dead, and I can find local news sources the find out whether or not they were murdered. Simply because I can verify these facts does not mean I should write an article about each of them. The fact that this woman has attained temporary notability due to the media's current focus on her death doesn't mean she warrants inclusion. This woman's death will sadly be forgotten by most people in a month. will381796 05:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"obituaries in the local newspaper" are not news coverage. The extensive media coverage of Emily Sander in multiple reliable sources cited in Emily_Sander#Notes is quite different from the coverage described in the hypothetical example. Furthermore, with regard to speculations relating to how long Emily Sander's notability will persist, I note that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We should not countenance the deletion of articles on the basis of conjectural interpretations of future notability. John254 06:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as others make crystal ball predictions that she will be remembered in "100 years". So back to my original question: how much time must pass without any additional media coverage before she is no longer notable? I mean, her death has had no far-reaching implications (as of yet). She wasn't murdered by anybody notable. She wasn't even notable as a porn star. So if this is simply a young woman who was murdered and had her murder sensationalized, there must be a point at which we can say "she is no longer notable enough for inclusion." will381796 06:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Far better decisions are made at AFD when we apply objective standards of notability such as the general notability guideline -- which, as described previously, Emily Sander clearly meets -- than when the decision to retain or delete articles turns on the entirely subjective basis of whether a sufficiently high percentage of editors happen to regard the articles' subject matter as important. John254 06:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:N#TEMP : "A short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability." This media coverage has only been taking place for the past 7 days. I think this qualifies as a "short burst of present news" and as such DISQUALIFIES her as meeting the guidelines of notability.will381796 06:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's considered the sentence quoted, emphasizing the language "does not necessarily constitute objective evidence..." This implies that "a short burst of present news coverage" could "constitute objective evidence of long-term notability", just "not necessarily". In this case, the news coverage provided in Emily_Sander#Notes is sufficient to a establish a presumption of her notability per the general notability guideline. The burden of proof then shifts to the editors supporting deletion of the article, to show, on the basis of a solid policy or guideline based rationale, sufficient in strength as to override the previously described presumption of notability, that Emily Sander is not notable anyway (and not just "not necessarily" notable). John254 06:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable person. Will be noteworthy of coverage, even in 100 years; clearly passes guidelines. The Evil Spartan 05:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:N : "articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." Massive short-term media coverage does not confer notability just like a lack of media coverage following a long period of media coverage does not remove notability. will381796 06:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to accept conjectural predictions of future non-notability, as asserted by many editors supporting deletion, projections of future notability would be no less valid. John254 06:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to conjecture about the future. She's one of the more notable kidnapping deaths in the United States this year. This type of person is already notable, and by the information about this death will be notable in 60 years simply because it was notable now. The Evil Spartan 06:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? Your very argument above, "Will be noteworthy of coverage, even in 100 years," is pure conjecture substantiated in nothing. --Strothra 06:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that everybody that has received this kind of media coverage in the past has ended up being notable in the future. And again, the person passes WP:BIO with flying colors; just because the person is dead doesn't mean we should throw it out as a memorial. The Evil Spartan 07:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Memorial (Quentin X 05:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

From the 'Not a Memorial' section: Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Please point out the section that does this anymore than any other deceased individual.. — Save_Us_229 09:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Even if she wasn't murdered, she was still somewhat of a popular porn star. But either way I think this passes all the guidelines. 75.8.36.194 06:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC) — 75.8.36.194 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

She fails to meet the WP:N guidelines for a notable pornographic actress. will381796 06:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the only thing she's notable for though. This article is primarly about the subject, the subject is notable as being a pornographic actress and being murdered and the murder recieving national attention. — Save_Us_229 07:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How was she notable as a porn actress when her website was only operational for a matter of weeks? --Strothra 07:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She had 30,000 subscribers paying $40 a month. That is clearly notable. EgraS 07:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know those numbers are notable? Do we have subscription statistics of other comparable pornographic websites? Is this number average, below average, or above average for these websites? Without that information, one cannot know if 30,000 is a notable figure. For instance, a community little league team might have a fanbase of 500 which, on the surface, seems like a lot of people. However, when compared to a minor league team which might have a fan base of about 15-20,000 it is not notable at all. --Strothra 07:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, clearly notable based on major news coverage. Everyking 07:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The case has attracted wide and significant coverage ensuring that there is plenty of material to write an article on. Capitalistroadster 08:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newsworthy doesn't equal encyclopedic notability. It's very sad, but in a year, no one but her friends and family are going to remember her. This is only headline news, because one detail, which police are arguing is irrelevant to her murder, involves nude modeling. I'd be willing to change to keep, if someone could argue what she's done that is notable besides taking some nude pics and being murdered. AniMate 08:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- since I am certain the closing admin will respond with "the result was no firm judgement made" (meaning we're just flapping our gums), I'll be an asshole and say this: can we find some free-license dirty shots from her secret career? Guroadrunner 08:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be an asshole in response, but your not going to be putting dirty shots of this individual on her article, which is mostly about her death. We already have an image of her, and that is enough. We don't even try and find free-license images of pornstar's dirty images in general, and even if we did, we wouldn't plaster them all over the articles. If your looking for a porn site I suggest you get off Wikipedia because were not going to go looking for material for your amusment, especially of the deceased. — Save_Us_229 08:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a blatant anti-necrophilia remark. Attempted WP:POINT. (Actually, I just find it funny you took my post seriously) Guroadrunner 11:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it funny that you thought you were funny to begin with, because you weren't. — Save_Us_229 17:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ****s don't belong on wikipedia.--Tripsones 08:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC) — Tripsones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Neither do you. — Save_Us_229 08:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Wait a few weeks, then decide I changed my mind. If it is in national news it doesn't hurt to have an article. If it is still news in a month, we've got the article in place. If it isn't news in a month, the deletionists can have their crack. ~~Delete~~ latest entry in the white chick of the month club SchmuckyTheCat 08:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I must have forgotten Wikipedia:No missing white females policy. Are you actually going to be citing a policy cause I'm sick of the non-reason reason's people are giving. — Save_Us_229 09:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this still gets press play in a month then recreate it. SchmuckyTheCat

Is there a month rule I don't know about? We have an article on the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign office hostage crisis that happened today. Are you telling me that we should wait a month to see if it should appear in the headlines a month from now and then it get an article? — Save_Us_229 09:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes we ignore rules because we want to see long term signifigance. Hillary Clinton is a much larger issue than another dead white girl. The "wait a month" thing is just an arbitrary cooling off period to see that the issue needs to be remembered. If there is still press about it in a month, or if gets EVEN BIGGER during the week, I'll back you 100% to keep it. Wait and see, that's what I'm saying. SchmuckyTheCat

That hostage crisis doesn't have any "historical" or "long-term" notability either. It will be forgotten in the same sense that this case will. Nevertheless, they are both quite notable and appropriate subjects for articles because they have far surpassed the level of press coverage necessary to demonstrate that they are considered significant. Everyking 04:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep - this the existance of the hostage crisis as an article on Wiki is irrelevant to this discussion. --Strothra 04:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage from major news outlets. Lugnuts 10:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources so article can exist, potential to redirect to a non biography article. Catchpole 11:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Tragic as this murder is, it is a news story pure and simple. The victim is not famous/notorious to any degree, and does not warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. User:Bazmchat 15.01, 1 December 2007
Delete and place a soft redirect to the appropriate Wikinews article. When we have some indication of long-term significance (as opposed to ZOMG! Dead girl is teh pr0n star!) then we can think again. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes I am the one who began this article but I started it because I believed it deserved to be here. This article already got a speedy keep. The story has been covered by major news media and Sander was known before the murder. It is definitely notable. It's true that not every death gets national coverage, which is why every death or even murder is not in Wikipedia. Sometimes a murder doesn't even get reported in a major newspaper that covers the area where it occurred. But this death did get national coverage and is still getting it. As I'm writing this, this discussion is 37 kilobytes long--and it only began less than 24 hours ago. While that is not an official reason to keep the article, it certainly shows that people are interested in this story! Toyalla 16:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, it's an indicator that people actually check the list of current AfD's. Also, note that the speedy keep was for this exact deletion discussion, but the decision was speedily overturned. --Strothra 16:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen many articles listed in AfD that got five or six comments in an entire week. This has gotten dozens in less than a day. That's a bit different, I think. Toyalla 16:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know it's not required, but it would be nice if whoever tags an article for deletion follow the suggestion which is included with the tag "4. Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing (a notice--I removed the command symbols so it wouldn't mess up this page) on their talk page(s)." I wasn't notified, and as the beginner of this article it would have been nice. :-) Toyalla 16:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is certainly recommended that people nominating an article for deletion notify the creator and major contributors, but I highly recommend that you watchlist articles you have created or that you are otherwise interested in. Besides AFD nominations there is vandalism and unwise or POV revisions to be dealt with, and those persons will rarely notify you they have sandalized or butchered the article you created or edited. Edison 02:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this AfD has gained more attention than any of the previous 500, and I checked every one. This alone shows that it is noteworthy, and that there is significant enough interest to merit keeping the article. EgraS 04:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient notoriety. If this article is to stand then there appears to be virtually no criteria for entry. Regretable circumstances but emotion is not the rule here. Richard Avery 17:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is silly. Look at the list of references in this article! I don't really edit much anymore, but I feel I must support what is right in this case. Every time something like this happens, we get the people who want to "respect the dead" by deleting articles about them, or people who think someone covered by multitudes of reliable third party sources aren't notable because its "just another case of a dead white woman". What if someone were to say Emmett Till was just another case of a dead Black person? He's black and he was murdered, but the fact that he was murdered and covered in the news media is what made him notable (his importance to the equality movement came later). Otherwise, he was just a regular teenage black kid, same as anyone else. Racism on Wikipedia is one of the reasons I haven't edited in ages. Sander's race has absolutely nothing to do with her notability, which is clearly established. TheQuandry 17:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The fact that articles exist for other high-profile murder victims (Natale Holloway, Sandra Levy, some of the more well-achieved victims of high-profile disasters, etc) means that, if a murder case makes national news, it's fair game for an article. Death can and does render people famous and/or relevant. Wikipedia has an inherently democratic nature to it, so if it's something people are sincerely interested in reading about (and clearly they are) then it should stay until the case becomes trivial due to passage of time. Wikipedia is intended to be a reference for people to look up information on topics of interest; she is currently a topic of interest, and I'm sure her Wiki article has received MANY hits, so it should stay on if, for nothing else, for the mass public interest in the case- even if people are only interested in the fact that she was an online nude model. But hey, most high-profile cases gather attention because someone involved was wealthy or beautiful or otherwise sordidly interesting. There are murders and disappearences every day that hardly get a tagline in local newspapers. A story or a person is only as important as the mass public perceives it to be. This case is perceived to be of importance, so it should stay until that's no longer the case and nobody's bothering to search for or read the article anymore. --71.235.157.226 20:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)— 71.235.157.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: As many people are saying, we'll have to do this anyway three months down the road. Subject has zero notability beyond that, as Guy aptly phrased it, "ZOMG, she did p*o*r*n!! ... and there is nothing suggesting that this is a "high-profile case" beyond that this is the Scandalous Sweet Young Thing Murder of the week. RGTraynor 21:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think most articles are truly interested in finding the suspect, and have only mentioned her career as a porn star as an afterthought. It is her death that has attracted far more attention. As a poster mentioned above, this has achieved notability now, and is far too important to not be included.

Relist at a later date: Come on people, are we actually gonna get consensus by putting this up now? Let's wait a month or two for the flurry to die down, then we can actually see if this merits an article. Wizardman 22:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly meets every definition on this site for notability. EgraS 04:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Wannabe porn star gets picked up (or picks up someone) in a bar, leaves with him and gets killed. Where's the notability in that? Cut through the titillation and the voyeuristic element and it is just another sad case of a young life cut short. Let's try to elevate Wikipedia above the level of The National Enquirer. Krford 23:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Changing to Rename - see below.[reply]

I detect some animosity there toward Sander. This news has been reported by almost every major newspaper, even in the headlines such as in the Houston Times. EgraS 04:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as Death of Emily Sander or Murder of Emily Sander. I now agree that this case has too much attention to be deleted. I still believe that Sander herself is not notable; it is the circumstances of her death that have achieved notability. Krford (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can see both perspectives, but this is maybe covered by WP:NOT#NEWS: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events[...] Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right." I think only the loosest assessments of "historical notability" could sway for inclusion here.Brokethebank 23:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This news has occupied the mind of the entire Midwest. It will be mentioned again and again in the future, just like Chandra Levy and Laci Peterson. EgraS 04:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since the event has national news coverage in multiple reliable sources—this is our objective standard for inclusion. Not to mention the extra notability for her pornography career! — brighterorange (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The murdered individual was not notable prior to her unfortunate death and fails WP:BIO. Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Delete because Wikipedia is not a memorial site for the unfortunate deaths of young people. A brief flurry of news articles following a violent crime clearly shows that the crime is newsworthy but not necessarily that it has the notability needed to justify a permanent place in an encyclopedia. In any event, articles such as this should be titles "Murder of Emily Sanders" because it is the crime which has the news coverage, not the 18 year old woman. Before her death she was clearly not notable as a nude model. Edison 02:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you there. First of all, no news source has confirmed that she was murdered, although it is confirmed she's dead. And the number of news articles has stayed relatively constant since she disappeared. This case is not going away, and has attracted increased attention even as this proposed deletion is being discussed. The entry is no memorial, rather it does have all the hallmarks of an article. EgraS 04:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have one response for everyone who's called this a case of the supposed missing white women syndrome. First, the "syndrome" itself is disputed. Second, even if it were true, it's not Wikipedia's job to delete articles because of it. It is only Wikipedia's function to create articles that, like Sander, has gained notability. And because of the "syndrome" or not, this has gained far more fame than most murders. The press and perhaps the people have determined the importance of the subject. Therefore, it must be kept. EgraS 05:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2. I think you need to chill out for a while. You have already made over 60 posts on this topic in less than two days. Stop trying to dominate the debate, and give others some credit for independent thought. WWGB 05:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MWWS is a scar on this site more than any other article. You will not shut me up for opposition to this arbitrary "syndrome". EgraS 07:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

Keep without prejudice. First, the subject is clearly verifiable, since there are multiple citations. Given that there is significant attention in the media, I think that - at least currently - she meets the notability criteria. Note that 1) I consider the nomination good faith, so a speedy keep is inappropriate, and 2) my "without prejudice" comment means that this debate may warrant being revisted in the future (six months? a year?) to determine whether she is still notable. —C.Fred (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the verifiability thing is obviously a non-issue and I do believe this person is notable per WP:BIO guidelines. RFerreira 08:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. --Tom 14:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Other high profile murder victims, such as Natale Holloway, receive full, detailed articles. There is sufficient national news coverage on this incident that it can be on par with other cases on Wikipedia. Per other comments above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Under which of the Wikipedia:Speedy keep criteria is this article eligible for a speedy keep? It clearly fails #1 and #4, it fails #2, and no evidence has been presented for #3. —C.Fred (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete as it is more acceptable to Wikinews. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist at a later date: per Wizardman. this is a valid debate, but there isn't going to be a consensus right now. should be closed as no consensus (without prejudice) at the end of this process .▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 17:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Death of Emily Sander. She is not notable; but her death (and possible murder) is. BlueValour 20:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with this course of action more than simply keeping this article. It is, afterall, her death that has gained the media's attention and not her actions while she was alive. She alone is non-notable. will381796 21:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete: not encyclopedic topic. The person has no personal notability. Sometimes murders become landmark cases: precedents of Law, request in parliament/congress, etc. This one is a piece of sad, but merely newspaper news. Mukadderat 21:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have Wikinews for a reason. It was made for things that have brief spurts of coverage but no long-term historical significance. It'd be ok to recreate this if sources still talk about this six months or a year down the line. Spellcast 21:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple (hundreds of) non-trivial mentions in reliable sources, so clearly notable. As always, notability on Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. I don't personally think she should have become notable, because her murder is not particularly unique or exceptional, but the fact remains that she has become notable, because the rest of the world does not ask my permission before deciding what to take note of. So therefore, we should have an article on it. --Delirium 22:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a news source. This would be appropriate for Wikinews, but not for here. Nothing that shows the person is notable (the case may not even be notable as there is no evidence it caused any major changes in existing policies). The sources are about the case, not the person; notability is not inherited. --Coredesat 22:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that more an argument to move to a Murder of Emily Sander article than to delete this one? We generally don't delete and start over whenever someone suggests a new pagename. --W.marsh 22:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The case itself may not be notable. All the sources are incidental. --Coredesat 22:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - 1,700 publications incidentally carried articles about the topic? As if by accident? Incidental coverage means they were writing about something else but happened to mention this in passing... it's hard to fathom that 1,700 articles about this topic only ever mentioned it in passing and were actually about other things. Also you say "may", what ever happened to "when in doubt, don't delete" - founding element of our deletion policy? --W.marsh 22:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A quote from the AP written in December 30th's edition of the San Antonio Express News: "Sander's case drew wide attention after it was revealed that she appeared nude on a popular adult Website under the name Zoey Zane." Her story was not important enough for mentioning in the news until the media caught wind of the COMPLETELY UNRELATED fact that she was also a wanna-be porn star. Sex sells, hence why all the media coverage. She is still, on her own, not a notable person. will381796 23:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I like to think inclusion isn't just about picking the stories we would have reported on if we were newspaper editors. We aren't, and only including WP articles on topics we think deserved the coverage they got leads straight to bias. --W.marsh 23:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This case wasn't important to the media before the porn issue came to light. We're not being biased; if this is what the sources say, then the case was definitely not notable before this rather insignificant detail was found. --Coredesat 23:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So it's not biased to exclude an article just because it is related to porn? That sounds exactly like bias. --W.marsh 23:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nobody is saying "exclude her because she's related to porn." We're saying that she was a non-notable porn star who just happened to get murdered. She wasn't important enough for the media to focus all of their attention on until it came to light that she was in porn. The AP even admits that it wasn't until her "secret life" became known that she got all of the attention. Then...all of a sudden...she's all over the news. Doesn't this sound like news sources publishing something they think will sell papers and get viewers? will381796 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You are aware the article is titled 'Emily Sander', not 'Murder of Emily Sander', correct? The fact that she is more notable because of her involvement in pornography is a pretty explicit argument to keep the article, not to delete it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        And you are aware that WP has guidelines for what makes a pornographic actor or actress notable, right? She fails those guidelines. Being a non-notable pornographic actress who was unfortunately (and as of right now completely un-relatedly) murdered still makes you non-notable. Should it develop that her relation to porn was related to her death, then fine. That's different. But as of now its completely un-related. will381796 07:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Those sub-guidelines exist to establish conditions under which we can assume notability without the subject's obviously passing the general notability guideline. Failing to satisfy the specific conditions for its subject type does not negate the subject's notability if it still qualifies under the general notability guideline. Indeed, you'll notice that all of the sub-guidelines include the nutshell of WP:N. Someguy1221 08:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so we can be clear, you're saying that she would have a greater claim to notability if she received all this attention as a murder victim who wasn't a porn star? Being a porn star invalidates the press coverage that would ordinarily establish notability, because we have to factor in the media's motives for reporting a story (sex sells)? The point is that she received a high degree of attention from the media, not who she was or what she did to receive that attention. For our purposes it is utterly irrelevant if the media took note of this story because there was a porn aspect involved; the attention is what matters, not the reason for the attention. We cannot judge what is and what is not notable based on our opinion of people's motives for caring about it. Everyking 07:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I'm saying she'd have NO notability whatsoever (as the media was not focusing ANY attention on this young woman until it was discovered she was also a porn star). She's notable because of her death. I sadly understand the reality of our society and see that a murder, while tragic, isn't anything out of the ordinary or worthy of great national coverage. I don't care if she was a stipper, a porn star, worked at Jack-in-the Box or was unemployed. Had she not died, then at this time she would not yet be notable per WP:BIO. Had she not been a porn star, she wouldn't have had her death so sensationalized by the media. But who am I to argue with "guidelines?" I hold "GoogleNews" source counts with great skepticism. I believe that many of the "thousands" of media mentions are simply regurgitations and re-prints of AP articles. Obviously the interpretation of others so far outweighs my interpretation. But thankfully I have more important things to do than go and "count the number of independent sources." I'm glad to see that notability is now simply a matter of the amount of media coverage. No historical significance need be analyzed whatsoever. It is great to see where WP has gone in the few months since I was last active in AfD. Whatever. I am trying my best to abide by WP:DGAF. will381796 07:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are these "1700 sources" all different? Or are 90% just a copy of a newswire report used in different newspapers? Mr.Z-man 23:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hard to tell with Google News but many are different stories [10] WP:N only specifies multiple, it doesn't say 2,000+ or something. --W.marsh 23:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep now/Delete later". This is all over the news so it makes sense to keep this as long as there is coverage/investigation being done. But after it's all over, no one's going to care anymore, so delete it then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flytrap (talk • contribs) 03:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Ravenna1961 01:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But this isn't a news report or a memorial. It's an actual article. Nobody of Consequence 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Delirium, also this meets notability requirement definitely! I actually came here because i saw something on the news and wanted to see if there was an article and there is clearly one. the subject meets WP:N. saying article should be delete because she wont be covered later on in the press is crystal balling. Elbowdrop 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable when she was alive, not notable as a dead person either. All she did was post nude pics on the internet and get murdered, and it's not like that doesn't happen to thousands of other people every year. Move to wikinews. --carelesshx _talk 04:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the first time I've heard of a hot chick posing for pics nude then getting murdered after a few months... --Howard the Duck 16:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Widely reported. If you people still want to make this article not about the person, retitle it to "Murder of Emily Sander" like what was applied on "Disappearance of Madeleine McCann". (Heck we even have Response to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann...) --Howard the Duck 16:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not the job of Wikipedia to decide why something's notable, only that it is. Hundreds or thousands of news accounts certainly makes it notable. And we can't call this "Murder of Emily Sander" because it's not been announced that she was murdered--the cause of death hasn't even been released yet. Binky The WonderSkull 20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - which is why I suggested Death of Emily Sander and it can be moved to Murder of if/when it is confirmed. BlueValour 23:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Death of Emily Sander is an acceptable title for me. --Howard the Duck 03:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The strongest case of notability has been made for her death...not herself as a person. will381796 07:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is actually about her murder, with her online activity detailed in a shorter section. Nevertheless, deleting this article would be tantamount to violating WP:N so renaming it won't be that much of a problem. --Howard the Duck 08:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some research and the nearest recent parallel that I can find is Murder of Meredith Kercher. If we can get consensus for this page to be moved then it would need restructuring (which I am happy to do) involving removing the bio infobox, changing the cats and rewriting the lead. A summary of the bio would then conveniently go as a reference section at the end. BlueValour (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to an article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the designer of her site said "She actually was one of the highest-climbing Web sites I had ever seen. It was amazing; it was incredible." That should help establish her notability. Nobody of Consequence 20:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, the designer of a website saying how great it is is like a PR firm saying how good their clients' products are. Mr.Z-man 21:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - He wasn't actually talking about how great the site was, he was talking about how popular the site was. He doesn't atand to gain anything more anyway, particularly since he took her photos down (whereas he could have left them up and probably become hugely wealthy.) Nobody of Consequence 17:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN person --Cjs56 21:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's notable in two ways: she's a (presumed) murder victim whose death led the news across America, and she's an internet celebrity. We have articles for hundreds of each of those. The fact that the two things are related doesn't diminish the significance of either.--Mike Selinker 01:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"internet celebrity" you are kidding, right?? --Tom (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Simply put, she has no historical importance.68.244.95.182 07:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is almost certainly going to closed as no consensus, but we could try for another AfD in a month's time when less people care about the article's subject.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The most representative decision is going to come at the time when more people care about it. It certainly should not be renominated in only a month; that's a classic recipe for deletionists getting rid of something after it falls off of most people's radar screens. If this is closed as keep or no consensus, the issue should not be raised again for a considerable length of time. Everyking (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: If it falls off radar screens, that would mean that people don't really care as much as all of that. As it is, I note that this supposedly highly notable case has already dropped off the media's radar screens. RGTraynor 14:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The danger in a subsequent nom is that people who care about the subject may have become sparse, leaving the outcome in the hands of group of deletionist-leaning AfD regulars who are not interested in the subject itself, but merely in "pruning" Wikipedia's content. Such a nom would be nowhere near as representative as the current nom. It is irrelevant whether or not the story remains in the media at the present time; it has already achieved its notability, which lasts forever. Everyking (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - A 100 people are murdered everyday in the U.S., and how many world wide? Are you going to start an article for every person murdered in the world everyday? 4.240.201.1 (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, just the ones that satisfy the notability guideline. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While it's sad that a girl has died, it really is non-notable (although her family and friends would, of course, disagree). This is purely a local news story (it certainly hasn't made it to the UK). -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. [11] Not the greatest source, but there you go. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even barring the mention in the Sun provided above, this is actually a national news story, not a local one. The AP and newspapers across the country have covered it. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know about the UK, but this story has been reported in the United States, Mexico, and even Canada (see the current version of the article for a Canadian source). That makes it international. Besides, where does it say notabily mean it has to be an international story? Binky The WonderSkull (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. She died. That is only local news. Nothing special. People are killed every day. Metal Head (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not a local story, it's a national story. And people are notable if they fulfill WP:N, which this person does based on the many reliable third-party references. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Different outcome in different articles. Lansing Bennett was a CIA employee who was murdered by a Pakistani gunman on a rampage to kill CIA employees. There was international news coverage, not just US coverage. The article was deleted (but some of the content merged). The Baby Grace article Riley Ann Sawyers is another murder but this has not been selected for AFD. For now, I am not mentioning if I think this is a delete or keep because of my involvement in the Lansing Bennett debate. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't believe the Lansing Bennett comparison is significant, as Emily Sander's death was not part of some larger story. If it fit clearly into some other article, I don't think there would be much discussion here. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to think but as I've just said whilst looking at the Meredith Kercher article, it's a depressing prospect that sensation lovers are leading an encyclopedia by the nose. Allowing the media to determine what is and isn't notable is a bad joke.... I bet we wouldn't be having this arguement if it was an ugly middle aged man who had been murdered. I think that WP needs to establish a specific guideline - I've no idea how to go about it. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 18:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a well-presented article with numerous reliable references. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the problem with establishing a guideline is that there would be no consensus on it. Since even this fairly obviously significant article is contested, what will we agree on? Decision from a random number table? DGG (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First I think think some of the comments on this board are blatantly disrespectful to victims of crimes. Yes Ms. Sander is not the first victim of a crime. Her story is told over and over again in the murders of women everywhere. Besides Children women are the most victimized in society. My wife and three daughters are growing up in a world where Males seem to have horrible control issues. This story was important and continues to be important but not for the reasons most people seem to hang on to. The fact this young lady posed nude on the internet should not be the focus. Yes it probally was a mistake but not one she should die over. This case should stay a topic until the killer is brought to justice. Perhaps not such a big story as it is now but a story none the less. I just hope the porn star accusations will go away. Despite what others may think Emily was not a porn star. She was no more a porn star than a playboy plamate. No one calls those girls porn stars. We live in a world of hypocrites. They call Emily a porn star in the press and go in their own homes and hotels and watch porn movies behind closed doors. Shame on society. Emily was a human being and did not deserve her fate. Good Day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.15.221 (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is neither a memorial nor a soapbox. Mr.Z-man 21:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benevolent dictator

