Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 7
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. —Verrai 00:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
H-World[edit]
No stated rationale or evidence for significance past or present. Article admits to SF project abandonment. Situation hasn't improved since article inception. Inbound wikilinks not essential to any other article. D. Brodale 23:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As an RPG fan, I'd hate to see it deleted, but realistically, it's a dead project which never really went anywhere, and has no established notability. External refs are few and far between, pointing mostly to sites which host various software mirrors. Having two incoming links doesn't make a project notable, and there are a number of of roguelike engines. Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Yngvarr. Stifle (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete JoshuaZ 19:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of Dish Network channels 000-298[edit]
- List of Dish Network channels 000-298 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
violates WP:NOT#DIRECTORY Chris! ct 23:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Disconnect service Probably taken out of the main article, sure doesn't belong here in Wikipedia Mandsford 01:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsubscribe. Listcruft at its very finest! — Coren (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to switch to cable Listcruft Rackabello 02:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dump the Dish. Wow, that's useless. humblefool® 06:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. Stifle (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable list (directory with no encyclopedic value).
- Loss of Signal. Do Not Want. (per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:NOTE) ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete--JForget 00:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mark R. Mendoza[edit]
- Mark R. Mendoza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Nothing in the military career I can see to pass WP:MILMOS, and nothing in the music career I can see to pass WP:BAND. Bringing it here rather than speedying/prodding, as someone has obviously put a fair bit of work into this, and it's possible this is someone notable I've just never come across & am having trouble finding. For those who like such things, 1 non-Wiki/Myspace hit on Shift Key Dilemma and 0 ghits on Mark R Mendoza — "Eternal Death Slayer" produces too many false positives as it's apparently a videogame title. — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If not a hoax, non-notable. The only hit I found for "Blue Lagoon Records" was the myspace of a musician in England. Smells like vanity, too. Resembles Corey Feldman? O RLY?--Sethacus 23:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As above -- if not a hoax, non-notable. I can't find anything linking the subject to any of the band names or the music producer. There's some MySpace stuff that might be appropriate, but it doesn't lend notability, doesn't meet WP:BAND or WP:Verifiable. As above, also doesn't pass WP:MILMOS#Notability AFAIK. Accounting4Taste 00:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No references. Callelinea 00:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgranucci (talk • contribs) 14:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn. JJL 18:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per any of the above. Borderline speedy. Stifle (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Stifle. tomasz. 09:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy or delete - an autobiography or a biography by a close friend or relative, in violation of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. I would move it myself, but the consensus is overwhelming to delete it. Bearian 18:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure. Thomjakobsen 00:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mourning portrait[edit]
- Mourning portrait (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This page is redundant—check out post-mortem photography. I see no major distinction between these two terms. If we're splitting hairs, memorial portraiture might be a branch of post-mortem photogrpahy. Either way, I favor a delete and redirect. —dustmite 23:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You don't need a deletion to get the redirect — just merge any relevant info to the target page, then blank the page at Mourning portrait and replace it with the text "#REDIRECT [[Post-mortem photography]]". Thomjakobsen 23:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete--JForget 23:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Christina of Valois[edit]
- Christina of Valois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Who is this 16th-century royal supercentenarian whom all sources ignore, except Wikipedia, which has harboured the page for more than three years now? Ghirla-трёп- 22:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoax. There are no sources to indicate Charles VII had a daughter named Christina.--Sethacus 23:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above, unless someone shows me some evidence of her existance. Worth noting that no articles link to the page. J Milburn 23:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, HOAX. First off Charles VII died in 1461 and Christina was born in 1543. Second Charles VII was married to Marie d'Anjou. Plus as a geneologist I can assure you that I have looked in all my books on French royalty and this Christina of Valois did not exist. Callelinea 01:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Off with her head!; unmitigated hoaxitude. Besides, she would have been called Christine if she existed, which she didn't. — Coren (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And that's another thing that bugged me, the non-French names. I mean, "Jaquelina"? (who also doesn't exist, BTW)--Sethacus 19:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Haemo 00:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Companion (Firefly)[edit]
- Companion (Firefly) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Unsourced (except by a book(?) by series creator) fictional version of a courtesan in TV series Firefly. Article is not exclusively written in-universe, but tends that way past