Does not meet WP:N nor WP:V. Article appears to be WP:OR and WP:NPOV and this seems to already be adequately covered in Dictator#.22The_benevolent_dictator.22. Collectonian 22:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A worthy topic for Wikipedia, but unreferenced; probably the best course of action is to redirect to Dictator (little content to merge). - Mike Rosoft 22:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect Will ^(talk) 22:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Philosopher king. Both concepts have the same origin and are similar in many ways, and "Philosopher king" is more notable. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 15:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but where? Blanchardb's Philosopher king idea would fit, but would require a good deal of effort. Dictator or even Enlightened absolutism might be easier. Tim Ross·^talk 18:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content is unsourced and posibly personal opinion, so a merge would be inappropriate. No opinion on a redirect afterwards. Someguy1221 01:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rearrange with splits and moves. The software term Benevolent Dictator for Life is up for deletion also: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benevolent Dictator for Life (2nd nomination). Ideas in my order of preference (same as I posted on the other AfD, but from this article's perspective):
1. Idea 1: Merge the state government (non-software) parts of Benevolent dictator — at least those that aren't WP:OR or non-WP:NPOV — into Enlightened absolutism or a section of Dictator. Then move/merge Benevolent Dictator for Life and remaining software part of Benevolent dictator into a new Benevolent dictator (software development) and make Benevolent dictator an disambig for the software and state meanings.
2. Idea 2: Same as above, but with software stuff merging into Lead programmer, if appropriate, instead of having its own article. Make Benevolent dictator a disambig to explain the Lead programmer and Enlightened absolutism/state Dictator meanings.
3. Idea 3: Keep Benevolent dictator and merge Benevolent Dictator for Life into it.

--Closeapple 10:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep With minimal effort I just added three references for the use of this term. This article should be kept for no other reason the last section on the model of software development. However this term is widely used in america and quite notable as it is used even in major news sources. So it's plenty notable see the New York Times. The tone looks fine to me, also, not full of jokes or anything. And as for deleting unsourced article, I hope we editors can try and find some sources before saying it is unverifiable, it's just as easy to fix/edit/source an article as it is to nominate it for deletion which should be the last alternative. If it is somehow decided to merge, then it should be to Enlightened absolutism, which also obviously needs work.Earthdirt (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The popular use of "benevolent dictator" as a rough synonym of "Philosopher King" is probably worth documenting. However, I understood the term as a primary economic one. In neo-classical economics, it is convenient to consider groups of people (families, economies, etc) on aggregate in terms of one representative agent. However, this frequently doesn't make sense, Keith Arrow's impossibility thereom (on which there is a fairly good wikipedia article) being a formally proved version of the intuitive objection that groups often don't behave in the same way as individuals. The concept of the "benevolent dictator" was introduced by the economist Frank Ramsey as a way of sidestepping this objection, imagining a powerful individual (basically a stern father, since the unit initially under consideration was the family) whose individual preferences are imposed on the group, resolving any irrationalities in the conflicting aggregate preferences. I'm not really familiar with editing Wikipedia so I fear I'm violating your procedure/etiquette, but there's a frustrating lack of sources online (the best I found was this: http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue27/Harcourt27.htm) and I hoped you good wikipedians could remedy that. Cheers, Dave S 10:04, 05 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep It is noteworthy according to WP:N since it is often cited in the media as stated above and therefor will be looked up. It is also verifiable in the same way as "dictator" is per se, therefor WP:V is valid, too. — comment added by DyingGasp (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. nothing to merge as it's unsourced WP:NOR Secret ^account 00:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White House (Zork)

The article is not notable, and has no references to verify its contents. As such, it is just an in-universe repetition of various plot facts from Zork game articles, and is totally duplicative of those articles. Judgesurreal777 22:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the previous, as little to nothing has changed in the article since:
"Delete. Within the Zork universe, the "White House" is quite notable; and as such I recommend the merging of any pertinent reliably sourced information into either Zork I or Zork. But it certainly does not meet the notability requirements for fiction. (03:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC))"
In the previous nomination, JJL (talk · contribs) suggested that Chuck's pilot episode might have referenced the White House. I have since seen that episode, and while it does reference Zork I, it does not reference any content within this article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any info into Zork that's not already there. This is a key location in the game. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 11:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this is an important piece of gaming history. 132.205.99.122 23:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sourceless. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benevolent Dictator for Life

Self-given title applied to a single person with a mention of another person using it as his IRC nickname? I'm finding it hard to find its use as an IRC nickname notable at all, and Rossum's original use of the title does seem notable outside of his own article. Previously AfDed with Keep and suggestion of merging into The Cathedral and the Bazaar however, nothing in the article appears to relate to that, so reAfding as it is already covered with about the same breadth as Guido van Rossum. Collectonian 21:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Redirect to Guido van Rossum. If it is a psuedonym for the guy, it may as well redirect to him, right? I must say I'm quite confused by the contents of the previous AfD. -Verdatum 22:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete this article is pure speculation, and if not anything else should be merged into the article related to the creator, not a seperate strand, related only to his nickname.Eastonlee 01:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How is the article speculation? Dispite all it's failings, it is certainly properly citing references. -Verdatum 01:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Guido van Rossum. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 15:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Okay, I read the somewhat confusing AfD, I read the article, and I looked at each and every ref. There's nothing here. As far as I can tell, the term is used only *once* in any of the references in relation to to Guido van Rossum: "As long as the community recognises me as the BDFL (benevolent dictator for life) of Python, I have an effective veto right on any change proposals." That's it. The rest may mention the phrase "benevolent dictator" in some form or another, but don't seem to relate to Rossum. No notability to the so-called title at all. Not even worth merging in my opinion. Tim Ross·^talk 18:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Guido van Rossum - While I'm pretty sure the term refers to other open source project leaders as well, and I personally find it notable, the article as it stands can't stick around. It needs a complete rewrite to demonstrate its notability; indeed, it will need to be written about something more than just a nickname for Guido. -FrankTobia 19:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rearrange with splits and moves. I'm not sure where. "Benevolent dictator" for software development might be notable enough to have at least a section, maybe an article, since multiple people have generally been described that way, but there isn't enough difference in "for life" and not "for life" to justify splitting the software development meaning across two articles as it is now, and people are going to get "BD" and "BDFL" confused for sure. Benevolent dictator is up for deletion also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benevolent dictator, so now is a good time to do the content dance. Ideas in my order of preference (same as I posted on the other AfD, but from this article's perspective):
1. Idea 1: Merge the state government (non-software) parts of Benevolent dictator into Enlightened absolutism or a section of Dictator. Then move/merge Benevolent Dictator for Life and software part of Benevolent dictator into a new Benevolent dictator (software development) and make Benevolent dictator an disambig for the software and state meanings.
  - I second that. Seems reasonable. --LuckyStarr 22:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I vote for it, too. Redistribute and then redirect from here. --DyingGasp 15:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Idea 2: Merge Benevolent Dictator for Life and software section of Benevolent dictator into Lead programmer, if appropriate. Leave the remainder (state government part) of Benevolent dictator to its business over there, whether that's being deleted or merged separately.
3. Idea 3: Merge Benevolent Dictator for Life into Benevolent dictator, assuming that article survives AfD itself.

--Closeapple 10:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'dabify 132.205.99.122 23:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't redirect. What we have here are several similar titles that have been pulled together to try and make an article but there is no article here. I also don't see the benefit in redirecting to Guido van Rossum; no-one looking for his article is going to use this as a search term, surely? TerriersFan (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BDFL might be a pithy little comment in the article on van Rossum, but it does not warrant an article all by itself. PKT (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. currently unsourced, WP:NOR, Secret ^account 00:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outer Heaven

AfDs for this article:

The article is not notable, and has no references to verify its contents. As such, it is just an in-universe repetition of various plot facts from Metal Gear game articles, and is totally duplicative of those articles. Judgesurreal777 21:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete in-universe unreferenced gamecruft. Mukadderat 22:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Explains a confusing, frequently recurring concept. KDerrida, 3 December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 08:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useful, unfortunately, is not a wikipedia guideline or criteria. Judgesurreal777 16:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say or imply that it was merely "Useful", as that would be an Argument To Avoid. To break it down: My arguments are that Hideo Kojima's work is highly influential, both in America and Japan (which I may assume that you would not debate, having not nominated his body of work for deletion), that Outer Heaven is a frequently-recurring important plot point in his work (as this article should demonstrate), and because of this particular topic's confusing nature, listing it in pieces in subheadings inside different Hideo Kojima articles would provide less of a clear picture to the reader, acting more as random trivia than a proper explanation. If you feel that it is both repetitive (or as you put it, "totally duplicative") and unreferenced, you might consider eliminating this information from the original Metal Gear articles, and finding references for it. -KDerrida (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this persons works are as influential as you say, I am sure you will be able to find a good number of references that are needed to keep it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant in Kojima's works. Whoever had been revising the article recently didn't put in references. Ominae 17:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well tell them to put some in, otherwise the article will have no proof of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Metal Gear. The only game in the series where Outer Heaven has any real relevance to the plot seems to be the original (where Outer Heaven is the name of the enemy fortress the player infiltrates). All the other mentions of Outer Heaven in the series are just that, throwaway references. Jonny2x4 (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sourceless. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. east.718 at 00:36, December 1, 2007

Bandit Hunters

Game appears to be completely fake. Uses http://maiji.deviantart.com/art/Bandit-Hunters-39522006 which is not only done without the original artist's consent, but is also a fanart of a completely unrelated game. The ESRB rating is also a hoax, as the ESRB's website has no records of a game named Bandit Hunters, even with the RP rating. Finally, BlinDVault Studios apparently does not exist beyond Wikipedia articles. Onyxstraten 21:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete as hoax, fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as complete nonsense. Come on! Date of release nearly three years away? And have you looked at the plot? So tagged. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 00:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous versions of this article don't make much more sense either. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 00:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 03:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CuteNews

AfDs for this article:

Article for a software program that is not sufficiently notable per WP:CORP. Specifically, this program has not “been the been the subject of coverage in secondary sources”, such sources being “reliable, and independent of the subject.”

This article was deleted at its first AfD nomination, but then kept at a second AfD discussion. I did not believe that second result was correct, but instead of a DRV review I decided to give the article time to improve, if possible. It has now been over a year and no substantive improvements have been made. In fact, the article still contains not one single third-party source, and I was unable to locate any reliable ones that provide non-trivial coverage of the subject. It is time for deletion again. — Satori Son 21:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am a regualr user of CuteNews software. The project is just about dead. Not unique in having a flatfile database system. Hammer1980·^talk 21:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable enough to have an article here, plus there are much shorter software articles, and a lot of less famous CMSes with their article here, and CuteNews is quite famous. --escondites 05:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It may well be the other articles are not sufficiently notable per WP:CORP. Hammer1980·^talk 17:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn Mukadderat 22:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, and probably won't be. Talked to the developer of cutenews, and the project seems to be dead/unactive. Although I've used this software myself, it doesn't meet notability guidelines. Alecwh 09:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the script is still widely used and the article states that there ARE plans for future version + the forum post on the original website states that such version is in development, 1 year of no updates does not mean a project is dead 217.169.30.225 09:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC), 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But the dispositive issue is not whether the project is "active" or "dead", but whether the subject meets the notability requirements for inclusion set forth at WP:CORP. — Satori Son 17:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 03:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell Clark Preschool

Non-notable, shuttered preschool, seems to have been the subject of a very local controversy over its closure. Prod tag sneakily removed. AnteaterZot 21:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN per nom. Bearian'sBooties —Preceding comment was added at 04:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Preschools have the same right to have a Wikipedia article as elementary schools, junior high schools, high schools, and post-secondary schools. This school has served the area for decades and it is as notable as any elementary or high school. If there were no preschools, then children wouldn't have the advantage in Kindergarden over children who didn't go to preschool. Besides, someone might have gone to this school and it is not a good idea to erase articles about schools (regardless of what age group it serves). GVnayR 03:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That "right" requires reliable, third party sources, on the page, explaining why the subject is notable. As a matter of fact, many people disagree that high schools are inherently notable; look at the upper corner of this page for the ongoing debate--or click here. AnteaterZot 16:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply no assertion of notability, unless being part time is notable. No school has the right to an article, so that argument is specious. Vegaswikian 23:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 03:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, Janet!

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dammit, Janet!

Articles for deletion/Dammit, Janet (Second Time)!

Third time the article has been nominated for deletion. Talk Page shows a huge chunk of excised material with questionable sources and possible violations of WP:OR; this could also be reflected into the main article. References link print media: attempts to locate online sources met with little success. Asking people to provide other sources have been fruitless. I'm led to believe the article is nothing more than fancruft, and is in violation of WP:SYN, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. 293.xx.xxx.xx 20:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was settled just last month. The AfD had clear consensus to keep. Renominating now based on no strong new reason is inappropriate. It's still the same song. Wryspy 21:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has been to AfD twice already since October 9. There's nothing to show why it should be deleted now. Give it a rest. --Smashville^BONK! 21:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we're talking about the third nomination in a little over a month...that's just a little bit of overkill. --Smashville^BONK! 21:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can safely ignore this person Smashville, he seems to make snippy comments all over this place. Coccyx Bloccyx 22:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How many times do we have to reiterate the same arguments over and over? Song is notable, article is well referenced. Give it a rest already. -- Sander Säde 21:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, due to the recency of the previous AfDs, I believe this qualifies for speedy keep. Repeatedly nominating something on the chance that you'll happen to get a combination of people who will !vote the way you want is inappropriate. It shows a lack of respect for the Wikipedia process. It could be perceived as obstinate determination to get your way no matter what others may think. Wryspy 21:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could argue that the second AfD was vote-stacked by Rocky Horror fans. That could be construed as also circumventing Wikipedia policies. --293.xx.xxx.xx 21:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be an argument for DRV, not for hitting people with another AfD. Wryspy 22:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not much of a Rocky Horror fan, but this is a notable song. JavaTenor 21:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I probably wouldn't have reopened this one, because I have given up. The song just isn't notable as an independent entity. The closing admin on the last AFD admitted that he closed it for inappropriate reasons (all the 'keep' votes ignored multiple policies, but they were a clear majority, so he went with them to save the hassle of a DRV). Insufficient sourcing, insufficient notability. What passes for sources in the article are passing mentions, and there is not a single source that addresses the topic directly and in detail, which is required by WP:Notability. Redirecting to Rocky Horror Picture Show is the best that should happen to this thing.Kww 21:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're right, then that's a reason for deletion review, NOT reason to club people with the same AfD over and over. As a matter of fact, basing your argument on a closing admin's alleged admission illustrates even more strongly that this AfD is inapppropriate because DRV fits your assertion. Deletion review reason #2: "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions." I'm not saying you're right. I'm saying that's what fits your claim. Wryspy 21:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It did go through deletion review, and survived despite the closing admin supporting an overturn of his own decision. That's why I gave up, and did not resubmit this thing myself. It's a shame, but sometimes the worst garbage gets kept because people like it, not because it belongs in an encyclopedia.Kww 21:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, there you have it then. The thing has had its deletion review. This AfD is just wrong. Personally, I don't care whether the song is notable or not. Editors have to respect Wikipedia's process. See the relevant deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_October_25. Wryspy 21:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - And it's still having problems. Nobody has attempted to correct them, nobody has even given me ONE single reference pinning Dammit janet to any of the news articles and Rocky Horror, and as it stands, I think the article is nothing more than a well written piece of fancruft. My stand is Delete. --293.xx.xxx.xx 21:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Part of the problem is that you deleted almost half of the article and almost half of the references because you dubbed the section on pop culture references as WP:OR. This is one of those things that is largely notable because of it's prevalance in pop culture...removing that part of the article instead of just rewording it...and then nominating it for deletion...doesn't seem right. --Smashville^BONK! 22:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This issue was addressed and resolved barely seven weeks ago. This seems to be an effort to subvert WP:CONSENSUS. Alansohn 21:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit, Keep it - Sorry I had to say it. Yes keep it. Discussed and settled before. Gtstricky 21:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I know we're supposed to comment on the article and not the editor, but I think it needs to be pointed out that the nom removed a huge chunk of text and 16 references from the article[12] after the last AfD. --Smashville^BONK! 21:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject text was reinserted, and I deleted it again myself. It is WP:OR of the worst kind ... if someone makes a joke about Janet Jackson's boobs, it's synthesis to tie it to the song unless the article being quoted links it to the song.Kww 21:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't original research. It was a poorly written "references in pop culture" section. --Smashville^BONK! 21:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A classic song from a classic show, so much so that the title has entered the pop culture lexicon and has been widely used as a punning headline or other text. --Malcolmxl5 21:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~It should be noted there have been two DRVs - one overturning the delete and one supporting the keep.~~ --Smashville^BONK! 22:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are keeping score, this article originally failed the AFD. Jreferee then pasted together a pile of passing mentions, carefully keeping to hard copy references, and created this thing as a result. No DRV occurred to override the AFD, which is why I redirected it as an obvious attempt to bypass consensus. That redirect was reverted, which is why I went for the second AFD. By that time, the fan base was sufficiently mobilised that they keep the article alive. Since the AFD review consisted of fans that refused to support their arguments, that AFD was taken to DRV, which again attracted nothing but fans. That DRV was the only DRV that has occurred. Just for fun, go try to find a single reference for this article that passes the "direct and detailed examination" requirement. As I've said, I've given up on actually getting this thing excised from Wikipedia. It just points out the process problem ... fans can always override policy if enough of them show up for reviews.Kww 22:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad...there was a Rocky Horror Songs article taken to AfD...Admittedly, I've never seen the movie...and didn't know it actually contained songs until the last AfD... --Smashville^BONK! 23:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it is a classic song from a classic show I don't see what the problem is. Coccyx Bloccyx 22:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix. Majoreditor 22:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep too many AFDs in too little time. Also, Print sources are fine and in fact should be encouraged. Will ^(talk) 23:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to be clear, I have nothing in general against print sources (except that to verify them, I have to fly to a country that has English-language libraries, no mean feat when you live in South America). Exclusively using print sources seems a bit out of line, and makes it difficult for a critic to prove his points. I'm pretty sure that an Entertainment Weekly article on The Indie 50; The essential movies contains, at best, a passing reference to the song, and does not deal with it directly and in depth. The author of the article has refused to provide excerpts from his sources to support his contention that they do, and from the titles, it's pretty clear that they don't.

Keep Jeez! Leave it alone already!--Brewcrewer 17:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and User:Kww. The first AfD got it right. Xihr 07:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "References link print media: attempts to locate online sources met with little success" live with it, not everything revolves around the internet. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 11:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per apparent consensus above. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 03:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Goods Partners

doesnt seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Reads like a PR piece Hu12 12:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article seems to portray GGP as a charity-style organization, but this article discusses a fashion show where they had product. If the article is kept and rewritten, as it probably needs to be anyway, we need to find independent sources that tell us what GGP actually does, as the article was not clear enough to make that point (to me, anyway - maybe I misread it). ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Idealist.org is a reliable source. Needs more of the same, cleanup. Bearian 17:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Also, notability is not inherited. This is nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.--Hu12 23:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. Mukadderat 22:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no substantive, reliable secondary sources that I could find. Searching Google News and Google News archive turned up a handful of references, all passing.^[13][14] --A. B. ^(talk) 20:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 20:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 non-notable musician, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chill Will

Non-notable musician, no chart listings, cannot find anything to verify this artist's notability. CSD remove by author, PROD removed by anon. Wildthing61476 20:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 as non-notable musician, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also listing the discography page:

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete both; fails WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Result was Delete. James086^{Talk | Email} 10:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Express News Channel

Notabaility not established. Hammer1980·^talk 20:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable; no reliable sources. Google doesn't have anything relevant either. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced and I am having trouble finding any. Capitalistroadster 02:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable News Channel. Masterpiece2000 12:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Ioeth, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Postage stamps and postal history of Azerbaijan

Sorry but I just don't get it, this is not an article at all. Do we allow placeholders like this? If nothing more is to be said, I have to say delete. Coccyx Bloccyx 19:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline speedy delete under CSD A1. About the only real content is The postal stamps from 1992 onwards are issued by Azermarka.—Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete a1 for lack of context, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eating club

If Dining club is considered notable in the discussion down the page, then maybe this article could be merged into it or vice versa. If the discussion establishes that it doesn't warrant an article then maybe this should be deleted too. Hammer1980·^talk 19:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if this is legit, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wryspy 21:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even this small and young article is already much more than a dictionary entry. Wikipedia is exactly where I'd look up an unfamiliar American term like this, which incidentally I don't seems to find in any online dictionaries, including OED, or the paper ones I have here. Flapdragon 21:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mentioned in biographies of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, etc. I'm sure lots of good cites could be found with a bit of work. Appears to be notable by itself, or merge with Dining club. Bearian'sBooties 04:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though I agree with Wryspy that Wikipedia shouldn't try to emulate a dictionary, I don't really see how that is relevant to this particular article. Coccyx Bloccyx 23:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in a number of universities, probably beyond the one listed here. Certainly relevant in American society. DGG (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moldavia (Richmond)

Is this property notable ? Edgar Allan Poe's last address. No references in the article. A little on Google. Hammer1980·^talk 19:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the house were still standing and recognized in some way e.g. on the National Register of Historic Places or at least an official Richmond landmark it might be worth inclusion, but there's nothing of significance asserted about this long-demolished building anyway. Even if you're Edgar Allen Poe, notability is not inherited by the places that you've lived.--Dhartung | Talk 19:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anything useful can be placed at Edgar_Allan_Poe#Preserved_homes.2C_landmarks.2C_and_museums; there isn't nearly enough here to merit its own article. Xymmax 19:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no references found to indicate that the place is itself more notable than a trivium good for a sentence in a biographical article. I don't see any additional information worth merging into the parent article, either in the section mentioned by Xymmax or in the earlier part where it already appears briefly. Barno 21:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable property. Masterpiece2000 12:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this material does not warrant a separate article. RFerreira 08:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Peripitus (Talk) 05:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wallaby (manga)

I did not create the article, but have been the principal editor for several months, and have come to the conclusion that this incomplete manga (which didn't last long enough to fill a collected volume on its own) does not meet the notability requirements. Certainly it does not meet notability requirements for books, and while that guideline does not completely apply here, it is indicative. I'm bringing it to AfD rather than PROD on two considerations:

The unusual left-to-right format might make it exceptional enough to be notable.
The main characters make a crossover appearence in another very popular manga by the same author might make it notable.

I disagree, and so propose deleting the article and replacing it with a redirect to Kiyohiko Azuma. —Quasirandom 19:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom 19:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the general gist of notability with regards to literary works is that works by a notable author are generally notable except in unusal circumstances. The fact that this is by Kiyohiko Azuma is enough given Azuma's eminence in the industry and international acclaim. That it's incomplete matters little: Chaucer's Canterbury Tales and Coleridge's Kubla Khan were never finished either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable because it's by a notable author, general consensus is that works by notable authors are notable too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't agree that "works by notable authors are notable too." This should be judged by the general guideline of whether the Wallaby manga has gotten substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I don't know the field well enough to judge this based on a quick Google search from the workplace. Barno 21:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I searched for coverage as part of trying to improve the article, but was unable to find anything in English. (Should have mentioned this in the AfD.) There may be sources in Japanese, though. —Quasirandom 21:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Kiyohiko Azuma is a notable author. And, I think sources may be in Japanese. Masterpiece2000 12:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for its unusual format and its being by a notable authour. As for the sources, it should be taken for granted that, like in almost all cases regarding manga, by far most sources are Japanese: the best thing here would be to ask help from Japanese wikipedians to provide sources.--Aldux 13:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I just don't see any reason why an unfinished series should be anything more than a footnote on Kiyohiko Azuma. Worth a mention there, but it doesn't need an article of its own. Doceirias 02:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Football Rivalries

Information already exists within Local derbies in the United Kingdom. this appears to be OR Whitstable 19:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not needed. As per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 19:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also although there are exceptions most of these aren't really particularly well-established rivalries. PatGallacher 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is simply not required. Masterpiece2000 12:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 14:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge with Football in Scotland, but only if said rivalries can be referenced. GiantSnowman 19:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: the nomination was withdrawn, and other editors initially favoring deletion now favor keeping the article, so I have closed under the speedy keep guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summit Middle School (Coquitlam)

~~Nothing notable asserted about this middle school~~. Arthurrh 18:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's been fixed appropriately. Well done. Arthurrh 02:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable about this middle school is asserted in the article. The content is far less encyclopedic than other middle school article's. —C.Fred (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - We cannot have articles for all the middle school. Masterpiece2000 12:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Now the article is fine. Masterpiece2000 02:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can find a number of articles about the school that demonstrate some notability. For instance:
- They won the Maple Leaf Junior Tour's Girls national championship title for gold — a national sports award for young girls. Keel collects national title, Coquitlam Now. New Westminster, B.C.: Sep 5, 2007. pg. 35.
- They were noted for having one of their teachers play one of the leads in a theatrical production of Aladdin, designed for middle school students. Principal role for Summit teacher, Coquitlam Now. New Westminster, B.C.: Dec 8, 2006. pg. 23.
- They helped in the production of another play, MAGIC!, designed and run by middle school students. Theatrix makes the MAGIC! happen: Musical adventure written and staged by local young people, Coquitlam Now. New Westminster, B.C.: Apr 12, 2006. pg. 17.
- They were chosen for a session of "Odyssey of the Mind", an NASA-backed international educational program. Odyssey of the Mind founder to visit Summit Middle School, Simone Blais. Coquitlam Now. New Westminster, B.C.: Nov 15, 2003. pg. 15.
- They had a student win one of BC's Junior Achievement of B.C.'s 2000 Awards. Kudos, The Vancouver Sun. Vancouver, B.C.: Jul 24, 2000. pg. C.8.
- They participated in a very successful high/middle school partnership program which attrached media attention. Big buddies make a lasting impression on young student, Scott Simpson. The Vancouver Sun. Vancouver, B.C.: Jun 14, 2000. pg. B.1.FRO.
- The school itself was part of the BC Ministry of Education's new cost-cutting construction measures, and one of the first two to be built to those specifications. Economics 101: Expensive schools off the curriculum, Suzanne Fournier, Staff Reporter. The Province. Vancouver, B.C.: Oct 5, 1997. pg. A.24.
I think this demonstrates that it has sufficient notability. --Haemo 23:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is the article is written in a completely different direction. Instead of talking about the school being one of the first built under the ministry's new cost-cutting rules, the article talks about the hallway being narrow. That's one of the major problems I see with the article: the aspects covered on the subject or non-encyclopedic, and the overall tone is non-encyclopedic. —C.Fred (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds like a problem for cleanup, not deletion. --Haemo 01:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which I have now done. --Haemo 02:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as nomination withdrawn - nomination properly withdrawn on the addition of content and independent, verifiable sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan 04:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically invalid, since there are other editors advocating the delete position. I'm going to review the article myself, since I'm one of them. —C.Fred (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 04:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)}}[reply]
Keep. My goodness, we have a ridiculous number of third party sources here which establish notability. RFerreira 08:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since my first assessment, the article has been improved substantially, including the third-party sources RFerreira mentioned above. Accordingly, I have changed my recommendation. —C.Fred (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's obviously been fixed up! --Galaxy250 22:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good work! Nice article Victuallers 22:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Oxymoron⁸³ 10:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"De Pietro"

Unreferenced, and I can't find any information on the internet to verify this is true. Mangostar 18:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; It was me who created the page. You cannot find information on the internet because there are none: that is why I thought putting it on Wikipedia could be a good choice. If you wish, I could include the fact that every De Pietro on Brazil has these habits and know this precise history. If someone bother asking them, they will confirm (there are about 20 members in several cities). Thanks;

Delete unverifiable original research. JuJube 02:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:OR, no general indication why this surname is notable. Caknuck (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:V concerns weren't met in this AFD Secret ^account 00:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coningsby Club

Fails to establish notablilty. No references and nothing much on Google on this club. Are dining clubs notable ? Hammer1980·^talk 18:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More from the one-man anti-dining clubs crusader. If gentlemen's clubs get an article, so do these. Several in fact have articles of their own on Wikipedia. You must have heard of at least the Bullingdon Club! Grunners 18:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not on a crusade. Please see Wikipedia:Civility as there is no need to patronise. I haven't heard of the Bullingdon Club but reading the article shows that some notable people have been a member of it. This article fails to establish the notability of the Coningsby Club. The articles for the Coefficients (dining club) and Square Club (writers) have a similar problem. Just because I haven't heard of them does not mean they are not notable, but the articles as they stand do not explain to me why they are. Hammer1980·^talk 18:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way of Wikipedia is that new articles do take time to build up steam and become really good informative articles. I'd suggest in the interests of civility you enquire as to the nature of a user's article before slapping tags everywhere. That is extremely disrespectful. Grunners 18:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging an article is not disrespectful. Accusing an editor (whilst attempting to canvass support for you artciles) of a "one man campaign being waged against dining clubs" is bordering on WP:Attack. Seven editors have been contacted with that message at the time of this post. I have posted the artciles to afd for a debate, the outcome of which I really am not going to lose any sleep over. I will not be dragged further discussions of this type. Hammer1980·^talk 18:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless attribution of notability is shown via independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 19:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete pending references. Dining clubs, or any type of "social and discussion clubs", do not attain notability just because some notable people have been asserted to be members. Are there reliable independent sources to cite? The nominator's search seems not to have turned up such sources, and the article has nothing to substantiate any real claim to notability. As for Grunners' comment, a speedy-delete without asking contributors or doing any research would have been "disrespectful"; but use of tags like citation-needed, and eventually an AfD after an attempt at finding citeable sources, is reasonable and appropriate. Effort would be better spent on finding and providing sources than on acting offended and canvassing in tones that disregard whether the tagging was policy-based. Barno 21:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Are dining clubs notable?" What a strange question. Are political parties notable? Are cricket teams notable? Some are, and some aren't, just like anything else; this one is fairly old and well-known I believe, not that I know anything much about dining societies. As far as I'm aware there's nothing wrong with alerting people to the fact that a debate is in progress that they may be interested in witnessing or joining. There's also nothing wrong with nominating articles for deletion, but one should have be pretty sure that an article is a no-hoper. A quick Google would surely have established that this is hardly a clear candidate for speedy deletion, a fairly extreme measure which can lead to a little-watched, but perfectly sound entry disappearing in hours, before people have even had time to become aware of what's happenening, and which should thus be used with restraint. There's no shortage of genuine nonsense added every day to keep people busy who want to make deleting stuff their mission. Flapdragon 22:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It isn't notable in the sense of getting into the news, but it has been the main social link between national Conservative politics and Oxbridge student politics. I've added a couple of independent references. --Paularblaster 23:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Keep - a club that has succeeded in existing for over 85 years is likely to be noteworthy, and hence notable. It is properly marked as a stub, and I hope that some one will be abel to expand it. It appears in another encyclopaedia, whose publisher is an academic one. Peterkingiron 23:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure if one is meant to add support on a deletion discussion page only if one has new points to make, but I agree with the previous two entries.45ossington 16:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete how can it be kept with no information about notable members, no real references, and the only link being to the announcement for their next dinner. The claimed references are a mention of its existence in a history of the university, and a listing in a directory. I know it's notable is not a sufficient argument. Things that don't happen to "get into the news" can be sometimes be important none the less, but sometimes otherwise. DGG (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this last one, all the negatives you point out are due to the article's stub nature. Let's give it time to grow I say. After all, the gentlemens club article which I started is now large, but for a while was quite small with few references. Grunners (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article will only grow with time if there are reliable sources that give this club substantial coverage. Passing mentions as a trivial detail about someone, where the reference's focus is on events unrelated to the club, aren't enough for an article. Handwaving that sources "must exist" needs to be followed up with actual research to actually find and cite the references. "Succeeded in existing" and being a "main social link" wouldn't be much of a claim to notability even if mentioned in independent sources. With no sources offered in a week, it doesn't mean that there are none, but it seems to indicate that we don't currently have enough for an encyclopedia article. I'm leaning toward "merge into Dining club"; it can always be broken back out later when (if) some actual nontrivial sources are found. And no, nobody is trying to speedy-delete this stub; this AfD has been left open beyond the five-day minimum to give people a chance to solve the little problem of not meeting the core WP:V policy. Barno (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the apparent WP:V issues related to the article. I'm sure no one would mind if this article were to be recreated at a later date if better sources can be located. RFerreira (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dining club

I removed speedy tag I placed and put the article up for discussion. I can't see how it is particularly a notable subject. Also seems to fail WP:DICTIONARY. Hammer1980·^talk 18:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about a particular club, rather it's about a type of club, very similar to gentlemen's clubs. It cetainly doesn't merit deletion. The tag has obviously been placed without thought by someone who either hasn't read the article properly, or who is ignorant of the existence of such clubs. Such clubs are far more popular in the UK than the US, where they are known as [eating club]]s. However, Eating Clubs has an article, and one which although shorter than the Dining Club article (which after all is only 10 minutes or so old!), hasn't been put up for deletion.

Particularly in the last century, dining clubs were a major institution, and most notable figures in fields such as politics, law, journalism etc. still are. We wouldn't delete the gentlemen's club article would we, and what are dining clubs of not mobile gentlemen's clubs? Grunners 18:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't engage in what about X? arguments; they are not useful. --Dhartung | Talk 19:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the topic is notable, however poorly the current article explains that. But please let's have some references. Charles Matthews 19:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the dining club idea is a notable one Coccyx Bloccyx 19:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To the extent that these are clubs for adults and eating clubs are for university students that should be dmeonstrated, toherwise a merger is appropriate. --Dhartung | Talk 19:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge would not be appropriate. Charles Matthews 23:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A number of notable clubs are listed. An overview of such institutions is notable. This could be expanded to trace the history and social influence of such clubs. This is important, not just notable. - Crosbiesmith 20:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Flapdragon 21:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — this lists a number of notable dining clubs and is a good stub article. — Jonathan Bowen 22:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has the makings of a good article, as gentlemen's clubs seems to have become. Article already lists several examples notable in themselves; an encyclopedic overview of the concept would be informative. Agree that expansion & referencess are required. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 11:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important social/intellectual/political phenomenon of 18th-19th centuries; still not entirely negligible, even if not in the news much. --Paularblaster 02:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, naturally such a generic topic would be notable and worthy of inclusion. RFerreira 07:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as these clubs continue to be mentioned in reports on notable people; expansion of current entry is necessary but merited Robma 21:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While this article is the host of a list of clubs, many have websites. The article is only a brief one, but it ought to remain. I suspect there is room for expansion. I seem to remember literary references in the works of John Buchan the novelist. Peterkingiron 23:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there are some very notable dining clubs, as the more famous ones have held notable memberships and societies, which go on to shape political policies and socio-economic influence. --Ashley Rovira (talk) 06:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flexsim

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion A7 (or maybe G11) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk • contribs)

Flexsim

Appears to be a company-endorsed advert, written entirely by a couple of anonymous contributers in a subjective, second person colloquial style that promotes the product, eg: "Improvements that previously took you months or years of trial-and-error experimentation to achieve can now be attained in a matter of days and hours using Flexsim." Article has also been entirely devoid of citations or explicit assertion of notability since its creation six months ago, and is all but orphaned. - Yeanold Viskersenn 17:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either the product or the company may very well merit an article, but this isn't the article. Recommend deleting this advertisement, but with leave for someone to write, if possible, an appropriately-cited neutral article about either the product or the company. Chromaticity 18:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start from scratch. This article has spam written all over. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 18:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't see that there is much, if any, useful content that can be salvaged from this. 86.154.79.131 18:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spebi 04:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xun She Kung Fu

Notability, unsourced not claim to notability including history of number of paractioners Nate1481(^t/_c) 17:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 17:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wholly nn. JJL 19:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability, no sources, not even an external link. No evidence that this martial art even exists, much less is notable. Bradford44 20:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, not even a mention of the school's own website or physical location. --Carol Kaur (talk)
Delete - There is no source. This article could also be a hoax. Masterpiece2000 12:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, may be a hoax as well. RFerreira 08:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spebi 04:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wickedness

Dictionary entry combined with non-notable, unsourced information. Flex (talk/contribs) 17:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice; part dicdef, part dab page. JJL 19:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. At best, some of this might become a dab page, but otherwise Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wryspy 21:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Masterpiece2000 12:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 00:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numbuh One

Fictional characters from KND with no sign of real world notability. Coverage exist in the multiple character lists: villains, one-time villains, allies and other characters, families, Foreign Operatives plus the "sector" articles, see {{Codename: Kids Next Door characters}}. _{« ₣ullMetal ₣alcon »} 22:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes, villains, and others, respectively include:

Delete - non-notable fancruft Doc Strange 18:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 19:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if someone can sort through this, otherwise redirect. There may be something to transwiki in it, but all I see is some statistical in-universe mess. Sorry. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all While a single page for the characters on "The Kids Next Door" would be alright, an encyclopedia does not NEED individual articles about each character in the cartoon. As the old saying goes, no real world notability for any of these "kids" Mandsford 03:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not merge? --Kizor 13:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I agree with Mandsford. We simply don't need articles about each character in the cartoon. Masterpiece2000 12:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Main Characters- Look, I understand that there is a lot on this cartoon, but just like almost every other cartoon, the main character(s) has his/her/their own biography. Think about it. Batter3 19:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 23:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all As non notable. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 22:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, Redirect back to the multiple lists of characters articles that exist. In an ideal world, the content would go here. -- phoebe/(talk) 02:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect/Delete - Go with whichever gets the most attention. They do not need articles, so any of the three is fine. TTN (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Oxymoron⁸³ 10:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European Poker Players Hall of Fame

Delete nn hall of fame set up by one guy - only source is his website and presumably there is no real "hall" where we can see relics of the famous set out - their winning hands, their lucky charms, their mirrored sunglasses, or sample their favorite cocktails. "European Poker Players Hall of Fame" generates 43 ghits mostly WP and mirrors and little by way of RSes.Carlossuarez46 17:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikiproject Poker has been notified of this AfD.
Neutral leaning delete I am neutral on this AfD. I had never heard of this hall of fame before. But I'll let others from the WikiProject chime in.Balloonman 21:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anyone with an internet connection can set up a "Hall of Fame". But if you don't actually have a hall, and if your opinion doesn't add to anyone's fame, it's not really a hall of fame. Mandsford 03:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Masterpiece2000 12:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of rapcore artists

The list has no refs and it's replaceable with Category:Rapcore groups. Also, rapcore doesn't even have its own article - it's a redirect to rap rock. Funeral 17:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this kind of list, subjective and arbitrary, should not exist. Punkmorten 23:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This type of list should be deleted. That's all! Masterpiece2000 12:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not needed on Wikipedia. Thundermaster367^{Thundermaster's Talk} 13:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seal Clubber (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. delldot talk 08:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White widow (cannabis)

Unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 17:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a strain that many cannabis clubs carry, it is probably notable Coccyx Bloccyx 19:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep pending references. Winning the Cannabis Cup is a reasonable claim of notability, but needs to be documented. Most cannabis-related content published in the USA doesn't meet WP:RS, but if I'm not mistaken, the Cup has been covered in mainstream European sources that should back this up. If there aren't other sources for it except Cup coverage, though, this stub should be merged into Cannabis Cup. Barno 21:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I think that is a reasonable thing to ask for. Do you know which European sources may have documented this though? Coccyx Bloccyx 22:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. Google "White Widow" "Cannabis Cup" gives seed company listings for almost all the first 50, most of which cite the award or hit a URL ending in something mentioning Cup winners. Removing "seed" and "seeds" narrowed it down to mostly enthusiast self-web-published stuff. HIGH TIMES is the closest thing to a WP:RS-valid source in the first bunch of hits, although there may have been mainstream articles in newspapers and magazines that I haven't found yet. No obvious European edited-and-published stuff found so far, but I'll try to search more tightly. Barno 00:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "magazine" leads me to ask if any European reader can tell us: Do 420magazine.com , VirtualTourist.com, or International Cannagraphic Magazine have widely distributed published versions with editorial review that meet our reliable sources guideline enough to establish notability? If they're just hobbyist webmags, then they might not make White Widow and other Cannabis Cup-winning strains independently notable, and mention in the parent article (plus a redirect for searchers) would be enough. But if these or other publishers do mainstream magazines, books, or other citeable sources, please let us know.Barno 00:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=newspaper+%22White+Widow%22+%22Cannabis+Cup%22&btnG=Search

A similar search] with "newspaper" gave things like [http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13390669/the_great_california_weed_rush/print this article] from Rolling Stone 's Politics section. Here's an article from The Independent from London. Here's an article from the Miami New Times where the Neighborhood Fish Farm was awarded "Best place to go stoned" in a long list of otherwise legitimate-sounding awards. (For example the award to Ricky Williams didn't include a marijuana joke.) Barno 00:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for this subject, High Times is probably the RS. DGG (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Hydro (marijuana)

Unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 17:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coccyx Bloccyx 19:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you asking why when it says why on the top of this page? Stop wasting space on Wikipedia, please! Coccyx Bloccyx 20:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of WP:NOREASON. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer is correct: a simple "keep" or "delete" expression with no reason given is useless for determining community consensus, and is only good for headcounting, which AfD is not. Asking "why?" is much less a waste of space than the reply timestamped 20:36. Barno 21:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article as described gives no claim of notability, just unpublished community usage of a term to describe a broad class of cannabis, with no sources. On a quick look, the online mentions that I find appear to be user-submitted unverified content such as blog postings. Can someone else provide sources meeting WP:RS? Barno 21:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this is not a head count, I don't think any further comment on this article is necessary. This is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, not a noteworthy "strain" of marijuana. Coccyx Bloccyx 22:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on now. There may very well be books and magazines from reputable non-vanity publishers which give substantial coverage to this topic and don't happen to be online. Or some that I missed in a quick review of the first few pages of a Google search, or whose publisher's website blocks Google's spiders, or whose online mentions were blocked by my ISP. "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" is an absurd claim. I'll change my vote to "keep" if a couple of sources are cited. Barno (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East coast sour diesel

Unsourced (well... there's one, but it's a link to the Urban Dictionary!) and non-notable strain of cannabis-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 17:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coccyx Bloccyx 19:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says why at the top of this page. Thanks. Coccyx Bloccyx 20:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So that counts as "per nom"? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? Coccyx Bloccyx 20:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he wanted to make sure we understood your reasoning, since this is a debate and not a vote. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS, WP:NOTE. Do we have a notability policy for marijuana? ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the everything test (namely verifiability through reliable sources). RFerreira 07:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here, I found some links and East Coast Sour Diesel is a real strain. It is a rare strain because it can only be grown from a clone of the original strain. Prices can be as high as $1000 per ounce in NYC which some Wall Street workers pay for. http://forum.everyonedoesit.co.uk/showthread.php?t=57496 http://video.aol.com/video-detail/pot-profiles-ecsd--the-grow-show-with-danny-danko/3884053122 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.23.32 (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This encyclopedia has sunk to a new low if we're going to accept a user-submitted video and some forum thread posted to "everyonedoesit.co.uk" as a reliable source. I re-affirm my delete vote while the article is in such an unsatisfactory state. Coccyx Bloccyx 17:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. delldot talk 09:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martinsound Studios

Non-notable recording studio. 2 edits total, created in April 2006 then 1 edit in May 2006. No references/sources. Very vague assertion of notability. WebHamster17:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any independent coverage to establish notability. Maralia 20:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Maralia; seems to just be a business listing for this studio. HOWEVER, Martinsound also seems to be a sound equipment manufacturer, and they might well be notable because of that. An article just about Martinsound, the equipment maker, might be just fine. -- phoebe/(talk) 02:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, no verifiability or sources other than a forum for a long time, no prejudice to re-creation if these problems can be resolved. BLACKKITE 23:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Haze

Unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 17:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coccyx Bloccyx 19:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean Why, it says why right above. Unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis! Please don't waste time with pointless questions. Coccyx Bloccyx 20:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE --Closedmouth (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, sources have been requested for the content as far back as August 2006 (sixteen months ago). I think that's long enough. RFerreira (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice to re-creation should verifiability and sourcing problems be solved. BLACKKITE 23:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Maria (Cannabis)

Unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 17:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coccyx Bloccyx 19:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice to re-creation should verifiability and sourcing problems be solved. BLACKKITE 23:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neville's haze

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Neville's haze

Unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coccyx Bloccyx 19:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BLACKKITE 23:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lowryder

unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

quite the converse this is a notable form of cannabis that can serve to protect people as it is not as complicated to grow as standard strains. The fact that it does not require a specifically tailored light cycle and the fact that it is only a foot tall and can be grown with fluorescent lights as opposed to high intensity discharge makes it significant. It finishes in 8 weeks. This is the first cannabis strain of this kind and I urge this article to stand. It's quite well known and is important for the safety of the consumer. -- Patrick ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:36 December 6, 2007
Delete Coccyx Bloccyx 19:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Patrick Stacey 10:33, 06 December 2007 (ET)
- This comment as not left by "Patrick Stacey" but rather 24.203.218.191 (talk · contribs) see [15] RFerreira (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete issues with reliable sources appear to be unresolvable. RFerreira (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice to re-creation should verifiability and sourcing problems be solved. BLACKKITE 23:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kushage (strain)

Unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coccyx Bloccyx 19:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice to re-creation should verifiability and sourcing problems be solved. BLACKKITE 23:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kali mist

Unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coccyx Bloccyx 19:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BLACKKITE 23:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jock Horror

Unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, damn who created all this crap Coccyx Bloccyx
delete, utterly non-notable --Kaini 17:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice to re-creation should verifiability and sourcing problems be solved. BLACKKITE 23:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haze (strain)

Unreferenced and non-notable strain of cannabis -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Currently unreferenced and no assertion of notability. Hal peridol 23:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice to re-creation should verifiability and sourcing problems be solved. BLACKKITE 23:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Crack

Non-notable and uncourced variety of cannabis -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coccyx Bloccyx 19:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BLACKKITE 23:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Bach Nissen

Lack of citation
Lack of notability Ricky Smith 15:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coccyx Bloccyx 19:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I was unable to find strong evidence of WP:MUSIC notability - no recordings or evidence of touring, but he is the principal bass for the opera house in Augsburg, a medium-sized city. Hal peridol 23:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability as it stands. Punkmorten 23:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BLACKKITE 23:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate Thai

Unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See Articles for deletion/Afghan Kush. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 16:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of the several dozen piece of crap articles this is one of the few notable and recognized strains Coccyx Bloccyx 19:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice to re-creation should verifiability and sourcing problems be solved. BLACKKITE 23:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Jack (strain)

Unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See Articles for deletion/Afghan Kush. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 16:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coccyx Bloccyx 19:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BLACKKITE 23:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BC Bud

unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See Articles for deletion/Afghan Kush. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 16:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Clearly notable. Try google "BC Bud" for news hits. (No pun intended)
Delete it is not "clearly notable" try showing some sources not Google hits Coccyx Bloccyx 19:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source, as it is clearly notable by the number of news stories on it. IS this a WP:POINT nomination with all these cannabis strains? 132.205.99.122 21:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The only point I see here is that the article has no sources to back up the info provided. It seems pretty irresponsible of you to vote to keep something that is not verifiable. Coccyx Bloccyx 22:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you mean because you didn't bother to check, that you're irresponsible? It seems pretty irresponsible to claim that something is not verifiable when it is verifiable. [16] 132.205.99.122 23:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete pending reliable sources (not blog and forum postings) that specifically cite this name. This is basically a nickname that generalizes practically all strains of marijuana from one Canadian province, rather than an established name for one specific strain. If there are good sources showing, for example, the Cannabis Cup being awarded specifically to "BC Bud", then I'll change to "keep". Unlike most of the articles in this group, BC Bud contains some cultural context which should probably be merged into a parent article such as Cannabis cultivation in British Columbia. Barno 21:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. This strain seems to be notable, e.g. [17] and [18] Hal peridol 00:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm a British Columbian and this is a frequently-used term here, a generic term for BC-grown marijuana; but it's not just a local term as per www.bcbudonline.com, www.bcseedking.com or www.hackcanada.com/canadian/freedom/bc-bud.html, it's also a term used by the US Customs service, as per [www.hackcanada.com/canadian/freedom/bc-bud.html this link]. See also [email protected]. If it's felt that a more appropriate place for this is Cannabis cultivation in British Columbia, fine; but numerous tourists come to Vancouver's marijuana cafes looking for "BC bud", so I suggest it's much more than a local term. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice, pending reliable sources. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan Kush

Unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is unsourced, but that's too bad because there are many sources out there. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 16:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. Items in the series of cannabis strains are listed in AFD separately, but I will write only once that I choose to keep them all. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 16:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To avoid confusion, please do not !vote twice in deletion discussions. RFerreira 07:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it is unsourced and cannot be fixed then it should be erased plain and simple Coccyx Bloccyx 19:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Who says it cannot be fixed? There are 777 Google hits, quite likely that sources can be found. There is no deadline. 96T 12:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, no evidence of notability. Hal peridol 00:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, doens't seem to meet the deletion criteria. Yes, it is unsourced, but then again, most Wikipedia articles are, and it should be tagged and eventually sourced, not deleted. Cannabis is a very notable subject, and to have a good coverage of the subject, why not have articles on the different types of cannabis? 96T 12:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - Most of the "information" on the pages I nominated is unsourced. If sources can be found then they should stay, but I don't think there's enough information to warrant separate articles. Why not a single List of Cannabis Strains article that contains all the (properly sourced) bits of information? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Content which cannot be verified through non-trivial reliable sources most certainly can and should be removed (without prejudice if said sources can be located at a later date). RFerreira 07:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice to re-creation if sourcing & verifiability available. BLACKKITE 23:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AK 47 (strain)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/AK 47 (strain)

Unsourced non-notable strain of cannabis -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See Articles for deletion/Afghan Kush. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 16:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no positive reasoning in the Afghan Kush page, Blanchardb. Coccyx Bloccyx 19:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 00:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of industrial metal musical groups

The list has no refs and it's easily replaceable with Category:Industrial metal musical groups. Funeral 15:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Delete For exactly the reasons stated by Funeral. -Verdatum 15:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean support as in delete? --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  So edited, brain fart. -Verdatum 21:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Yankees76 16:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing in that article that a category wouldn't provide. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't really need to be ref'd, as the articles will contain the references. Yes, as it stands all the articles can fit into a category, so I assume every member of Category:Lists of metal bands will also be up for deletion? Lugnuts 20:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's already a cat for industrial metal groups. Don't you think a category serves better than a worthless list? This list is just an example of WP:LC. Funeral 20:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's a good question. What purpose do any of the articles within Category:Lists of metal bands serve? Each of them would be better served as a category. I clicked on three at random, and none provided any more information for their lists than does this page. (beyond nation of origin and the sparce reference to allmusic's classification) -Verdatum 21:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply to Lugnuts: No. Just the list itself. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 18:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list can be referenced and sourced from All Music Guide which could thus provide references for the category as well. DHowell 21:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Why not reference the allmusic guide in the band's article itself, and then use categories the same as other articles? Isn't failure to do so a needless duplication of information? -Verdatum (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Categories are on Wikipedia for a reason. They're much easier to maintain than lists! Scarian ^Talk 09:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seal Clubber (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful and more informative listing. A list offers so much more options than a simple category could ever provide. While a category is good simply for listing them, list articles go several steps further and offer different ways they can be listed. Some examples are on the very page that was afd'd and a few on some other lists, they are: adding their location by flag, if they are/were one of the original bands of the genre they will be indicated, if they played the style early, mid or later on, a list of albums by the bands that are within the genre and also not in the genre but has made a notable release of the genre and also bands that at some point in time played the style. --CircafuciX (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content covered perfectly well by a category. Fair Deal (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-use a category. Peter Fleet (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All this list needs is sources. Then it would be even more useful than it already is. Wikipedia readers tend to check the lists more often than categories anyway from what I've heard.--Azure Shrieker (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and cleaned up the article for good measure. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Cod Regional Transit Authority

Beyond issues of verifibility, a lack of independent WP:SOURCES and the promotional tone of the article, I'm not entirely sure this under used transit system is notable. There really isn't a whole lot you can say about it, being a Cape Cod resident and having used the bus in the past all I know is that in even in the summer ridership is abysmal and most of the Cape's population isn't even aware that CCRTA has bus service beyond paratransit. Not only that, this content of this article hasn't been updated in well over a year (juding from the edit history), and the fact that no one has done anything about it or let alone mentioned it on the talk page makes me question if this article is actually nesacarry, or even reading it in the first place. Rackabello 14:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Withdraw AfD Nomination My concerns have been fixed. Rackabello 20:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is poorly formated, and has not been cleaned up, but it is still better than having no article. First off, I don't see any real issues with verifiability which would require deletion, sources do not have to be independent in order to be reliable (indeed, in many cases, the things published by the company are more reliable in terms of facts and figures, though less reliable in terms of neutrality). Furthermore, the company has received independent press coverage here for example, so the subject satisfies notability requirements. Sources aside, and judging on merits, the public transport system of an area is a major part of a location's infrastructure. That puts such systems on par with highways, airports and railway stations in terms of significance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Smaller transit system, and it's perfectly fine to put the routes in there. Just because it's not dead and resting is not a reason to delete it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ordinary article about an ordinary transit system. Fg2 00:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've used it. All real transit authorities are per se notable per WP:OUTCOMES. Is already (or has been) well-sourced, but just needs clean-up. Bearian'sBooties 04:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - there seems to be the general consensus that the move isnt notable enough to have its own article. Integration into the Ruy Lopez article with probably one sentence, considering the size of the article, and even the mergers seem to be leaning toward deletion. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuremberg Variation

Although not quite as obscure or as ridiculous as the Australian Gambit (also on AFD), this is another very minor subvariation. A look at ChessBase's database ([19]) gives 178 hits which is not many. (For comparison, the Classical Variation of the Ruy Lopez opening, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 is not the main line either, but has more than 2000 entries.) Perhaps the most notable games employing the variation covered in this article are the games Steinitz played in Nuremburg, but few or no masters have taken this line seriously since. The only source in the article is a Geocities website which does nothing beyond defining the moves. The chess opening tome Modern Chess Openings does not cover it. A discussion at WT:CHESS#One article for each variation ? suggested that for a separate article on an opening variation, there should probably be a book devoted that variation. For coverage in the main article on the parent opening, I think there should be some professional analysis which dicusses the variation. With the very minor level of coverage this variation has received, I think deletion is on the table. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC) (who is going to be playing the first round of a tournament today, and will probably be punished horridly by Caissa for nominating a chess article for deletion.)[reply]

Delete - too small of a variation to have its own article. Bubba73 (talk), 15:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment I have two books on the Ruy Lopez, and it isn't in either of them. It is not in the 13th edition of Modern Chess Openings. It is mentioned in a note to C60/1 in Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, listing two gqmes played in Nurnberg in 1896. I believe it is way too small to have its own article. Bubba73 (talk), 23:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Bubba Voorlandt 20:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bubba73. Even a member of the Chess Project and an avid chessplayer like me finds this article non-notable. Of course this is a case-by-case assessment: if some notable chess openings were "AFDed" I would argue to keep them. But this article is not one of them, by any criteria. SyG 18:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ruy Lopez - I would have said delete, but I remember someone used this against me at least twice and has been semi-effective. If you see the Ruy Lopez article, this article could be added in with a little editing. Tavix 21:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ruy Lopez. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 11:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, page was improved and nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NIHE (disambiguation)

Delete: Pointless dab page with one blue link. Even if it had two, there is now a hatnote on National Institute for Higher Education directing people to Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I speedied once but it was re-created. I proposed someone else re-speedy but it was denied. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NIHE is a major body, a disambag page for NIHE is not a huge burden, and is probably useful, as one body is probably not more notable than the othernTraditional unionist 14:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see why the existence of this page presents a problem. --DAJF 14:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really?! Now the community is going for one-link disambiguation pages? I don't understand that at all. Think about the poor reader that types in "NIHE" in the search and they end up at a little stub page with no information and only one link to where the actual information is. How annoying would that be? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If Northern Ireland Housing Executive was an actual article I'd say keep, as a dab page would be appropriate - there is no clear winner between it and National Institute for Higher Education in terms of notability. The Housing Executive is probably deserving of an article. So if it's created, keep. If not, delete. I might write it over the weekend. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ah, someone has turned the red link blue and even added a third link. I feel much better now, thank you. An uninvolved admin can consider this AFD withdrawn... —Wknight94 (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it now has 3 links. Uncle G created Northern Ireland Housing Executive and I added a link to Niya (kingdom) which has apparently also been called Nihe. But move to NIHE per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming conventions. PrimeHunter 19:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with improvements, with a Move per Primehunter. Looks like we're done here. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Capitalist Project

Sources cited seem mostly unreliable. Article contains much more information than appears to be publicly available, so possible advertising. Poor assertion of notability in the article with virtually no references that back the notability up. Most edits to the article, and nearly all content contributions have come from what appear to be single-purpose accounts (view article history and contribs for details). Article was created by User:Rick koerber, who is supposedly the founder of the article subject. Article has had contributions from User:Equity Milling; "equity milling" is a real-estate technique invented by Rick Koerber. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Again, kudos to Ioeth for a comprehensive and convincing exposition. All of the sources seem to be self-generated or refer to interviews conducted on this organization's radio show. The one external source, the Deseret Morning News story, does not mention the group or its radio show. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have been a member of the Free Capitalist Project for over a year and vouch that the content in this article is true. brmecham 4 December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 07:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC) — brmecham (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. The sources provided in the article are not what would be considered reliable. -- Whpq 17:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - true, perhaps, but not important enough to warrant an article. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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#G7. Spellcast 03:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Massa

An IP claims that the subject of the article apparently wants his Wikipedia biography removed. I'm bringing this here to see if this guy passes WP:BIO. Spellcast 13:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I created this page as a surprise for the screenwriter since he just got his first movie made and it has a Wikipedia article with his name in red type. However, William Massa has requested to not have a page for some reason. (In fact, he is freaking out about it.) So go ahead and delete it before he decides to sue me or something. User:Wrrshiper 09:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the request of User:Wrrshiper, the author of this page, I believe the page now qualifies for speedy deletion under G7, and I have so tagged the page. Please note that most of the posters below did not have the benefit of User:Wrrshiper's input at the time of their comments. I don't think there would be any controversy if they had. Xymmax 18:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Notable screenwriter. Within minutes after this page was created, it was vandalized by an SPA, then by an anon after said SPA was indefinitely blocked. The IP making the claim that Massa wants that page deleted should have the decency to give it some credibility. Who says that person is not an enemy of Massa? --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Caution here. The single purpose account you mentioned was user:nomadscreenwriter and just as easily could be the subject attempting to blank his own information. Notice that the myspace username linked is "nomadbill." There's ample reason to err in favor of the deletion, especially since there are no references to support any of the biographical information listed. In fact, I think I've talked myself into a delete per WP:BIO. Xymmax 17:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one straight-to-video sequel does not a notable screenwriter make. Have to agree with the nom regardless of the apparent desires of the subject. --Dhartung | Talk 19:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this person has only one entry in the IMDB, as writer of Return to House on Haunted Hill, which although it has a Wikipedia entry could be only just on the threshold of notability. PatGallacher 21:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Wryspy 22:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not come close to meeting WP:BIO guidelines. RFerreira 08:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above. --Crusio 13:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after subtracting the voters who have made few edits --JForget 00:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreal Tournament 3 Online Multiplayer Activities and Community

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 article consists solely of advertisements for other websites, links to offsite resources, and information that is true of all multiplayer games. Also, this article consists solely of original research, and consists entirely of content that was previously judged to be irrelavent (for the purposes of wikipedia) in the main article). Gundato (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So far the only person who has judged the article's valuable content as being irrelevant to the parent subject matter of the main article is Gundato. The disputed article, if it has the opportunity for further development, will provide valuable knowledge about the entity known as the Unreal Tournament 3 Online Multiplayer Community. Like a geographical community, such as a city, an online community contains landmarks and features worthy of description. Although newspapers and scholarly works do not (yet) generally report on online multiplayer gaming communities, that does not make the easily verifiable article's content false. In fact, a great many if not most Wikipedia articles contain sentences and claims that do not make specific references to "vetted" newspaper articles composed of journalists' original research. This is true of much of the parent game's article's undisputed content.

Gundato, could you please provide some evidence to indicate that the information in the article is false or misleading? If you feel that it's inaccurate, why not correct the inaccuracies instead of eradicating a worthwhile informational resource? I'll acknowledge that the current entry is not necessarily complete nor a finished work, but every article has to start somewhere and people who are knowledgeable about the subject can improve upon its content. WhipperSnapper (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-But it must be cleaned up-I'll do it. Everyone is free to help, though. Cheers!! --Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:OR, WP:RS and Wikipedia is not a game guide. Whispe ring 14:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepLet it be finished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.83.231 (talk • contribs) — 24.21.83.231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Non-notable. Also, the bulk of the information is already contained within Unreal Tournament 3 where it belongs, WP:OR and WP:RS. -Verdatum 16:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In its present form it is not notable independent of Unreal Tournament 3. I will say that I see how its frustrating having an article nominated for deletion only 24 hours after it was created. If the author thinks that the article can be made to conform to the policies (cite WP:reliable sources for your claims) he could write it using his sandbox and move it into main space when it is sourced well enough to avoid a request for deletion. Xymmax 16:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Unreal Tournament 3. No separate article, please. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 16:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Hammer1980·^talk 18:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful information here, let it live!! Dura1198 19:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC) — Dura1198 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete All of the important information on this subject is already in the article on Unreal Tournament 3, and this article really isn't necessary. Chri$topher

Delete The information provided in this article is extremely generic, and could be said about many other games. Also, as previously stated, this article clearly fails WP:NOT. Cpl Syx 04:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Unreal Tournament 3. The material has no supporting reliable sources, so merge is really not the preference. -- Whpq 17:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 00:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Handmaiden's Tale

TV episode with no claim to notability. Does not deserve its own article per WP:EPISODE. Nehwyn (talk) 12:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article also contradicts WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information in that it is merely a plot summary. --Nehwyn (talk) 08:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an episode of a tv show that has taken its name from the notable book [20] and movie[21] of "The Handmaid's Tale" --Pmedema 19:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If deleted redirect to The Handmaid's Tale 132.205.99.122 21:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The famous book is called "The Handmaid's Tale." This is called "The Handmaiden's Tale." There probably should be a disambig note for the confused...

That said, there's several other Gossip Girl episodes up for deletion, all listed seperately, and the same applies to all of them in my opinion... I'd prefer to keep, as I have a very hard time believing that these episodes are somehow less notable than most of the episodes of all these other shows -- notability seems to have been stretched a fair amount when it comes to tv shows. That said, rather than delete entirely, I would merge and redirect content back into the list of Gossip Girl episodes page, which already exists -- people are going to be looking for these pages as it's a current show. -- phoebe/(talk) 06:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an individual nomination process, not a mass deletion. In keeping with the spirit of WP:EPISODE, each episode is assessed separately to try and see whether it has something that sticks out from the rest. Therefore, if you feel you have comments related to this particular episode and to why the above-mentioned guideline should not apply to it, feel free to post it here. Other than that, please keep in mind that inclusion is not a reason for notability (i.e. the argument "we kept those, we gotta keep this" is not acceptable in this kind of debate). Thanks! --Nehwyn (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

" I dont think this needs to be deleted as its as notable as the episode summarys of various other tv shows". Staryeyed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.104.207 (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC) — 122.162.104.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hello there, and Welcome to Wikipedia. The fact that other episode summaries exist is not an acceptable argument here. As for your statement that the episode is notable, can you provide any reason why? --Nehwyn (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless real world coverage from reliable sources is provided. Currently the article is a plot summary with a line of credits. Nuttah (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Home network --JForget 00:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Home networking

Delete - all the topics covered are already well covered in other articles, and this adds nothing. Mayalld (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - AfD on the day of creation doesn't convince me. The article might still improve and become keep-worthy. Suggest to keep for now, tag (cleanup, links and references) and look again in a week or so. --Arcanios (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Home network. Can be merged in the future from history - Peripitus (Talk) 12:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Home network. Think outside the box 13:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Peripitus; redundant to an existing article, and reads rather like elementary journalism or ad copy. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and Redirect Essay/ original research. Redirect to Home network Rackabello 14:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per the immediately above. This is a personal essay. Someguy1221 21:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect is my choice, too. Home network has it well covered. Tim Ross·^talk 18:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Home network. It's about the same thing. -- Whpq 17:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial hellhole

Term was an uncontested prod for almost 3 months before being deprodded. Term is a perjorative dictionary definition only in use by the American Tort Reform Association, a partisan and biased group, and has little usage outside that group. Is an inherently POV term and the article likely cannot grow beyond a stub. Any new information would be duplicative of forum shopping, which this article is also an intended merge to. Also note that the original creater of the page had a huge Conflict of Interest, in that he is directly related to the ATRA, which coined and is attempting to spread the term. A google search excluding variations on ATRA, American Tort Reform Assn, etc. has less than 500 hits, nearly all reprints of articles and press releases from the ATRA. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly per Swatjester's masterly exposition. (I question whether political allegiances fall within WP:COI, but that is a quibble.) - Smerdis of Tlön 16:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. I also consider it to violation WP:NEO. Xymmax 16:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. When writing about a neologism, one has to assert how that term found its way out of the organization that coined it. Here, this quite simply did not happen. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Partisan neologism without evidence of independent notability. A WP:COATRACK in waiting. The COI issue is probably secondary, but otherwise agree with the nominator. MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coccyx Bloccyx 19:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, violates WP:5P and WP:POV especially. Bearian'sBooties 04:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is is not a dictionary, and certainly not a dictionary of loaded slang created solely as a rhetorical device by one partisan trade association. There is nothing in the stub, or in the concept, that warrants saving by merger, either. Finell (Talk) 06:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. declining the WP:SPA Secret ^account 00:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Sabatino

A body-builder who looks non-notable to me. prod/speedy declined. his personal webpage is http://docsab.homestead.com/DocSab.html Mangostar (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:BIO. --Brewcrewer 21:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is NOT being added for his bodybuilding achievements.. though they are quite notable... as he has been in many bodybuilding magazines in the 1980's, as well as being a Teenage Mr. America in 1981. He is being noted for his work with classic Cadillacs and all the celebrities that have chosen him as a source for their classic Cadillacs. -- John Wallace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldtraveler101 (talk • contribs)

DO NOT DELETE. Google Doc Sab or DocSab and Chris Sabatino DC, Many third party stories and article are on the web about this person. He is highly notable. -- John Wallace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldtraveler101 (talk • contribs)

Keep Subject seems to meet notability and verifiability requirements. Please provide additional details as to why article is submitted for deletion. Agree that it needs to be wikified and sectioned. CharlieWinston 06:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is fully wikified. There is no commercialism at all in the article. There are references. Someone keeps deleting the sources/references. It is an essay. His profile IS NOT orphaned. Please allow this article to stay. Ask anyone in the classic Cadillac world.. if they know of Christopher "Doc Sab" Sabatino... The answer will be yes. It is a worthy article on a very notable person. A doctor, a financial advisor, a former Athlete, and world famous Cadillac restorer/customizer. DO NOT DELETE. -- John Wallace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldtraveler101 (talk • contribs)

It appears Mr Winston and myself, John Wallace are on the same page. It appears That the article is worthy... and has met most or all requirements. DO NOT DELETE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldtraveler101 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 13:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Road soda

Prod contested by the author. A neologism. References that attempt to establish notability are to a broken link, and urban dictionary Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does fail WP:NEO, in addition the last line sounds like a vanity reference. Finally the Urban Dictionary link (which I believe anyone can edit) at present doesn't even draw a hit for the term. Finally, assuming that the reference Vermont G.S. 20-137.8 means "Vermont general statute 20-137.8" there's no such thing. Xymmax 16:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX and actual Vermont open container law. --Dhartung | Talk 20:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism and possible hoax -- certainly parts of the article are hoaxish -- unless proper sources are found. (I don't see any in a quick google.) bikeable (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this appears to be misleading and very hoaxish. RFerreira 08:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 00:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Brotherhood

Does not assert notability of subject, may be notable though. Neranei (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, composer of the group also owns the label [22]. None of the artists on the label have articles that I can find, and if you discount the albums as self-published, they don't meet WP:BAND. Burzmali 16:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real assertion of notability, no reliable sources cited. Caknuck (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currency correlation

Resurrection of a previously deleted article in the same form, see logs. Since correlations can be performed upon any 2 sets of data, having separate articles for each potential data set is unencyclopedic. The concept is comprehensively covered in the correlation article. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 11:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably should have been a CSD for previously deleted content, but anyway, delete per nom and prior deletion (via PROD). Avruch ^Talk 00:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, but I didn't think it met the WP:CSD criteria, in any case it was obviously going to be controversial and since there was no discussion last time, 5 days of discussion does no harm. Cheers -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 15:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, improve Currency correlation is widely used as a technical indicator by forex traders. If you want to delete this article, you should consider deletion of Momentum, Moving average and so on. IMO, this article should be improved and expanded, not deleted. reader, 13:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.21.60.121 (talk • contribs)

I trade, and am familiar with the technique, however it merely makes use of an existing statistical technique as does trading utilising momentum and moving averages. Since it's a Technical Analysis technique, why not add it there ? Trying to connect the fate of an article on one particular usage of a fundamental technique with the fate of 2 articles explaining fundamental concepts, completely misses the point I made both at the time of WP:PRODing and this Afd. It does not warrant an article on it's own. To put it another way, why should every well known/common application of a statistical technique warrant an article rather than an addition somewhere more appropriate ? How could you improve the currency correlation article ? -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 15:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some more background on this - Currency correlation was added - [23] as a specific example to the correlation article along with what were considered to be spam links - [24] which were removed with warning - User_talk:198.172.206.234. The duplicated explanation of a correlation was removed - [25] and then the remaining text - [26]. -- John (Daytona2 · talk)

If deleted, please could you consider Wikipedia:Protected deleted pages -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 15:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at least turn into a redirect to a relevant article. I am not sure about the possibility of being a disambiguation page - Skysmith (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Reads as little mroe than a dict-def right now: merge to Exchange rate, where it can be spun out if enough material is gathered. Pastordavid (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep important concept but needs development, as per others. K a r n a 15:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correlation and currency correlation are definitely different topics altogether. This page should be improved upon and not deleted.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lord Nicholas Windsor. This is technically a merge, as practically the entire article already exists at Lord Nicholas Windsor#Family. BLACKKITE 19:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Windsor

AfD as per discussion. Not notable enough to have a separate article: a section within his father's article may be sufficient. Suggest replacing by redirect to Lord Nicholas Windsor. MightyWarrior (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article or redirect to father's page per nominator. The article for Albert is simply a genealogical entry. His parents are more notable than he is and if he needs to be mentioned, it can be on his parents' article pages or at an article about the title of prince in the UK. Charles 12:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable first male line descendant of George V to be untitled. Should have siblings, I would vote to delete their articles, but I think that this fact makes Albert inherently notable. The article is a nice size with sources. Morhange 15:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Inherent notability does not derive from being interesting or unusual. --Dhartung | Talk 20:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lord Nicholas Windsor. A brief note either there or in the main Windsor family article should do. K a r n a 15:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Lord Nicholas Windsor--Pmedema 18:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. --Dhartung | Talk 20:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as suggested. RFerreira 08:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per above so that people looking for what information there is can find it. Capitalistroadster 09:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no objection to merging the information from this article with that of his father. What I do object to is a decision to merge and then only a redirect is done. This happened with Victoria Ribeiro where the decision was to merge. Instead she is not even mentioned at all in the article to which she is now redirected Princess Ragnhild of Norway. Noel S McFerran 23:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Royalty in the Line of Succession to the British Throne is notable. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 12:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It depends on your definition of "royalty". Albert Windsor is not styled HRH (nor any other courtesy title above Esq). -- MightyWarrior 13:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is notable if you're actually royalty, he is not, and you are individually notable, which he is also not. Charles 16:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is 26th in line to the throne, this is notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 22:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Colbert Effect

Completely redundant; everything in this article (except for the "Colbert Bump," which can be merged if need be) has been adequately covered in The Colbert Report#Cultural impact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemoney2night (talk • contribs) 09:36, 30 November 2007

Delete - it is covered already. mattbuck (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Everything there is (shouldbe?) covered in colberts article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -RiverHockey 19:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Transwiki to wikiality.com 132.205.99.122 21:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing indicates that merging would be appropriate. Wryspy 22:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for multiple reasons. It's covered. It riddled with original research. It's a neologism. Majoreditor 22:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As has been mentioned, almost all the content already exists in The Colbert Report page. --Powerlord 08:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and apply the Wikipedia Effect. RFerreira 08:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; no assertion of notability. James086^{Talk | Email} 14:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joris Lammers

Delete biographical stub which includes no indication of notability whatsoever. No reason to think this meets WP:PROFTEST. Doczilla (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No assertion of notability, so meets speedy deletion criterion A7. Jeodesic (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Agreed, no assertion of notability, therefore should have been tagged speedy (which it now is) Whitstable 13:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. delldot talk 11:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Goldkind

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 no sources to establish existence. Davewild (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel Bombay

There were no sources found in the web and even on the Disney official site, that such a separate channel exists exclusively for Bombay. Even if it existed, I would have expected it to be named Disney Channel Mumbai and not Bombay, since the name Bombay is hardly in use nowadays. Noming it as "probable hoax" ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it doesn't exist, then? K a r n a 15:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls under WP:HOAX if it doesn't exist Doc Strange 18:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian attitudes toward Americans

This is basically a POV fork with a mix of original synthesis. The two news sources give barely mention India at all. The last three sources, the ones pertaining to crimes against US citizens, are entirely irrelevent (these constitute the original synthesis). They have nothing to do with anti-American sentiment. Crimes occur against US citizens in India? I think this happens everywhere. Indians protested Bush when he visited? Happens everywhere he goes. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is clearly synthesis. Additionally, it's based on wholly unremarkable information that is in most cases of no direct relevance to the topic. Maralia 15:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should fit in, if at all, with Anti-Americanism. K a r n a 15:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:SYNTH, WP:CRUFT. George Bush was infact much more popular in India than in the US, FWIW.Baka man 00:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not that there's anything wrong about speaking for 1.12 billion people... Mandsford 03:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there could be a good article on this topic, this isn't it. Capitalistroadster 04:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; I didn't see any assertion of notability. James086^{Talk | Email} 09:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gumbert.com-The 69 Factor

The article is just spam, vanity. Weirdy Talk 09:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for lack of assertion of notability, and so tagged. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Oxymoron⁸³ 09:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connections Church

Page was speedy deleted by me, but a deletion, review correctly argued that the article at least has an assertioon on notability. Still, the assertion is rather weak, and is not supported by any reliable independent sources. Connections Church is apparently a network of churches around the world. Due to the fact that the term "connections Church" is used by many unrelated churches and groups, it is hard to judge the results of a google search. The fact that there are very little results for the pastor Rocky Veach[27] [28] [29], and that none of the few Google News results for "Connections Church" seem to be about this organisation[30], gives the impression that this organisation has not been noted by the outside world yet. The text talks about churches from Anchorage to Colorado, but again, there is no evidence that e.g. the Anchorage church is in any way notable[31]. I know that Google is not the ultimate indicator of notability, but it's up to those wanting to keep the article to provide us with good reliable, independent sources. Fram (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG, among other things. The page appears to be an advert, and has no independent sources. A notice at the top (which I removed) explaining why it shouldn't be deleted and wasn't an advert kind is a bit desperate. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Because of the various local churches named ""Connections Church", it is hard to see whether a potential outside source actually does talk about this church. But so far, this article looks like an ad, so it would need a major rewrite to become an acceptable article. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is asserted, but not substantiated from non-trivial independent sources. Guy (Help!) 18:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Connections church is a brand new name, It was previously known as COC America. If you search pastor rocky veach, his books and sermons are on the first search page. He shows up on turning point coc, he turns up in a curch of several thousand from arkansas as well. How else can you site a church ministry outside of the church. His credentials are on paper there is no way to link to his rhema degree, or to show that the date that he graduated rhema would have proved his residence under Keneth Hagin. Most of the citations on a pastor is on paper. As far as published articles, he choses to fly under the radar and be humble. Another example of the high end people that he works with is that his wife Bobbi Veach is the manager for Hillsongs guitarist Andrew Ironsides solo tour. It is just hard to link these to show a contractual agreement on the web. The only online source to many churches operations are their website. The question clearly is

How notable does an organization have to be, because there are definite articles that are only notable locally, or to a niche group. Within the COC group, everyone knows Rocky Veach or his Times of Refreshing Ministries. The fact that he has changed the name of many of his operations, doesn't make him less notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.45.253 (talk • contribs) 22:44, December 1, 2007

Delete. Changing a name does not make something notable. "Everyone knows him" is not evidence of notability. The fact that a pastor has the proper credentials doesn't make him or the church notable. The fact that he knows a non-notable person doesn't make him notable. And the google test is irrelevant...but...the fact that you use it, I would like to point out that there are only 27 hits...where (I'm not notable) I have 580 on my own name (and I am the only person in the US with my name). --Smashville^BONK! 21:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think Gum

No assertions of notability. Article was up for speedy as advertising, but seems to hold aim for an objective POV. Taemyr (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nominator. Taemyr (talk) 08:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Missed previous incarnations of this page; [32] and [33]. ~~General criteria 4 for speedy deletion might apply, although as stated in the introduction I feel that the article as written does aim for objectivity.~~ Taemyr (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G4 only applies for previous AfD's not speedies. Speedy or not, still Delete. Martijn Hoekstra 15:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely believe that think gum deserves a Wikipedia page letting people know what it is. It is a new and unique item and not many people can find information about what it is in other venues. Other similar product pages exist on Wikipedia such as Jolt Gum, Aspergum, Airbourne (dietary supplement), Bawls, Stride (gum), ....The list goes on and on. Practically every product available in every store has a Wikipedia page so that anyone, can find out what it is when they hear about it. That is why Wikipedia is here, to inform people about something they don't know about or want to get more information on. The fact that Think Gum it is a commercial product does not make the information less important. The article is written in an impartial manner. Dashtheman 22:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Dashtheman[reply]

The article is not up for deletion for being biased. It's considered for deletion because there is no information about it in other venues. See WP:Note. The fact that articles on related foodstuff exists on Wikipedia is irrelevant. Taemyr 11:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, the article is not encyclopedic and is about a non-notable product. It seems to be an ad, and I have deleted Think gum previously. It may be possible to write a reliably sourced and verifiably referenced article on Think Gum, but this isn't it. The one reference in the article right now has nothing to do with Think Gum, but just chewing gum in general. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 03:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Davewild (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Levi Martin

Seems like a non-notable professor. No awards, no strong assertions of notability in the article and his CV lists just two recent publications. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lot of hits in Google Scholar and Google Books. The article needs some sources though -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only many hits on google scolar, the papers are often cited aswell. Martijn Hoekstra 16:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to his CV ([34]) the number of publications is not extraordinary. The citation rates in GS (and even more so in Web of Science) are modest. He may well become notable in a couple of years, but for the moment he isn't. Note that all academics publish and some citations to their works are completely normal. According to WP:PROF a person has to be above the average professor to be notable and Martin is not there yet. --Crusio 16:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The confusing article listed him as an Associate professor--he has since become full professor at Berkeley. This is well above the average for any professor of anything. 26 peer reviewed journal articles may not be a lot in some fields of clinical medicine, but it is significant in sociology--counts can not be compared across subject fields. (& WoS counts include only counts from articles, not from books) DGG (talk) 04:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 issue that needs to be addressed is does the subject achieve notability as verified by reliable sources. Despite the article being in existence for a year, and the prompt of this debate, that has not been achieved, as the argument for deletion makes clear. The keep argument simply isn't substantial, however generous one might feel towards it. Tyrenius (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Scruggs

This article is over a year old. During this period its principal contributors have been encouraged to show notability and back up claims with evidence. At the end, what we have is an article about somebody who's primarily notable for her photography, but the sum of whose known photographic work is:

A single photograph in a single book -- and, it seems, a portrait that's included because it's a portrayal of that person, rather than because of any photographic qualities.
Appearance within a long list of "Famous People" of Birmingham, Ala. (Criteria for inclusion aren't specified. Write-ins don't seem impossible.)
Having been one person among seventeen who participated in a single exhibition: "Contour, the definitive line", an exhibition that gets at least five discrete mentions within en:WP but that doesn't seem to have got much critical attention.

It's also clear that she owns one or more works by one Patricia Gaines.

And that's it.

I had thought that a notable photographer was one whose work was critically reviewed. Critical reviews can of course be hard to dig up, so book-length collections that aren't merely self/vanity-published and/or solid evidence of solo exhibitions of more than merely local significance would be fine too. The only thing above that even seems worth mentioning is that one-seventeenth part of one exhibition. And this despite the age of the article. Negligible notability. -- Hoary (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: In the course of the discussion below, it becomes rather clear how Scruggs got onto that "Famous People" list. -- Hoary 00:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —Hoary (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per very comprehensive nom. Does not meet WP:BIO Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hard Keep She should even be kept just because of her extensive photography collection alone. I will try to list more people on Wiki who she collects OneMarkus 22:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this collection viewable by the public? If not, even if it's indisputably wonderful it's not immediately clear how it's significant. (Has it perhaps been bequeathed to some gallery?) Well, I look forward to reading disinterested evidence about it. -- Hoary 00:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The list of famous people from Birmingham seems taken from the wiki List of people from Birmingham, Alabama.--Ethicoaestheticist 23:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Duh, why didn't I think of that? Yes, Scruggs was added to it in this series of edits by User:Artsojourner (whom for some reason I tend to confuse with User:Artintegrated). -- Hoary 00:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Just because a Hoary decides that someone whose Wiki page is already listed as a Start and not a Stub wants it removed, he decides to nominate it for deletion. Does it need to be removed? Is it Wiki ciiteria to delete an article that has been here a year without additional information added to it? If so, then there are many articles that could be deleted for this very criteria. As for Artintegrated and Artsojourner, we live in the same house and sometimes have very different ideas. Sometimes we even disagree. Imagine that! Just sounds like a particular editor here on Wiki has a bone to pick to me, especially if you consider many of his recent edits that are not Japanese but thats ok too. Artintegrated 03:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll respond to the two objections of yours that I think I understand. 1. I decide to nominate a page for deletion based on my understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. In this case, I see no evidence for more than the most minor significance. Perhaps I'm myopic. Perhaps you can add more evidence. You are welcome to point out what I (with Johnbod and Ethicoaestheticist) have missed, or to improve the article, or both. 2. No, it is not WP policy to delete an article to which no information has been added in a year. However, if after one year no evidence has been adduced for more than the most minor of significance (despite nudging on the talk page, etc.), then the person proposing deletion can hardly be accused of impatience. -- Hoary 11:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We've spent alot of time in the last year or so in trying to clean up this article, make it more than a big list of unorganized factoids, and trying to get a sense of the artist's notability. I fear this valuable time would have been better spent improving the articles of Wikipedically notable artists and in writing new ones for the many notable photographers on our article wish list. Scruggs has made some impressive photographs, but this fact alone does not merit inclusion - inclusion in Wikipedia is and should be limited only to biographies that meet the encyclopedia's clearly stated standards. Hoary's well stated nomination clearly demonstrates that Scruggs does not meet this test. TheMindsEye 00:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keeping would require setting the bar for notability pretty low. Ewulp 03:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepScruggs' notability is not an issue in Birmingham and in the community. Albeit, she is notable for her art collecting as much as her photography, she is a very big part of the social fabric there. // Many may not realize that Birmingham have their own Wikipedia program called Bhamwiki and many articles for Wikipedia came from Bhamwiki. In responding to the article "Famous People in Birmingham," shouldn't the criteria be exactly what the article is saying? Also, as I was checking out many people on that site, most do have Wikipedia articles but many do not. // This is something that should be considered here. // Another episode with this article occurred just before "Articles for deletion" took place where one of the opposing editors deleted two artists names from her collections just before this nomination, which I think is highly unfair in the course of this process and should be checked out by WP:CIVIL before this issue is taken any further. My vote is to Keep Artsojourner 04:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, I hope you don't mind my reformatting of your "delete" vote immediately above. Now for the points that you make (as far as I can understand them): 1. I'm open to evidence that Scruggs is notable in Birmingham (or anywhere else, and for her collection or anything else). Where's the evidence? ¶ 2. One putative piece of evidence for this notability was the appearance of her name within a list of famous people from Birmingham. However, this list appears to be derived from List of people from Birmingham, Alabama. I therefore infer that her appearance within that list of "famous people" has no independent value. Have I made some mistake here, and if so, what? (Incidentally, it was you who put it within the WP list.) ¶ 3. You say that one of the opposing editors deleted two artists names from her collections just before this nomination. I suppose you mean that just before the AfD nomination, one of the editors voting "delete" removed the names of two artists from a description of her collection. I wondered what might be unfair or uncivil about that, but first I had to find and view it, or something like it. I can't find it. Here is the article's edit history. Which edit(s) are you talking about? -- Hoary 05:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - [After reading TME's reply immediately below:] I see now: the edit in question was this one. I don't know how I missed it, and can only guess that the unrelated change above within the same edit combined with the edit summary to deflect my attention from it. So: this part of the article claimed that Scruggs has accumulated an art collection through relationships to many artists including Ruth Bernhard, Jon Coffelt, Patricia Gaines<ref>[http://www.patriciagaines.net/bio.htm Listed in Patricia Gaines bio]</ref>, Chris Lawson, Jack Spencer, Melissa Springer among others. There's a reference for only one, so strictly speaking everyone aside from Gaines seems dispensable. I don't know who Lawson is; conceivably he/she richly deserves a WP article, but without a link "Chris Lawson" seems particularly dispensable here. I see nothing whatever about this edit that's unfair or uncivil (and anyway it could have been reverted). -- Hoary (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A major issue I have faced when trying to edit articles authored by Artintegrated/Artsojourner, is the tendency to incorporate dozens of names into every reference. Thus a mention of a show that might include the article's subject, becomes open territory to also include many names of other artists. In trying to make sense of these articles, I find the focus on the subject is lost in the phonebook-like listings. This is a case in point, I removed the name of Chris Lawson from the list of Scruggs' art collection for brevity (I also removed Jon Coffelt because it seemed redundant, but am restoring his name now). Since Lawson is not a notable artist on Wikipedia, owning a piece of art from him or her wouldn't matter on the issue Scruggs' notability. In this sense, the argument becomes more and more spurious. I don't see any standards on which to judge the significance of Virginia Scruggs' art collection and whether it merits her biographical inclusion in Wikipedia. TheMindsEye 07:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm still willing to believe that her collection is significant. It could have been the subject of articles in art or photography magazines. It could have been lent to some gallery or even gone on tour, accruing critical commentary. But I haven't noticed the addition to the article of any evidence for this kind of thing. -- Hoary (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable subject, unless the Wikipedia standard for notability now allows me to start articles on several of my cousins, say, who have, in fact, more prominent credentials than this soul (one of my cousins has had a solo exhibition, for instance)... Pinkville 15:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just Listen to how snippy you people are about this My GOODNESS!!! Its not the end all and be all. Artintegrated (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 22:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Yes, well, I for one am a little tired of your spurious additions to Wikipedia.~~ Pinkville (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Steady on. I don't remember much spuriousness. -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, that's true... ~~Wrong word, let's say, scant.~~ Sorry, Artintegrated, for my snippy reply. But references please. Pinkville (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources have been found to establish notability -- Whpq 17:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was apparent hoax. DS 18:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beebe's monster

Appears to be a hoax. I can find absolutely no mention of this supposed animal on any sites apart from Wikipedia and its mirrors.[35] If it was truly "a prime example of cryptozoology turned zoology" then I'm sure it would have received a lot more attention. Mgiganteus1 (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. Hubbs' review of Half Mile Down was published after the fish was allegedly caught, so the story in the article doesn't make sense. [36]. Plus, I've read up on cryptozoology, and have never heard of this. Zagalejo^^^ 08:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This certainly seems like a hoax to me, as well. "Monsters" of all sorts get lots of publicity. This one has none outside Wikipedia and its kin. For what it's worth, the original author, Proff. Sheffington, now apparently Prof. Sheffington, seems to have worked on little else other than this article. Tim Ross·^talk 17:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Oxymoron⁸³ 09:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen E.P

Looks like a hoax. Ghits are dismal and don't reflect the claims the article makes at all. Prod removed by anon (99.9% chance of being the author logged out). JuJube (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. The one external reference, [37], is not encouraging. --Paularblaster (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely no sources found on google to satisfy WP:V -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 00:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boise State Effect

Blatant neologism; one hit at Google that's not this wiki article. AUTiger » talk 05:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are no sources that mention this "effect," only one source that mentions the game that the article claims inspired it. WP:MADEUP much? Epthorn (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this term has existed under numerous names in the past, and will use other names in the future. There is no unique claim to this definition. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and LonelyBeacon. ↔NMajdan•talk 14:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NEO. JJL 15:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article might represent a buzz word, but it is currently a relevant buzz word. It should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.118.139 (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and LonelyBeacon.MECU≈talk 13:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Peripitus (Talk) 05:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Anna Clark

Delete non-notable individual. Like her, I'm a psychology professor, I have publications, and I've been an officer in an organization -- not a bit of which makes either of us notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Also, given that Clark made one COI addition to List of clinical psychologists, I question the origin of this article about her. Doczilla (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. President-elect of an established scientific society indicates that her peers find her notable. It is difficult to evaluate her publication record as there are apparent other people named "LA CLARK", but there are many publications listed in Web of Science, one of them in the prestigious Annual Review of Psychology (submissions only on invitation) that has been cited 261 times since 1998. --Crusio (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - as Crusio. --.Tom. (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep Using the author finder feature of WoS, which is necessary to get the medical and social science together, and sort out the different people with such a common name on the basis of their universities, there are 57 included papers, with the most highly cited being cited 3403, 1700, 826, 439 & 411 times. (I've added them to the article) The most cited is the paper on the standard test she developed, which is the sort of paper that is always highly cited for a commonly used instrument--but it certainly shows it is a very commonly-used instrument--and the others are the usual type of research papers. 1700 times for a non-methods research paper is a remarkable record in any subject, and explains why she was selected for Annual Reviews, which is as prestigious as Crusio says--and she had an earlier review there as well. . Doczilla, you do one-tenth as well and we'll put you in, like it or not. :) DGG (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability established by peer acceptance (e.g author of recognized shrinko test) and I will gladly write the Doczilla article if you care to provide pointers to reliable sources which prove your angry blurb. `'Míkka >t 01:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Claridge

Delete this bio stub for insufficient and unverified notability. Doczilla (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching for his name and specialty in Google Scholar returns 734 hits. Giving Oxford's idiosyncratic rank system, I'd think an emeritus professor there carries a default assumption of likely notability, much more than at other universities. And I find the nominator's claim of difficulty verifying any of this puzzling. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Professor at Oxford is notable in itself; it's a title reserved to the eminent few, unlike at many universities. There's a more detailed bio here, on the occasion of him giving a prize lecture for the British Psychological Society. Web of Science brings up dozens of articles, some cited hundreds of times. Biggest hit: "Schizotypy and hemisphere function—I Theoretical considerations and the measurement of schizotypy", Personality and Individual Differences 5:6 (1984), pp. 633-648, Times Cited: 266. Meets WP:PROFTEST --Paularblaster (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Article should be expanded and wikified, I guess. --Crusio (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suggest this article, which I have expanded, should be removed from the Deletion list. Claridge is notable for his role in the development of the concept of schizotypy, a concept which is generating research in a number of different countries, and which has implications for the treatment of mental disorder.Ranger2006
- The general pattern is that Articles for Deletion will list an article for five days before an admin reviews it and either deletes it from the list or removes from the active list of articles being considered for deletion. An article will not usually be removed from consideration before then, except when the issue is completely cut and dried; e.g. a national president.--Prosfilaes 23:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't have to be quite that obvious to be closed early; I think we may have a solid enough set of keeps here to invoke WP:SNOW. But it requires a neutral administrator happening by some chance to view the AfD and agreeing. —David Eppstein 16:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, looks to be a notable professor. RFerreira 08:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 00:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment program

Purely WP:original research, creator's own views (WP:NPOV), and, if all that were removed, redundant. The topic is already well covered by more specific articles. Collectonian (talk) 05:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is flat-out inaccurate, in addition to nom. A cookie would improve my quality of life right now, but it's not a treatment program. eaolson (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As eaolson points out, it could be talking about anything (I'd like my warm weather and cake treatment program now, please). All original research, and the second half seems to be an unrelated tangent about cemetaries and voting rights. -- Kateshort forbob 10:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doc^g 01:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wedgie

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is a term, not a encyclopedic article and its already covered in School prank. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DICT, this can't possibly be expanded beyond a dicdef. Although I should point out that wedgie-proof underwear already exist... they're called boxer shorts. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that the nom is stretching the line of "dictionary definition" here. An action that is "notable" (and actually has a reference) is worthy of an article. Sailing, for example. - jc37 05:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added a note to my nom, as I just found out it is also already covered in School prank along with noogies and the like. The one source could easily be added there. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merging to School prank is fine with me. (Nice find : ) - jc37 06:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school prank. A full article could be written about this, but until then it is fairly redundant to that article. Mr.Z-man 05:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Mr.Z-man. The article can be unredirected and improved when more sources are available.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Mr.Z-man. A bit redundant to the school prank article. Source is great, but no need to have its own article. --Son (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was lots of information pertaining to the notability of this, however, it got remove since it wasn't referenced and "trivia". That was probably the best choice, but it shows there's potential to make this worth keeping. Right now, it's not a terrible stub. And it's not just a school prank so a merge isn't ideal. 16:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocket000 (talk • contribs)
You know, if it wasn't referenced, then it doesn't pertain to notability. Notability is defined in terms of information that can be referenced. How does a bunch of original research show that something is notable? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it isn't referenced doesn't mean it's original research. And not every single thing needs to be referenced (see WP:V). Rocket000 11:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um... I didn't claim either of those things. I claimed that the article contains a lot of original research. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I didn't claim you claimed those things. It's what we're implying. Rocket000 17:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to above commentators: Immediately prior to its nomination, the article was purged of 6,000 bytes of content. It should be evaluated on the basis of its full content (on which I pass no judgement, for or against), not on the near-dicdef that was put in its place.--Father Goose 19:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the editor who cleaned up that article before it was nominated for deletion, I disagree that we should evaluate it based on a bunch of original research that's been deleted repeatedly. What has a bunch of unsourced (and apparently unsourceable) material got to do with whether or not the article should be kept? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the material that was removed was drawn from primary sources, which is not automatically original research per the terms of WP:PSTS. Some of the material removed from the "types of wedgies" section can be sourced, so I'll add what sources I can find and remove the parts that do genuinely seem like OR.--Father Goose 23:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "the parts that do genuinely seem like OR," what criteria are you using? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Review the most recent rewrite for your answer. If I couldn't find a source for it, I removed it. I didn't remove any of the primary-source-based claims; I trust that someone else can verify them by checking that those descriptions match what actually appears in those sources.--Father Goose 01:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, anyone could verify that research by repeating the research. That's why I consider it original research. This is particularly true for a claim such as, "In the animated cartoon on Nickelodeon, The Fairly Oddparents, a bully named Francis usually gives wedgies to children younger than him." This is someone's distillation of their own familiarity with the show. I think a Wikipedia article on wedgies should be based on what sources about wedgies say. If those sources talk about how wedgies appear in cartoons, and list examples, then so should we. Otherwise, I think it's OR. I'm curious what others think.
Incidentally, I don't necessarily support deletion of the shorter version. I think that redirecting makes some sense, but that would make "Wedgie" one of the longer sections of that article, possibly deserving one of its own. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider describing what a source says (or otherwise depicts) as "original research", that is a rather unworkable definition, not reflected by what WP:NOR says. I grant you that "distillations", such as the example you give above, are more likely to drift toward interpretive claims. I prefer to see specific descriptions of specific episodes cited, so as to be able to check the citations (much like it's not right to say "source: The New York Times" without giving a specific article).--Father Goose 08:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that describing the contents of a work is always original research, especially when other commentators have talked about particular sections of the work. When we start deciding what is or is not important in a work, and what constitutes a notable example of which concept, then yes, I think we're doing original research. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that goes both ways: one person saying "this is unimportant" is just as much original research as another saying "this is important". I suppose on occasion one can find a secondary source that explicitly says "this is important to <subject>", but for the most part, importance is subjective, and best resolved by attempting to form consensus for its retention or removal.--Father Goose 05:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't go both ways. Information is assumed not to be significant or notable (in an encyclopedic sense), until it's being discussed in a secondary source demonstrates its notability. I don't have to provide evidence that some editor's cat is "unimportant". Unless he provides evidence that his cat is important, that article gets deleted. The question: "has anyone publishing a secondary source deemed fact X worthy of mention" is not a subjective one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability only applies to subjects (or articles as a whole), not to the content of articles, i.e., individual facts. Further, the article now contains several secondary sources that each have deemed various aspects of "wedgies" a subject of note.--Father Goose 07:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per the above, commentators may wish to consider both versions that have been up recently. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school prank Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Not to mention other articles, such as noogie and wet willy are redirected there as well. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 00:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a dicdef article, notwithstanding GTBacchus' hollowed-out version. This truly troubling if someone can blank almost all the content from an article then get it deleted in the same day due to its being blanked. (Yes, I know, the nominator and purger are not the same individuals.) I wonder if legitimate articles have been speedied on this basis in the past.--Father Goose 01:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing that the "purger" and the nominator were two different people, why would you even construct the phrase, "someone can blank almost all the content from an article then get it deleted in the same day"? How is that sentence an accurate picture of what "someone" is doing? Who is the "someone" you've got in mind, me or the nominator? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to imply that either you or Collectonian have acted in bad faith here. However, if an article is nearly blanked (and not because it violates any policy, but on the basis of a personal judgement), then nominated for deletion because it is nearly blank, it doesn't allow the article to get a "fair trial", as it were.--Father Goose 07:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed all assertions in the article for which I could not find sources, and added sources to the remainder. I haven't added citations to most of the primary source entries, as the sources used in those cases is implied, and such information is compliant with WP:PSTS, a section of WP:NOR.--Father Goose 01:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I should mention, I did look at the article history and saw the before and after. I didn't find the "fuller" version any better than the original. The fuller version, and the current one, are both just giant trivia lists with the same short definition. The only content addition are "types" which could still be covered in school prank very easily. AnmaFinotera 01:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what we're looking at is a purge of the article because WP:ITSCRUFT, then deletion because "it's empty". This is wrong on every level.--Father Goose 05:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a bunch of cruft - is that "wrong on every level". As stated below, the reason for deletion isn't that it's empty; the reason is that, even with all the cruft, it's still just a dicdef with a list of examples. What exactly is "wrong on every level" about this? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Father Goose on this one. Even if it wasn't intended, it's pretty misleading. Rocket000 11:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what does that mean? Any time an article has been improved recently before an AfD, we should revert the improvements? How does that make sense? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a substantial attempt to improve the article in response to the AfD; how does deleting those improvements make sense?--Father Goose 07:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And who has deleted those? -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above commentators have returned to reassess the article in light of the issues I've raised here (as well as the improvements I made); the closing admin might simply count the redirects and toss the article. I've seen that happen; people seldom return to change their vote after the article is fixed up. In that light, I'll finally submit a "!vote" of my own.--Father Goose 19:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the editor who went in and removed the lists, and as I could see why they were removed, I did not see any point in reverting those edits before AfDing. I'd have AfDed either version, as even with the huge list, it still is basically a two sentence definition, three if you count the types, followed by an virtually limitless list of "examples." AnmaFinotera 11:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the Heymann standard and the fact that the "dicdef" claim is made toward a non-representative version of the article.--Father Goose 19:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I had heard "Melvin" and "atomic wedgie" mentioned in a lot of US TV shows, but I didn't know what they exactly were until I read this article. Bláthnaid 20:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Father Goose and the Heymann standard. DHowell (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 23:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Llewdor

Does not meet WP:N nor WP:FICT. Unsourced, in-universe game plot and fancruft about an unnotable fictional country with no reliable real world sources. Collectonian (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Needs to assert notability through out of universe referencing, and currently fails to. Judgesurreal777 21:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article does not need to be deleted. I have taken the first step by removing most (if not all) of the fancruft and this article needs to be cleaned, not deleted. GVnayR 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to King's Quest universe per precedent of merging various articles into Warcraft universe. This is the current general WP:VG consensus. User:Krator (t c) 12:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no out-of-universe context, no notability outside the game. Interested editors should consider a gaming wiki instead. Marasmusine (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fayenatic (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joystix

Completely unsourced and unverifiable. There is are some user made fonts named Joystix, but no reliable source found for an actual font called Joystix used in the manner described here. Does not meet WP:N Collectonian (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see how "Joystix" (the font) is notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The font named Joystix that I found through Google appears to have been a creation of noted type designer Ray Larabie, who often creates fonts based on well-known logos/typefaces. Thus it is probably an emulation of the font used in games, not the games using this typeface. This claim should be removed. Since a list of other typefaces exists in the article on Larabie, I think that the remaining information in the article should be merged to Ray Larabie. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Scott5114. I do believe that the font has some level of notability, being that the font was in some well known games. That having been said, I don't believe it is notable enough to constitute its own article, but is notable enough to merge into the Larabie article. --Son (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Scott5114 and Son to Ray Larabie. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Plot summary and trivia. BLACKKITE 19:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jimmy Timmy Power Hour 2: When Nerds Collide

Contested prod. Non-notable cartoon episode. Article nothing more then a plot summary with no real world context. Ridernyc (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Ridernyc (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The whole article is trivial. Unnecessary plot information, which isn't what Wikipedia is for. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of the biggest pieces of fancruft I've ever seen. Nothing but highly anal levels of trivia and plot summary. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Jimmy Timmy Power Hour: No need for separate articles on the individual episodes. Ben Standeven (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 21:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cornelius Quartet

Fixing unfinished nom by User:Folk smith. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user Nick mallory continues to place stubs w/o applying the proper tags. Both Sinclair and I asked the user to not post these "articles" w/o identifying them as stubs. He has refused to do so. I would suggest that instead, this article and the others like it that I have flagged be merged into the article for Michael Moorcock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Folk smith (talk • contribs) 04:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the wikipedia requirement that I tag articles I've just started writing? I asked folk smith to point out the policy he's quoting, but he seemed unable to do so. A glance at his talk page shows other users pointing out that he's been tagging quite a lot of pages incorrectly in his few days on wikipedia so far, one person writing 'I'm having to undo all your edits, and I really encourage you to stop, read a bit, and learn before you take actions such as this.'. User Sinclair, on the other hand, seems to have an entirely blank user and talk page. Nick mallory (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Michael Moorcock#Select bibliography or similar: If there isn't going to be any information in this stub, I see no reason to keep it that way. I say redirect because they are popular novels, and "The Cornelius Quartet" would be a popular search term. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD, as I point out below, was started a few minutes after I started the article. Please revisit it and see that there's plenty of information contained in it which would be too much to put in the Moorcock article. I started writing the article because it was a red link on the select bibliography list you quote. There are plenty of other books on that list which have their own articles. You admit yourself that these are 'popular novels' and would be a likely search term, so why do you propose deleting an article on them? Nick mallory (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are among the most famous novels by a highly acclaimed British science fiction writer. Should the articles on the novels of Jane Austen be redirected back to her name? I started these articles literally minutes before this AfD was posted. They are referenced, categorised and accurate in their details. If folksmith cannot post an Afd correctly, one wonders why he is so keen to criticise the wikiwork of others. I note in passing that he has been a registered username since November 22nd and so may not be aware that articles on individual works are acceptable. The Quartet (or chronicles) are notable as a compilation because all the Jerry Cornelius stories are linked, they are essentially the continuation of one huge, fractured tale in the Michael Moorcock "mulitverse" and the article in question quotes him and others as saying this. Nick mallory (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, seems to have a couple decent sources. I would also think that since the author is notable, the book would be too. I would encourage User:Nick mallory to put a little more meat on his stubs first, however -- it's all right to make a stub, but please make sure that the notability of the subject is a little clearer. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has eight (now nine) sources, it was put up for AfD almost immediately I started writing it and would have been in its current, fairly meaty, state rather sooner if I hadn't had to comment here instead of actively making wikipedia better. Nick mallory (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - there is clearly notability for a volume that has stayed in print for 30 years. Also there is "no" justification for deletion of an article of this type for a work by an author as notable as Michael Moorcock. Especially after such a short period of time. What is this place coming too. By the way I am no fan, do not hold a candle for Moorcock, I have never read one of his works. I however recognise his place in the pantheon of SF writers. I have improved the citations etc. and format of the article. There is need to explicit statements of notability in the article even allowing the article is so new. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article's subject is notable and it is well referenced. N.B. Nominating an article to AfD 30 min. after creation is not nice. feydey 13:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - The Cornelius books are some of the most notable works by one of the most notable writers in the genre, and the subject is the protagonist of any number of other books as well. Also, frankly, I have to question the judgement of the person who nominated it for deletion. Regardless of the prior history of any editor, I think we have to consider the notability of the subject first last and foremost. The prior history of the creating editor cannot be considered before the subject itself. John Carter 15:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and a suggestion that WP:SNOW be used to close this. I won't rehash the above statements, but I will point out that if you're planning to flesh out an article on your own, it may not hurt to keep it in userspace until its Afd-proof. Xymmax 17:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Above - This is exactly point I was trying to make to the poster on hu's talk page when I first noticed the Moorcock novel stubs. The poster continued to post stubs and so I nominated for deletion.I'd like to point out that the four other stubs that Nick mallory posted last night are still stubs and have not been expanded on. I suggest that the poster write complete articles before posting them.--Folk smith 02:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not put them up for AfD Folk? Seeing as your arguments have been so successful in this one. Nick mallory 06:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However he does have a point that articles do need to be developed and not just left as stubs. Try perhaps to work on one really good article before moving on to another. But all the same, keep editing. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability of the works clearly established. Also, bringing a stub to AfD immediately after creation is a refusal to show good faith; if you see a stub, be bold and tag it as such, instead of wasting time with a deletion debate. —Quasirandom 21:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Okay, the article is sourced, well written, and has footnotes. The author is very notable and the series The Cornelius Quartet is notable as well. There is not much content yet, but it was nominated for deletion 34 minutes after being written. I think we should give the author the benefit of the doubt on this one. Also, this appears to be a bad faith nom by Folk smith because, last time I checked, not classifying an article as a stub was not one of the criterion for deletion. There is no policy that says the article creator has to apply a stub tag. Additionally, there is no policy that says an article must be complete before being posted. Wikipedia itself is a work in progress. It's laughable to suggest that an article should be finished completely before being posted. Oh yeah, it's also hard to see the ground right now, pretty snowy. --Cyrus Andiron 17:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the fact tha the book(s) have apparnetly been reprinted and translated suggests that they are notable. I regard nominating an article within hours of its being created to be very bad form. The author has done a lot of work on it, possibly after the first nomination. Perhaps he has not discovered that new articles can be tagged "underconstruction", to prevent such ill-natured attention. Peterkingiron 00:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - most certainly notable. And there is no admonition on creating stubs. In fact, stubs are the starting point for articles to grow. We would be nowhere if articles had to spring forth fully formed. -- Whpq 18:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SkierRMH (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FOLAP

Cannot find any references to FOLAP neither on Internet nor in the OLAP literature, this doesn't seem to be existing technology. Wikiolap (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, doesn't seem to exist. Hoax? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the above. I cannot find anything either. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If it really exists, it's well hidden. Tim Ross·^talk 17:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of notability. The (alleged) creator of FOLAP and the user who wrote this are both named Abraham. I'm going to just assume they're the same person. Someguy1221 21:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Even though Alaney2k has done good work with article, he has no address WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL, and there is consensus for that. --Maxim_(talk) 00:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CASH line

Article fails WP:N as the name this line has been given is not yet notable as far as the history of the NHL goes. Perhaps time will prove me wrong, but Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball so we cannot assume that it will be notable in the future. The CASH line, in itself, is simply not yet notable, even though the players that are on it are obviously notable. Pparazorback (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Pparazorback (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Oppose A basic search of online news found some mentions of the article. Also, if this line is being deleted, we are going to need to establish some set criteria of what lines are acceptable and what aren't. Also would have to go through and see how many articles are made about hockey lines; West coast Express comes to mind, and as someone from BC, I don't even find that article notable. All said, I find this to be setting a dangerous precident. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Comment To further what I already said, this article already has several sources, and while it may incoroporate a large body of text from the respective articles of the players on the line, it unites all three, something that is not done in detail anywhere else. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. My issues have been adressed. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Ottawa Senators: Notable within the team itself, and to many Ottawa fans, also NHL fans in general. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The guidelines for notability within Ice Hockey with respect to 'lines' are not well defined. In the discussion of the deletion of this article, we would be setting a standard outside of a proper process for setting notability guidelines. Notability guidelines for ice hockey claim notability enough for all players who have played in the NHL to be worthy of an article. The members of this group already are notable for their achievements in hockey and have articles. Each player is notable, two won the rookie awards, two were top three overall draft picks, but the combination of these players has created a notable line, beyond what their individual notability entails; and some of that is from playing together. As mentioned in the article, this group led the NHL in playoff scoring, carrying their team to the Finals; one has the highest number of goals over the last two seasons, one is the first European captain in the championship finals. Further, the notability of this line does not depend upon crystal-ball gazing, they are notable already; but it must be said that they are -not likely- to become 'non-notable', as each player is well-skilled, each player is making in excess of $5 million per year, and have signed long-term contracts which will keep the line together. Simply put, within the world of ice hockey, this combination of players is notable. Alaney2k (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The notability of the players on this line has nothing to do with the notability of the line name itself. The line itself is not yet notable, If you talk to most hockey fans outside of Ontario, I am willing to bet that few would have any idea who you are referring to when you ask them who the CASH line is... Merging & Redirecting into the Ottawa article as suggested by Rjd0060 may be the best course for this information. -Pparazorback (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You don't seem to understand. The players themselves are notable no doubt about it. But this is about the name of the line itself. Just because the players who play on the line are notable doesn't make the line itself notable. Is this line more notable than the any other line in the NHL. That is what is failing. --Djsasso (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment further It is actually crystal-ball gazing to assume that the coaching staff in Ottawa will keep this line together. You never know what could happen, whether it be production starts to stall, or a key injury to one or more of these players may force the line to be changed. When this line has been together for a long enough time that the media refers this line as the CASH line pretty much league-wide, then it will be notable. For now, that is not the case. -Pparazorback (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Then you are pre-supposing that this line will not stay together. Again it is unlikely considering the elevation in scoring when these three are together. Alaney2k (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Again this isn't about whether the line will stay together or not. Its about is the term Cash line notable. And it is not because it can't be backed up by non-trivial sources. --Djsasso 16:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This line is no more notable than any of the other numerous "named" lines that pop up year after year. We created a list for this sort of thing so that articles would not be created for every named line that someone feels is important. The majority people out there would have no idea who the CASH line is if you asked them. Just because the players on the line are notable does not make the line notable itself. --Djsasso (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would prefer that this settling of whether a line is notable be done through a comparison to a guideline. It really seems inappropriate without a guideline. Please address that issue. Alaney2k (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are guidelines WP:RS and WP:V which it fails. --Djsasso 16:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Subject of article does not have notability, let alone irrefutable recognition outside of Ottawa. Flibirigit (talk) 06:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of ice hockey linemates or Ottawa Senators. There are guidleines, Alaney. WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS. We can verify the line exists, and that it has been called that. I cannot, however, find multiple, independent, non-trivial sources to establish notability. Its the top line of the Ottawa Senators. I'm not sure how simply having a nickname makes it notable. Reso lute 16:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I only started working on the article yesterday. It had been a stub for PROD, as it had languished for a couple of years and I suggested 'let me work on it, then take a look at it'. But it went to AfD immediately, within a few hours. That was surprising and a bit disheartening, frankly. Alaney2k 16:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Alaney that really doesn't have anything to do with it. No matter how much you work on it, it will still fail notability guidelines unless you can find non-trivial sources for it, which will not be possible for a named line that is so relatively new. Sometimes you just have to let things go or you can risk bumping up against WP:OWN. --Djsasso 16:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Sure, I wrote to another ed that consensus will decide, and I accept that. I don't own the article, but I do think the trio is notable and I was willing to work on the article. I was not expecting it to go so swiftly to AfD, after I suggested that I work on it. That almost guarantees that I can't find a sufficient notability for the line, but I'll check the library's copies of The Hockey News, that might be enough? Alaney2k 17:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ottawa Senators, it's important to Senators fans, but pales in comparison to the 'great lines' of the NHL past. GoodDay 17:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to suggest Ottawa Senators/CASH line, and even created it to see if Wikipedia would allow articles under a '/', and it did. Sheesh, doing so broke a rule though. Anyway, since the Sens article is already 60k, what should be done? It seems too much to put in the team article, and where does it go, within the structure? Alaney2k 18:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If 'redirect' is this AfD's choice? you don't put any information in the Senators article (or very little) concerning the 'Cash line'. A redirect simply means, when somebody looks up Cash line it'll take them to the Senators page. Why put all the Cash line articles information into the Senators page? That would defeat the purpose of the redirect. GoodDay 19:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Could you explain further what you mean, by defeating the purpose? Alaney2k 19:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment In this instance when a redirect is used it means that the information is not notible in and of itself and so the user would be redirected to the most relavent article. It does not mean that the article it is redirected to would have any information on that particular subject. A vote to merge however would mean that some of the information would be transferred to the new article. But a redirect on its own is just a redirect with no transfer of information as the information was deemed not notible enough. So adding information to the Senators article would be defeating the purpose of the Afd as you would just be hiding the information on another page. --Djsasso 19:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dj is correct, if the AfD calls for merge into the Ottawa Senators, then 'Cash Line' information can be moved to the Senators page. GoodDay 19:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (the "Comment" was originally Oppose, which was a mistake) I still think we should keep it around. Maybe it is not as notable as the famous lines of the past, but I don't think it has to be. I think we need to work on more of the line articles, especially the Production Line article. Alaney2k 15:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You've already !voted keep above. It is preferable to tag subsequent remarks as comments rather than additional keep !votes. Also, WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid keep reason. Resolute 15:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I only wanted to indicate that I still oppose, despite my further comments about the possibilities of redirect or merge. And, this is not supposed to be a vote, but a discussion leading to 'consensus'. Alaney2k 17:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment And that is why he called it a !vote. Which means not vote. Its the universally accepted wiki way of calling this a concensus building discussion. And we were aware you still opposed it as you did not strike out your eariler oppose !vote. -Djsasso 17:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment See, I thought you were not supposed to change your previous edits to this page. Like a talk page, not a !talk page, but rather a !vote page. :-) Alaney2k 17:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Everybody, please wait until the AfD has concluded. Then go from there, shall we? GoodDay 18:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about the I like it reference. I went and read that. My comment was certainly not intended that way. I was responding to GoodDay's comments about the trio not being as notable as the famous hockey lines of the past. Alaney2k 18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One thing to be aware of, and I find rather ironic. Is that Alaney2k has now added a source to the article which pretty much proves the arguments against the article because it states that the CASH line is not well known outside of Ottawa which pretty much removes the articles assertion of notability, and if it wasn't up for Afd already would in my opinion make it a speedy candidate due to no assertion of notability. -Djsasso 19:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is there a short-cut for twisting my words? I wrote that the 'name' is not well-known, not the line. I included several citations that the name is known to the media and to fans. Alaney2k 19:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment As noted on my talk page, we aren't disputing that the individual players are notible. Its the name CASH line which this article is about that is in dispute. Your quote goes to show that "Cash line" as an entity is not notible which is what this Afd is about. -Djsasso 20:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment as I said on your talk page, that logic would mean that no individual articles should be written about hockey lines. You can cover the topic of naming within a list. I don't think it is particularly notable that someone gave them the name 'production line', rather it is the combination, the trio of players that is notable. That's encyclopedic, that's what's worthy of an article. I can willing debate that the CASH line is not notable enough within some scale yet-to-be-agreed-upon of notability guidelines. But I would argue that the line has reached enough notability as things stand today. I would happily accept consensus on that. The line has made history with the shoot-out, led a playoff-underachieving team to the Finals, had three players in the Top 10 in scoring. The line has been together for more than two seasons, which in this day and age, is a long time. The line has made them into more notable players, not the other way around. Alaney2k 20:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment But that is what this is all about. Just the fact that the local fans/media gave them a nickname is why it is not notible and why we have put it up for deletion. You yourself now have just admited the name is not notible, but that is what articles of lines are about. The fact that they have been named. Players who have just happened to play on the same line does not make that line any more notible than the rest of the team. All three of these players were extremely notible before they played on the line together, the line as a group is not all the much more notible than any other hockey line. Nowhere else in no other sport on wikipedia are player given articles for a line or unit that they play on. What possibly could have made the line notible was the name, as that distances them from hundreds of other lines throughout history, except that this named line is not notible as hardly anyone has ever heard the name. -Djsasso 20:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I have provided reliable sources that the name is known, in just a few days. It was mentioned in a prominent article in Sports Illustrated. The name was mentioned in several articles from newspapers in several cities, mostly Canadian. I have no access to newspaper searches for other countries, specifically the US. But the name was mentioned also in USA Today, as provided. I can't go out there and interview everyone. As for your notability point, there are not that mainly 'top lines in the league', in the 'top league in the game'. Within hockey, we give names to lines. I can't speak to other sports. Alaney2k 20:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I think what you are missing is that the source has to be non-trivial. In other words the article has to be written about the fact they are called the CASH line. It can't be something just like "The CASH line scored 3 goals tonight." It has to be an outright article about the CASH line and not just an article about something else that mentions the name CASH line. As for top lines, every time a player moves to another line another line is created. This trio hasn't even managed to stay on the same line for an entire season yet as Spezza has been moved to the second line numerous times over the last two years. -Djsasso 20:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Why would anyone write about the naming of a line? To paraphrase, by any other name, the Production Line would still score goals. As for Cash, the name is known. The name therefore can be used to title an article about this line, which is or isn't notable. As for line combinations, that is the nature of the game. I am sure that every top line since they went to substitution rules back in 1920 or whatever has had different players for different lengths of time. That's coaching. If we can get off the name thing, and talk about stuff like Spezza off the line, I am perfectly ok with that. That's hockey. But naming, well, that's classification. Alaney2k 20:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But its the name that this Afd is about. It's not about stuff like Spezza on or off the line. People have written whole books about things like the naming of a line. So an article is definately not out of the question. And that is why this particular line doesn't hold up the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. Other lines like The Kid Line and The Production Line and I believe though I might be wrong that even the Legion of Doom line have had entire books written about the line. And if not entire books, atleast a major section of a book. Without the name as you mentioned its just Spezza-Alfredsson-Heatley. And in that case their acheivements would just be better suited in their own articles with a comment mentioning that they played on the same line with each other. -Djsasso 20:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But we are talking about a current line. In some sense, we are trying to set a bar for notability in a specific area, even a new area. The encyclopedia has articles about current things, like the players and teams themselves. Do we go or not into having articles about current lines? There might be some value there. If it is a WP:NPOV article about this line, separate from any hype, would that be acceptable then? The article is not WP:SYNTH, is it? (aarggh, now I am using the shortcuts! :-) As for naming, they are generally given almost immediately. Names are discarded if the name is not notable are broken up, also immediately. The CASH line name has 'stuck,' though. Another question, what is the level of recognition of a name that is required? Alaney2k 21:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Why don't we wait until the AfD has concluded. GoodDay 22:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Wait for what? These comments are specifically about this AfD. -Djsasso 22:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment This AfD could quickly turn to a preference for Keep (by the way, when does it close?). GoodDay 22:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Still not sure what you are getting at. But it will close after the 5th. -Djsasso 23:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Oh, in that case - forget I complained. Carry on. GoodDay 23:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Gambit

This stub lists an uncommon chess opening that does not require listing. Tavix (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Neutral not clear to me this is any less notable than any of the many other chess opening/defense pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJL (talk • contribs) 03:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the other articles we have on openings are well-covered in literature. Several chess openings have lots of books written about them. This article is not one of them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I didn't know. It sounds from the comments further down as though this is at the least nn. JJL 15:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just curious here, but why did the nom only nominate this one, since there are many others? - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some chess openings can be considered notable if they're fairly common (jiaco piano) or if its an open commonly played by a grandmaster like Fischer or Kasparov. -RiverHockey 19:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I only put this one up for deletion because this is the only one I found at this moment. When I find others, I'll put them on the chopping block as well. Tavix 23:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, With all do respect a lot of chess openings are much more notable than say Chess960. -RiverHockey 20:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment There are a lot of notable chess openings, see List of chess openings. But this one is not notable. Bubba73 (talk), 20:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Thanks, I'm aware. -RiverHockey 14:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see how this is notable. Obviously the game itself is, but I guess this is supposed to be "inherent notability"? - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am uncertain how to vote, because this seems to be opening a large and complex issue. If this is deleted, then much of the content on List of chess openings named after places looks like it's in trouble, along with perhaps List of chess openings. Wikipedia is not a strategy guide, but I think this content is better transwikied to a more suitable place. Although, it looks like a lot of this content is already duplicated by the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings on their own site.

Comment Although I see your point, a lot of these are actually pretty factual and merit their own article. This opening is fairly uncommon and is probably copied from an encyclopedia or something. Tavix 23:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Nick Penguin_(contribs) 05:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We in the Chess Project have already dealt with a large number of similar articles, and this one is too small to merit its own article. Bubba73 (talk), 05:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bubba73. I think the Chess Wikiproject knows what they are doing.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is one of a series of minor sub-variations which was probably created by mistake, and with weak Geocities sourcing which does nothing beyond defining the moves. Entering the moves in ChessBase database, a collection of 4.2 million games [38], and performing a search, reveals just one hit. (Which is not surprising since the move 5.h4 looks like a horrible blunder which just drops the knight on f3.)Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bubba73 -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bubba73. Even a member of the Chess Project and an avid chessplayer like me finds this article ridiculously non-notable. Of course this is a case-by-case assessment: if some notable chess openings were "AFDed" I would argue to keep them. But this article is definitely not one of them, by any criteria. SyG 18:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into King's Gambit. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 11:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 00:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wal-Mart (disambiguation)

This is not really a true 'disambiguation page', as it's more a list of links to other Wal-Mart-related articles that are already linked to from the Wal-Mart article itself. Furthermore, there's no need for a disambiguation page anyway, since anyone searching for "Wal-Mart" is obviously looking for information about the company, and there's no other companies of the same name. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete should all be at Wal-Mart. JJL (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebuttal a disambiguation page is more clear than listing these in a long article Shaliya waya 02:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment page has been improved but would still prefer a See Also section at Wal-Mart, even if it re-listed items previously linked within the page. These are all Wal-Mart variants and not a true dab. JJL 19:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as un-needed disambig, all pages in question are linked from Wal-Mart anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of Wal-Mart articles, page now has enough to be a valid list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal I created this page. When it was proposed for deletion, I had not completed the list. Now, there are more pages listed here that would not belong on the Wal-Mart page. Shaliya waya 15:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The following vote was misplaced on the article's talk page: Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep Looks like a diambiguation article to me.--Folk smith (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links on the page are more a 'see also' section than a 'disambiguation' list. Dr. Cash 14:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is a disambiguation page, but it isn't necessary. As said above, the main Wal-Mart article should cover all of these. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: The main Wal-Mart page should NOT cover all these topics. It does not make sense to put information on TV shows, or the Wal-Mart camel, for example, on the main Wal-Mart page. Shaliya waya 15:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The last three would not belong on the Wal-Mart article page. That is what led me to creating a disambiguation page in the first place.Shaliya waya 14:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I just added more listings since the above comment, and reorganized all listings into categories, so what I mentioned above as the final three are no longer the final three. Obviously, the name of everything that is named "Wal-Mart" today originates from the store's name. But the term in some cases has moved so far from being directly related to the store itself, that some of these listings cannot be described in the Wal-Mart article, hence the need for a disambiguation page. Therefore, I would like everyone who voted DELETE to reconsider. Shaliya waya 14:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reviewing the revised page, I still have to go for delete. The items in the 'operations run by wal-mart' section are all mentioned in the main Wal-Mart article themselves, so this is pointless. The 'advocacy groups' are also all mentioned in the main article as well, so this is unnecessary. The other items listed are just 'see also' sections, and don't belong in a disambiguation page since their titles won't be confused with the title of the disambiguation. I'm not even sure why there are articles that even exist for Wal-Mart camel and Wal-Mart First Tee Open at Pebble Beach. The fossil article should be renamed and redirected to an article entitled with the scientific name of the organism, per biology article guidelines. The golf article probably should be merged with History of Wal-Mart. The link to the Walmarting article is more appropriate for 'see also'. The link to Wal-Mart at urbandictionary needs to be deleted (urbandictionary does not meet wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. The 'Wal-Mart bill' link does not go to an article with that name; it goes to the health insurance subsection of Criticism of Wal-Mart, which is misleading (the criticism article is already linked from the main Wal-Mart article, and I don't see any reason to highlight any particular subsection of that article in a disambiguation page. Dr. Cash 22:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These terms are not truely ambiguous, no one would visit the Wal-Mart page in search of anything but Wal-Mart. Just because a term has a similar root does not make it ambiguous. -Verdatum 16:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal The whole point of a disambiguation page is when multiple pages with the same or a similar-sounding name have different meanings, regardless of whether or not they have common roots. Disambiguation pages are needed to distinguish commonly named objects, like the animal mouse from a computer mouse, or Washington DC from Washington State, or the band Hot Chocolate from the Hot Chocolate beverage. And since Wal-Mart has become so ingrained in our household vocabulary, there are many things that are generically called "Wal-Mart" now.Shaliya waya 15:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm confused. It appears you've rebutted by restating my argument. When searching for "mouse" it is entirely possible that a user is interested in either the animal or the peripheral device. They share the same name. This is not the case with this list of links. They are variations on the root of "Wal-mart" but would never be referred to just as a "Wal-mart". The only notable exception I can see is Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, and even that is a stretch. Would someone ever say, "Hey, have you ever seen a documentary called 'Wal-Mart'?"? In conclusion, I'm not convinced. -Verdatum 20:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. These are terms that are in need of no disambiguation. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While my comment stands, my !vote has changed per Wphq - see below. Changing to Rename accordingly. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see why it hurts to have such a disamiguation page. Whoever made it seems to have done a good job of it. I give him/her all the credit. It just does not seem possible to list all of these under "See also" on the main Wal-Mart page. If this page were to be deleted, there would be many other disambiguation pages deserving of deletion, such as this one or this one. Many cities have disambiguation pages of things pertaining to that city and bearing their names. On this one, some of the pages listed do not have anything to do with the Wal-Mart corporation directly. Sebwite 18:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to check out WP:NOHARM and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as far as this goes. Maybe those other articles do exist, but maybe they shouldn't be here. Meanwhile, as this is not a true disambiguation page (nothing in here really needs to be disambiguated), there is no need for it, and it is indeed a thorn in the side of Wikipedia. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. It isnt a true disambiguation page.IslaamMaged126 20:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wal-Mart or Wal-Mart corporate family. 132.205.99.122 21:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You would not have the Colorado Rockies on a see also section for thr Rockies (moutains) though the team is named after the mountains. Thats what disambiguations are for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.43.21 (talk)

Comment This user has only four contributions. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks pretty good to me. Has 13 different meanings listed. 12 are other Wikipedia articles. Many are not the Wal-Mart chain. 12.4.192.130 16:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User has only two contributations. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be things listed that would not conveniently form part of the main article on the company. Peterkingiron 00:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, contrary to that, virtually everything on this so-called "disambiguation page" is already in Wal-Mart. This article is simply not a disambiguation page, and one is clearly not needed. Dr. Cash 00:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal On a long page like Wal-Mart, these unrelated topics named Wal-Mart are not clearly noticeable, that is if they are there in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaliya waya (talk • contribs)

If they're not noticeable, then either you're not very observant, or they were removed for some reason. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of Walmart Articles or something similar. I refer you to WP:DISAMBIG, and specifically to the section called Set index articles. The page under AFD is exactly a set index. The current page is useful for navigating Walmart related articles, but is not a disambiguation page as defined in the disambig content guidelines. The simple solution is to remove the disambig template from the page, and rename it to reflect its purpose. -- Whpq 18:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...you know, I never thought of that as an option. This isn't a dab page, QED, but you are right, it does serve a purpose. !Vote changed accordingly. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still see no purpose for renaming to 'List of WalMart Articles', as suggested; that would just add to listcruft and serve no purpose in wikipedia. Dr. Cash 20:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it is "listcruft". Aside from one external link that should be removed, the list are for articles that exist on Wikipedia, and are related to Walmart. The article serves as a navigation aid. Note that WP:DISAMBIG#Set index articles explicitly acknowledges set index articles. Explain why you feel this article would not be a set index. -- Whpq 20:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is clearly listcruft (compare with Foods that begin with Q); also we shouldn't have such eponymous lists for names on Wikipedia, especially considering this is a company name. Tuxide (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, the Wal-Mart article is very long. Whether or not alternate uses of Wal-Mart are listed there, it is not a very reader-friendly place to put them. A short page like this one with a list increases the ease in finding alternate terms. That is what a disambiguation or similar page is for. Shaliya waya 20:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, a disambig page is not for finding alternate terms. A dismabig page if for distinguishing multiple articles that would have the same name. What we have here is a set of articles related to Walmart, not a set of article all named Walmart that need to be disambiguated. So the contents of this article don't qualify it as a disambiguation page, but they do make up a set index which is why I've indicated that it should be renamed in accordance with wikipedia guidelines outlined in WP:DISAMBIG#Set index articles. -- Whpq 20:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cruft. Redundant to Template:Wal-Mart. Tuxide 18:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment user Derek.cashman is being prejudicial. Nowhere in the policies does it says that anonymous votes are not counted, only given less weight. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was confused regarding anonymous users in this process. I am most familiar with the WP:GAN process, in which anonymous users are forbidden from reviewing articles. I was applying that same logic to this process. But reading the guidelines for WP:AfD, I don't see anything expressly forbidding anonymous users from participating. That being said, it should be noted that two users that voted keep above, have made less than 10 edits, according to their user contributions page. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect that if anonymous contributions to something like this were not allowed, the page would be semi-protected. I have never seen an AFD discussion semi-protected. These may be people who simply forgot to sign in. Shaliya waya (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename User Whpq makes a good point. I vote for a renaming of the article to reflect that this is a listing for articles related to Wal-Mart, but not necessarily included on the Wal-Mart article page. --Folk smith (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've voted already above. Please redact the vote you do not wish to submit. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a disambiguation page. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SkierRMH (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Pelle

I think it's a hoax. Google shows no sources except this one which appears to be about a different person with the same name. There is also no IMDB entry for this person. ~Enviroboy^Talk_Contribs - 02:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Probably hoax. Here's the IMDB link, as nom states, no matches. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax. 71.8.192.41 (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Fair Deal (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominee. Weirdy Talk 09:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was I find the arguments for deletion convincing. Expecially the ones pertaining to BLP and NN/Advertising. Result is delete.. Mercury 03:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pathways Health and Research Centre

WP:SPAM. There may be some notability here, but this entire cluster of articles have been created as blatant advertisement by this organization as evinced by the single-purpose usernames used to create and edit these pages even after others have been closed for the same reason.

(some of these are also up for speedy but are included for completeness)

-- Dougie WII (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Comment that FUN FRIENDS was deleted just two days ago. The articles have been created by single-purpose accounts, so problems with WP:COI and WP:NPOV Whitstable (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All: Per the above comments. Clearly NN, advertising, which is probably caused by the COI. The references in some of these aren't reliable, and others are not really directly related to the subjects. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a treatment protocol. It's appropriately documented. Although I agree w/the COI issues, that's not reason enough to delete them. I have twice declined to speedy delete this. - Philippe | Talk 03:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article was written by me. I have never used wikipedia to create or edit an article before and any problems are due to inexperience. All the information in these articles are purely factual. I am struggling to be able to see why these are considered advertising. Perhaps instead of deleting the entire article the specific sentences or references which are problematic could be drawn to my attention? How can i make these articles acceptable as I have no intention of using them as advertisements and merely wish them to inform. PathwaysAustraliaHRC - (Talk) 04:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another name to post on Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Sheesh, don't you read the talk pages of your deleted names? -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but allow creator a chance with a new username, contract, and topic-ban. She claims she's inexperienced, and I see no reason to not assume good faith. However, she needs to read up on COI and out username policy (including a trip to Wikipedia:Changing username) and not edit articles in topics she'd be directly involved in. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pathways Health and Research Centre, delete the rest and merge them into that article. The supplied sources suggest to me that this organisation does meet notability, but it certainly doesn't need this many articles; all its programmes can be covered in one article, and that one seems the most appropriate. Terraxos 02:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but PathwaysPer Terraxos. Separate articles are not needed for the others. Jmlk 1 7 08:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the advice everyone, I have merged all the articles into pathways health and research centre. If there is anything else I can do to improve it, please let me know. Thanks again I really appreciate your help with using wikipedia. PathwaysAustraliaHRC - (Talk)10:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.60.63 (talk) [reply]

Hi everyone, I am friend of the original article creator with lots of knowledge of the subject matter, but also a wikiholic and i very much understand the criticisms of past pages. I am in the process of drastically editing the pages back to relevant encylopedic detail. I am leaving focus and friends (incorporating fun friends) as short articles as they are actually fairly independent of pathways - pathways just does some propogating relating to them. Indeed, they were being used 10 years before pathways existed. I am also up for the possibility that pathways does not reach notability and have cleaned it up but i am willing to concede that it could go.The independent Fun friends article can be deleted though. Does anyone have any objections to this? - Tom Heard 124.185.60.63 03:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.60.63 (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Paula Barrett as unverified WP:BLP, autohagiography. The others might be kept as Weak keeps. BLP's require a much higher standard of citation. Bearian (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - this suite of articles has been written for promotional purposes. Lacks the necessary secondary sources to meet WP:N. There is prospect of a new, encyclopaedic combined article being produced but it would need inline sources and some objective analysis. TerriersFan (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficiently notable - lacks coverage in secondary sources. Other than the centre's home site, the external links provided don't talk about the centre very much at all. They talk about Prof. Barrett and her programs, but not the centre. PKT (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion on the following:

Pathways Health and Research Centre - Weak keep notability is established, though it appears to be somewhat WP:COIish.
Paula Barrett - Speedy delete per WP:BLP
Friends for Life Program - Delete as likely WP:COI violation.
FUN FRIENDS - Delete as likely WP:COI violation.
SALT the other three to prevent recreation.

Maser ^(Talk!) 02:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was consensus to merge per WP:POV and WP:N to SRI International. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early psi research at SRI

Just what we need! Another article inflating the importance of the brief 1970s fad for psychic "research". Guy (Help!) 02:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete focusing on 'at SRI' is just too specific. Maybe just make it a Psi research page? Seems notable in some form. JJL (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge I am not certain if the information in this article is true, perhaps someone can check the sources. But if it is, then content should be moved into relevant sections of Parapsychology, Remote viewing, Extra-sensory perception, Psychokinesis and SRI International. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see how the SRI research is any more notable than other research on the subject. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Peter Fleet (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~merge~~delete The topic seems very contrived, but if the references check out (I havn't verified them) in Nature, Science, Scientific American, and IEEE, then it's hard to dismiss as failing WP:FRINGE. NickPenguin's suggested targets seem appropriate, but it would be nice to have just one to suggest, lest it not actually be merged. I plan to return to this AfD when I have more time to look more closely. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That content is already in remote viewing, but the mainstream POV keeps creeping in and the RV crowd hate that. This is a POV fork. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! thanks for the tip, will take a closer look. Pete.Hurd 18:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

I've looked at Remote_Viewing#Early_SRI_experiments and find Guy's fork concerns well founded. This article seems better referenced than the RV article section at first glance, but... I'm recommending delete with the expectation that the fork editors will head back to the RV article and the usual content disagreement process can work it's magic there. Pete.Hurd 22:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! There are two pretty entrenched camps there - "RV is real and the scientific community is a huge conspiracy to do it down" versus "Yeah, right. Now prove it." Guy (Help!) 16:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article on Remote Viewing is enough, and the content of that can be summed up as 'Remote Viewing doesn't exist'. Nick mallory (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, remote viewing research exists and this page is about research, not remote viewing itself. - perfectblue (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with probably merge later I'm surprised that Guy has nominated this for speedy deletion, as it should have addressed his own Nov 10 suppport here for developing a separate RV piece that relies entirely upon mainstream peer-reviewed material and avoids all partisan/parapsychology sources. (In the interests of full disclosure, the article was prepared by a friend of mine, with my encouragement, in response to this suggestion.) Perhaps it is now too "mainstream POV" as he says above, but I think we could work that issue without speedy deletion, while holding out a vision of eventually replacing the relevant material in remote viewing which is, IMHO, hopelessly self-promoting POV and unfixable at the moment. jxm 15:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not speedy deletion. And this piece is a POV fork. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The number of sources available suggests that it is notable in itself. - perfectblue (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It looks like there is real information here, but it hardly necessitates its own article. Especially as SRI International is fairly sparce anyway. -Verdatum 16:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:NickPenguin and others, above. This seems like some useful work, if the references are legitimate, but it makes more sense in Parapsychology. Tim Ross·^talk 17:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Doesn't need its own article. Majoreditor 18:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary POV fork. Eusebeus 18:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This page is extremely well sources in terms of references. No valid reason has been given for deletion as no policies have been contravened. I recommend that this AFD be closed down and ruled null and void based on the fact that Guy's entire reason for nominating it is in itself a POV statement against the entry that does nothing to assert itself as fact. - perfectblue (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the title is too narrow and contrived, as noted earlier. Would a broader title make keeping it more palatable, rather than commingling this material with the fluff in the main RV piece? jxm (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per NickPenguin. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, in part because the logical parent article is so sparse. Ante lan ^talk 06:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into parent article - As it is not that big that a subpage is needed yet. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 00:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Stone of Anamara

The page for Stone of Anamara is very similar to a deleted page for a game of similar standing in Internet viewership and acclaim, Exmortis (archived deletion log at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exmortis. Upon more detailed inspection, the game was merely an entrant in the IGF's competition, and is thus not notable for that reason. I cannot personally account for the other sites' notability, save that LANACION is of repute; I am not sure how its short review is to be taken as weight. Game Guru listed Exmortis in the same fashion. PrescitedEntity (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. JJL (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't know about those "awards", but the game doesn't appear to be notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science humour

Regretfully nominating this potentially interesting article. An original research: A random collection of examples of humor on scientific topics. No references to scholarly discussion of this topic, only references to particular examples~~, what had come to be called WP:COATRACK in wikipiedia, if I understand the term correctly~~.(no; looks like I misunderstood the concept) Mukadderat (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a list of jokes. szyslak 02:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is certainly soucable, and although a strict list is undesriable, I think the prose text does a good job of providing context in understanding the nuances of the subject. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and this "prose text" is exactly what constitutes unsourced original research. Mukadderat (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with that; the facts that make a joke humerous are implicit within the joke, and if the jokes themselves were sourced, then this would be a case of citing the primary source. How could a joke be funny if no one knew what it meant? --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Original research, and I don't believe Snopes to be a RS anyways. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and listcruft. Unlike RJD0060, however, I have no problem with Snopes as a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Their FAQ page states that content is added by 2 individuals. These people aren't notable in any other way, and they can freely add whatever they'd like. Not to mention the information on their site isn't sourced. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Snopes has frequently been cited as a reliable source, and I would generally accept it as such. Edison (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't understand how that can be considered reliable, since it is unsourced. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I consider Snopes a reliable source. Yes, they can freely add whatever they'd like, but they're not random people, they're two specific people who have effectively become specialized journalists -- they do serious research on urban legends, and generally provide sources in the articles. Pinball22 15:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rjd0060 claims that Snopes is unsourced. What does "unsourced" mean? The Snopes article on the barometer joke [39] includes 10 references and identified sources covering the history of publication of the joke, which relate to its origin, such as the Chicago Tribune (1988), Readers Digest (1958), a 1961 science textbook, and Current Science. The Snopes articles are signed, the Snopes project has identified editors, and they have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking with respect to urban legends, as required by WP:RS. Hence Snopes is generally accepted in Wikipedia as a reliable source. Edison 15:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "claim" anything. I simply said that I wouldn't use it as a reliable site. The snopes "article" may be sourced for this item, but I believe a lot of things on their site are not sourced. You're free to use it as a source if you'd like, but I wouldn't. Is that okay with you? - Rjd0060 15:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This is a list of jokes and although I chortled at many of the items, such as the Heisenberg one, and although many of the entries are familiar to science students of the past several decades, and although it is useful to teachers of introductory science, it is a list, and the text is an essay, and, sadly, it does not appear to satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, without prejudice if someone wants to recreate this article in a better fashion. Unlike Mathematical_joke this article does not analyze the jokes, provide outside sources or really work to establish notability. Epthorn (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny. It's well-written. It's memorable. It's original. Delete. Majoreditor 18:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I don't feel particularly good about voting to eliminate such a nice page. Still, in its current form it looks like OR. Note: I have left a notification of this Afd on the author's talk page to solicit his input.Xymmax 19:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
move to Wikipedia namespace 132.205.99.122 21:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? That suggestion doesn't make sense. - Rjd0060 22:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall a bunch of humour articles, essays, and such being moved to project namespace (along with the deleted BJAODN) 132.205.99.122 23:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like that each joke is explained for us dummies. So, when Henny Youngman says, "Take my wife (pause) please!" it is a play on words, where he is citing her as an example, but also asking the listener to take her away. Right? Mandsford 03:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply There are zillions of jokes. I highly doubt that explaining each and other of them is a way for writing encycopedia. All wikipedia rules apply. Firtst, trivial as it may seem, unreferenced explanations are just what they are: unreferenced, possibly original research. Second, there are jokes and jokes. Some of them deeply penetrated the culture, spawned a number of imitations and/or have aninteresting history. In this case ee can have separate artice for a single joke, just as we have separate aricles for single slang words or witticisms. But again, references for academic discussion of the topic, please. `'Míkka >t 18:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sarcasm is wasted on the humorless. Mandsford 23:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 light-emitting diode. There isn't anything in this article that is not already said in Ohm's law or its parent article, so nothing to merge. I took a look at the references provided, but they only reinforce the view that whenever LED circuits are mentioned in the literature they have no unique properties other than those of the LED load. In the end, I conclude that an LED circuit is just a electrical circuit with a light-emitting diode as a load. That's all - nothing to deserve its own article. In this debate a lot of people have wrongly conflated the notability of LEDs themselves (which are of course notable) with that of an electrical circuit which simply has one. Lastly, since the nominator offers a reasonable argument for deletion and equally reasonable responses to some comments, "keep" comments that are solely based on the nominator's role as SPA have been disregarded. Pegasus «C¦T» 02:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LED circuit

This is an application of ohms law, not a notable or unusual circuit in any way. Although included in many cheat sheets and quick references it is not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia. I noted this and tagged the page for deletion but the tag was removed without any justification. A blitter (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)— A blitter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Nom's only contributions are putting this article up for AfD, which is quite suspicious. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of whether the nominator is a vandal or sockpuppet, we must examine the article itself to see if it's delete-worthy. Vandals can be correct, sometimes. And the nominator does have reasonable objections against this article being kept. Pegasus «C¦T» 05:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Of course. But what is the reason you've said this? I didn't say that the nom. wasn't credible, or that the nom did this in bad faith. I did say that the nom's only contributions were to this AfD, which is obviously called a SPA, not to mention that it is suspicious that a "new user" would make his or her first contributions by way of nominating a page for deletion. - Rjd0060 15:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have edited several articles over the years and had seen this several months prior, I was hoping someone would bring it up for deletion but they didnt. I needed a username to AfD the article so I created one, I'll probably come back in a few years time and create new username to do the same again.A blitter 04:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the WP:SPA article, it even says that single purpose accounts can be perfectly innocent. You do not appear to be assuming good faith. eaolson 05:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Are you suggesting that LED circuit's are not notable? Sorry, but they are, and this article is well written, although a few sources wouldn't hurt. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, suspicious AfD seeing as it's user's only edit... Notable concept, needs references. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. As said before, this article is notable. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 01:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How exactly is the circuit that provides current to an LED notable? The LED and Ohms Law articles cover all the notable aspects and the combination of the two is trivial.A blitter (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is notable because other thick books find it sufficiently notable to discuss it in detail. In wikipedia, the only way to figure out notability is to look for material published by experts in the field. If experts talk about it, opinions of wikipedians are irrelevant. (If experts don't talk about it, opinions of wikipedians are even more irrelevant :-) Mukadderat (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree it warrants inclusion if there are references to experts either presenting or discussing this circuit. But this is a trivial example of ohms law, it does not even mention the transfer characteristics of the diode. An expert would not refer to an "LED circuit" simply because LEDs are driven in a multiude of ways, compare this to an "RC circuit" which is considered a fundamental electrical system and can be referenced in industry standard articles (such as the national semiconductor applications handbook). Further the article on the Zener diode has an example biasing of the diode rather than having it as a seperate "Zener diode circuit".A blitter (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LED light fast speedy keep. It took me about 45 seconds to add two references via google books which discuss the LED circuit even in more detail than this article. Mukadderat (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Page 525 in the "Applied Electonics" book you referenced (sorry I dont know how to do that clever link) uses "Transistor circuit" in exactly the same context, this is not the "Transistor circuit" (because there is no definitive "Transistor circuit") but simply a circuit that uses a transistor.A blitter (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above comments -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 02:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I closed this as a "speedy keep" earlier but after objections on my talk page, I've reverted my closure. Pegasus «C¦T» 05:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe merge to LED. I'm not surprised there are a couple of examples in textbooks labeled "LED circuit", since it's the easiest way to refer to a simple circuit where the item of interest is an LED. But the article hasn't supported it's claim that there is a specific circuit or class of circuits called "LED circuits." This article could just as easily be titled "Electrical circuit with an LED in it". The op-amp article has the simplest possible amplifier circuit in it, and we don't have a separate article for that. eaolson (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - bad faith AfD. Make some contributions before you ask for others to be deleted. Article looks noteable, as per Mukadderat. --Arcanios (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As Pegasus has pointed out, the nominator has made some valid points, which need to be addressed. Your baseless accusation does not assume good faith. Everyone had a first edit somewhere. eaolson 15:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the LED article. Trivial application of Ohm's law. There is no special concept of an "LED circuit" any more than "doorbell circuit," "lightbulb circuit," "buzzer circuit," "electromagnet circuit," "can opener circuit," or "resistor circuit." We could create such a trivial article for every device which uses electricity. Because an LED can be used in a circuit, there will be examples in textbooks of LEDs in circuits. The page is a "how to" article which belongs in a introductory electronics project magazine more than in an encyclopedia. There has been too much attacking of the nominator here, in clear violation of WP:AGF. Edison 15:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trainwreck the AFD and reopen a week later - The nominator's rationale is sufficient, but there is no consensus here whatsoever to determine deletion OR inclusion. I say we reopen this AFD after a reflection upon the details of the article.--WaltCip 15:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Trainwreck? So far, it appears there is a consensus here to keep. - Rjd0060 16:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the LED article, my arguments match those of Edison exactly. -Verdatum 16:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to LED as argued above. There's nothing notable about a LED in a series circuit - the interest and notability comes from the characteristics of the device itself. -- BPMullins | Talk 18:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to LED. Along with the above, LEDs, well, go in circuits. There's nothing special there, and it could be fit into the main article very easily. This isn't anything like an LC circuit, RL circuit, or RCL circuit, which are "special" circuits that deserve special attention. The reason this circuit isn't special is that it doesn't do anything interesting. It just glows. That's what LEDs are supposed to do. (please note that I'm completely ignoring any and all rules.) Someguy1221 20:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have two refs cited for notability, so this AfD seems baseless. Lots of articles describe basic concepts that may seem trivial to some. The basic principle is widely applied, and included in any modern basic text book on electronics. Notability is based on references, period. Dhaluza (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puffle

AfDs for this article:

I see no notability outside of this game. Article is very poorly written with much OR/POV. No references, completely in universe. Written as some sort of guide perhaps. Spigot Map 00:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable "plot" info. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Already covered here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~and Merge~~. Well, actually Rjd showed a link to where it's already covered, so this seems a pretty simple case of a non-notable game article. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 01:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above statement. Tavix (talk)
Delete per nomination. Wikipedia is not a game guide. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:FrankTobia. Wikipedia is not a game guide ¤~IslaamMaged126 21:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 99% hoax likelyhood, completely unsourced. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wozniak News: Attack of the 50 Foot Raccoon!

Suspected hoax- no Google hits, box and character art apparently created in Microsoft Paint. CoJaBo (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Really, if it existed, it would be generating ghits. (And the screenshot doesn't quite seem to be of Wii quality. :O)) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW / WP:IAR (no other criteria): Obvious hoax, not listed on Wii official site, X-Box official site, Nintendo DS and I didn't bother looking at the PSP site. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, very obvious vandalism -- art done in MS Paint or something. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Hoax. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 01:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced hoax. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 02:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dict-def, already an entry at wikitionary.[40]. Pastordavid (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quim (slang)

AfDs for this article:

This article is a dictionary definition - Wikipedia is not a dictionary and slang/idiom guides are specifically discouraged by policy. Additionally none of the sources given are actually about the word - the definition given on the page is not even sourced - they just show it being used, simply showing that a ~~neologism~~ word has been used does not mean it should have an article, in most of the cases it is not even possible to derive any intended meaning from the use of the word. Guest9999 (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Its been used since 1735 at least, so I don't think you could qualify it as a neologism (unless we're talking in geological time terms here). It's also already beyond dictionary size and scope, and could probably be expoanded further. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The article contians a definition, the etymology and the first known usage - all of which are well within the scope of a dictionary. The uses section as it currently is might not belong in a dictionary but I don't think it belongs in an encylopaedia article either. Imagine if the article for cool attempted to list every usage. [[Guest9999 (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Speedy Keep: OY, Nom, please re-read the first AfD (see how I'm assuming you already read it before re-nominating it ;). - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I did read the first nomination and felt that the reasons given for keeping the article did not convince me that there would still be a concensus to keep it or that my concerns are unfounded. Most of the keep votes seemed to be directed at the nominator, few gave any rational at all and the ones that did rarely refered to any guidelines or polcies regarding inclusion. You yourself have not said why you feel that this article meets the speedy keep criteria. [[Guest9999 (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Comment: Keeping in mind CCC, the previous consensus was perfectly clear. To me, this appears to be a snowball nomination. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you say consensus can change and as I mentioned above I felt that the last discussion was hampered by questions concerning the motivation of the nominator, as well as the fact that few of the contibutors to the discussion even gave reasons for their view. [[Guest9999 (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Well, as long as you believe there is a chance that this discussion will reach a "delete" decision, your nomination is acceptable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The previous AfD discussion seems to have been biased by accepting the false assertion that the term dates back to Chaucer and the dubious view that any word used by Chaucer should have a dictionary-style entry in an encyclopedia (as opposed to a dictionary). --Paularblaster (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- this belongs in Wictionary IMHO. But it's not a neologism. I think I've seen it used in The Secret Life of Walter Mitty.Merkinsmum 01:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I was incorrect in my use of the word neologism - which I agree the subject in question is not. [[Guest9999 (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Delete. (Is "Merge to Wictionary a valid suggestion?) Per nom, it's a blatant dict def. Textbook, even. eaolson (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from Wikipedia; transfer to wiktionary - as per WP:WINAD. --Paularblaster (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It seems to me that there's a parallel between this and cunt. Both have long term usage, interesting etymology and a right to be in an encyclopaedia. When it gets mentions like this it's gotta be a keeper! If it's good enough for Chaucer, it should be good enough for Wikipedia. Anyway, it gives the kids another dirty word to look for :) --WebHamster17:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Chaucer did not use this word (attested by OED back to 1735 brothel slang): you would be thinking of a 1967 modern English translation of the Canterbury Tales. --Paularblaster 23:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Move any relevant, referenced content to the Wiktionary page, and delete. There's nothing worthwhile here that goes beyond what should be in a dictionary entry. Definitions of slang words don't belong in an encyclopedia.--Michig 18:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On the grounds that this is a dictionary definition. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: words are just words. this word has a very long history. words in themselves cannot hurt. censorship is NOT what wiki is all about. this entry gives a historical context to the word which dictionaries generally don't. let's not go down the road of petty censorship folks look at the case of lenny bruce! 20:15 5th December 2007 (GMT)--Pax681

Your suggestion that those of us in favour of deletion are would-be censors in deeply insulting - I, for one, would be just as much in favour of deleting "thurible" if that was a comparable instance of dicdef, and am perfectly happy to keep "cunt" because that is a proper article. The entry in the OED, in fact, gives more of a history of the word than this supposedly "encyclopedic" article does, and the only room for growth is as a trivia page of "films and TV shows in which the word "quim" is used" (a direction the article is already heading in). --Paularblaster (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* it's good enough for Robert Burns who used it MANY times in this collection of poetry http://www.robertburns.org.uk/merrymuses.htm

God Bless Him as Here's a Health to Quim - Robert Burns

and also for Chaucer translations. what this boils down to is indeed a form of cenrorship. it's only a word, just a word, with a legitimate history and used by serious and regarded authors, poets and others. now according to the oxford dictionary and word ceases to be slang after ten years of constant use by the masses.......hmmm when was chaucer translated with this word used as a substitute for cunt?... when was Burns? well, it's a word in common usage now too. given time it may even grow to include some stuff about Burns and Chaucer translations i will add to give it the proper historical context. just because you see it as a silly word , doesn't mean it shouldn't be here. this is not being being insulting , nor is it me being pretentious. it's a word, with a history and deserves an entry to show this history. to remove this history and the word from wiki IS censorship , defined by the very act of removing it. 03:33 6th December 2007 (GMT)--Pax681

Nobody suggests that it is a "silly word", but an un-encyclopedic article. Try to address the issue, rather than trying to read minds: you are, in fact, being insulting by warrantlessly ascribing low motives to your interlocutors. You give perfectly good reasons for keeping the word in a dictionary, but Robert Burns (not to mention 20th-century translators of Chaucer) used many words that would not make encyclopedia entries. What you have to do is demonstrate that this is not one of them, rather than fling insults and name-drop poets. Saying that writers used a word still doesn't take the article beyond the entry in OED. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to !vote multiple times. Please strike one of your Keeps. sh ¤y 12:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absolute dictionary content (definition, etymology, first known use, and nothing more). There's really nothing more to say. This issue has nothing to do with censorship or neologism status, and there is no way you can compare this article to cunt, which is VASTLY more encyclopedic. The article in question, as I said, is nothing but a dictionary definition, and belongs in a dictionary. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki if needed then Delete. This is a dic def pure and simple. Nuttah (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of life

AfDs for this article:

After years of trying, it simply doesn't seem possible to provide an article based on reliable sources that complies with WP:NPOV on so vast a topic. The article began before our policies on sourcing took their current shape. It has long consisted of a series of claims that scientists, humanists, theists, etc. think a certain way, generally sourced to at most one opinion-maker. It doesn't seem possible to construct an article that is more than an original research synthesis. The variety of opinion on the subject appears simply to be too vast. If I am wrong I could not be more pleased. Shirahadasha (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: The proposal is under the WP:Deletion policy item, "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed". There's no claim here that the topic is non-notable. The basis of deletion is in some respects the opposite of non-notability. It is that there are so many aspects and points of view a neutral exposition of so large a topic may not be possible. WP:NPOV requires weighting, and if the number of sources/points of view were infinite weighting and other aspects of policy compliance would be impossible -- this article seems to approach that problem. Most of the content has in practice been original research synthesis. Some commenters have suggested splitting the article. Smaller topics might be more manageable. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I don't think splitting the article would be a good solution, since if there is one clear and unified meaning of life, then everyone's approach will either be the same or wrong. However, I do think this article needs to focus more on the treatment of the issue by different groups organized historically. The current structure of the article make it a battle to be the first group to present their view to the reader, which is unfair and POV; the order in which people actually said things is a little more neutral. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: This is a tough one. Clearly a notable subject, that is worthy of an encyclopedic article. This article, however, has a number of problems relating to POV and OR, and it is an article that really should have an infinite number of sources...I'll have to think about this one. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve I'm not even sure what topic could have more notability. I have a great deal of interest in the subject, and I would consider taking on this article as a personal improvement project. It is certainly a citation nightmare, but I think it can be saved; consider it a therapy of sorts. Edit I think the biggest problem is that it just needs to be about a third as long. I like my philosophy and all, but everyone needs to go off and find the meaning of life for themselves, and this article should act like one big sign post. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep very important topic. SYSS Mouse (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix- It has OR issues but a decent article with good sourcing could be mustered out of it. MrMurph101 (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split into four linked articles: "Mol (philosophy)", "Mol (science)", "Mol (religion)", "Mol (whatever you call common culture material)". I think that this would reduce the POV material, or at least allow it to be more easily contained, because it would encourage more topic directed contributions, and make it easier to know what to delete as inappropriate. It might also reduce the vandalism a bit, for the same reason. I hate editing the existing article. I would edit a "Mol (philosophy)" one. If there is insuffient support for splitting the article up, I have to vote keep. The nominator has my sympathy, however, I know that there is a lot of very good material on the topic by philosophers of various kinds. AfD is not clean-up, or some such catch cry. Anarchia (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs POV fixes and better citations but definitely a notable topic. AfD is not a substitution for {{npov}}, {{cleanup}}, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definatelt notable, and important to philosophy.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Important philosophical article. Any WP:NPOV issues need to be fixed and cannot be a reason for deletion, since the topic is very much notable -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs massive cleanup but it is not beyond rescue. Restarting from scratch might be too drastic.--Lenticel ^(talk) 14:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep It is a popular concept and it is clearly a significant subject. The page should probably show the source of the idea and use a lot less listYVNP 18:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, with regrets. The subject is memorable but the article is a wreck. It reads more like a list than a coherent, encyclopedic article. Majoreditor 18:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, as per most of the above comments. Lugnuts 20:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep probably the most notable concept on the entire encyclopedia Will ^(talk) 23:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Every encyclopedia topic isn't so easy to pigeon-hole into the NPOV, fully-cited paradigm. The subject matter almost necessitates that anything written will be a POV. Should the article be restricted to fully-cited POVs of professional philosophers and theologians? It does not do badly in this respect, although I am not sure that those "authorities" are the last word on the matter. Despite the enormous challenges, I think the article should not be abandoned or the subject matter ignored by Wikipedia. --Ben Best 20:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An article on the "meaning of life" is, by necessity, going to contain some strong POV issues. The key here is to demand that all documented claims be verifiably attributed to those who have allegedly made them. For example, are the opinions of Dawkins and Russell accurately depicted in the article? If so, citations should be added. If citations cannot be found to support those claims, the offending sections should be deleted outright. It's going to take A LOT of effort and diplomacy, but this article has the potential to be decent. Regards, AlphaEta 03:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, move on, dude. Bearian'sBooties 04:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and for the important uncited claims, try to find good citations. You can also try to find some book sources by searching google: http://books.google.com, remember to check if the books have been published in real life, not only on the internet (books only published on the internet are generally not accepted as sources). For example this may be a good source for some statements in the article. 84.194.232.95 (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that this article has some issues which are not easily fixed, but it's just too important a topic to not have an article on. Stubbification might be something to consider, but I think a somewhat aggressive cleanup would do the trick. I'll try to work on it as time permits. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SkierRMH (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multi level theory and analysis

No NPOV, and needs a MAJOR wikifying. Sounds like a copyvio, too. Jonathan (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom Jonathan (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV essay. JJL (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This entire essay is POV, and has the ring of OR to it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The exact phrase "multi level theory and analysis" gets just 2 Google hits. This is a POV personal essay with loads of original research. szyslak 02:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Essay with no reliable sources, likely original research. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:V -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 02:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete entire premise is unsupported by references, either OR, or indistinguishable from it. Poor writing and very formatting (eg. the wikilinked "Introduction" section header is linkned to ... Introduction). Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's OR. Fair Deal (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Philippe, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus and the Lizards

Unverifiable; gets no Google hits that aren't Wikipedia mirrors. Okay, so there are one or two empty profiles on genre websites that probably created empty profiles because of the Wikipedia article, but that's still falling short of WP:RS and WP:V. The only thing I can verify via Google is that there's a musician in Ottawa named Eric Brynaert, who's currently in a non-notable punk band called The Brain Eaters. Willing to withdraw nomination if somebody can provide real sources, but right now I strongly suspect self-promotion with a bit of hoax thrown in for good measure. Delete if unsourced at closure.Bearcat (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. —Bearcat (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GJ (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete both as A7, non-notable musicians, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doc^g 01:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stalinists

I nominated this list for deletion nearly two years ago. Although there was no consensus to delete the list then, some of the worst entries (like Charlie Chaplin and Pablo Picasso) were removed during the process.

The fundamental problem with this list is that it consistently fails WP:V and WP:RS. Even now, when the list has only 10 entries, eight of them are completely uncited. One of these eight (Ludo Martens) is apparently still alive (according to his Wikipedia article) and might well take offense to being labeled a Stalinist.

That brings me to the second problem with this list: "Stalinist" is basically a smear word. Virtually no one self-identifies as Stalinist; most people who are described as such would call themselves Marxist-Leninists, anti-revisionists, or simply communists. We don't have any consistent criteria for who should be on this list or why. At the top of the list, it says that the article "does not include non-Soviet communists and sympathizers," which would limit it to only citizens of the former USSR. But then further down there is a specific section for "Communist party leaders in non-Communist states," which completely contradicts the opening assertion.

On the last AFD, User:TDC said that "we have List of fascists, List of people described as neoconservatives, why not this one". Well, as you can see from the above red links, we don't have those articles any more. We shouldn't have this one either. *** Crotalus *** 06:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a single person on this list was a die-hard Stalinist. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 16:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thanks for bringing this back. There is no methodology to determine who gets on this list, no sourcing for what makes one a Stalinist, and no reason to think it ever will get better. Xymmax 20:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to stalinism and name notable supporters of stalinism there. 96T 17:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with stalinism as suggested by 96T, probably as a short section at the end of it. Peterkingiron 00:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would say the criteria for inclusion on this list are so vague that there's no way to apply them, but for that fact that I believe there are no criteria for inclusion. On the Talk page, one editor states that being identified as a Stalinist by a blogger or even a political enemy of the alleged "Stalinist" meets the criteria. --Horse Badorties (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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- Peripitus (Talk) 05:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Capel-Cure

This chap played a single first class cricket match for Essex in 1929, in which he didn't do terribly well with the bat (scoring 0 and 6), and bowling just 11 overs to take a slightly expensive 2-58. Basically, one swallow does not make a summer, the article does not claim notability and it should be deleted. Tony May (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: First-class cricketer. Meets notability guidelines. Bobo . 18:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per User:Bobo192. Johnlp 18:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per above. Easily meets notability criteria. Andrew nixon 18:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per above. Speedboy Salesman 08:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know what notability criteria you guys are looking at that this person 'easily meets' but it doesn't appear to be the actual Wikipedia policy. See WP:BIO and point out to me where it says one game at a (high?) level qualifies someone as notable. Avruch ^Talk 00:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The actual criteria are listed on the main page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket: "has appeared in at least one Test, ODI, ICC Trophy match from 2005, or ICC Trophy final prior to 2005 as player, umpire, coach or administrator [or] has appeared in at least one major (i.e., first-class or List A) match as a player". This individual meets the second of these criteria. Bobo . 01:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how project notability criteria trump policy and WP-wide guidelines like WP:BIO? Avruch ^Talk 01:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (people) states: "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis." This player has played as part of a fully-professional team, in a fully professional match, albeit in a non-league setting. First-class cricket represents the second-highest level at which a player can play, and the phrasing "of equivalent standing" applies here. Bobo . 01:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That applies to 'non-league sports' which I don't believe includes cricket. Is cricket a non-league sport? If not, then the fact that the player did not play 'in a fully professional league' would mean he is outside WP:BIO. That is pretty nitpicky wikilawyering, I admit, but why did he never play in a league game if he is worthy of being considered notable? I'll leave it to the admin I guess. Avruch ^Talk 01:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple answer is probably that he was too busy getting on with real life! Being a onetime first class cricketer doesn't necessarily mean that he was a bad cricketer, per se, just that on the one occasion he was available to play the game, he performed badly. No matter the skill at which the guy played the match - a guy who is picked to play first-class cricket for his county isn't just, to quote a recent AfD debate, "any random guy off the street". These guys have considerable cricketing pedigree outside of just their one high-level match, and as such their rise to play even in one game is not a fluke. Bobo . 01:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First-class cricket is actually the highest level of cricket: Test cricket is a form of first-class cricket, not superior. BTW the guy was also High Sheriff of Essex and owned Blake Hall, an English country house of note. Johnlp (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 00:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supervillain (song)

The article doesn't cite any reference about being the next single of Nicole Scheringer and so it has no use Olliyeah 14:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced claim about future. Wryspy 21:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, some tried to turn the page to a redirect, which I think is the wrong solution for the case. hateless 23:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal-ballery. If actually released as single, article can easily be re-created. Precious Roy (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 00:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gardies

This is a non-notable takeaway restaurant. Dancarney 15:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local restaurant. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 16:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:RS/WP:V, non-notable local eatery. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was I find the article to border on what may not be permitted within our biography of living persons to be deleted to err (if we err) on the side of caution as borderline.. Mercury 01:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi Tatma

AfDs for this article:

Although there was a lot of media attention to his girl, it's just another girl with a parasitic twin. Many articles were created about children with parasitic twins, such as Manar Maged, and were deleted. I see no point in creating an article like this,and I say Merge or redirect to parasitic twin or conjoined twins

Keep: I disagree. If there was a significant degree of media coverage (lasting for two weeks), then the girl and her surgery should be covered in a short article for future reference. Plus, the girl was made famous because of the many times that she was likened to Lakshmi in both the Indian and international press because of her natal situation. If anything, this article would be useful to the religious types, especially in India. Finally, why is it that a little conjoined twin girl from Bihar who was covered in the press due to her likeness to a Hindu goddess shouldn't be covered in an article, but the lives of two twin women from Iran who were conjoined at the head are covered extensively in another article? Yes, I know that I'm violating some rule of Wikipedia debate, but I think that it's legitimate.--Toussaint 22:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, but they were famous because of the way they were joined, how long they lived joined, and how many people knew them. also,they were conjoined twins and Lakshmi had a parasitic twin. like I said before,many people created articles like Manar Maged,who had a parasitic twin. The page was deleted. So how come I nominated the page Lakshmi Tatma for deletion? Same Reason. The girl may be slightly notable, but doesn't deserve a complete article like the one you created. Lakshmi isn't notable herself-only the godess and her condition are.She doesn't need an article like Parasitic twin and conjoined twins.IslaamMaged126 22:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not merge. Not encyclopedic, no advantage to target article.--Doc^g 01:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doc and BLP. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unencyclopedic. FCYTravis (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per BLP, not needed. Lawrence Cohen 01:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] WP:NOT#NEWS was added to WP:NOT during the controversy surrounding the events considered in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, admonishes editors to "[keep] in mind the harm our work might cause", and advises that "While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news." The extent to which WP:NOT#NEWS ever applies to any articles other than biographies of living persons that present a substantial risk of causing serious embarrassment, humiliation, or other harm to their subjects is therefore doubtful. Archetypical of the sort of article that clearly qualifies for deletion under WP#NOT:NEWS would be a biography of a person whose sole claim to notability is an arrest for driving while intoxicated, where the event was only covered in two local newspapers.

[1]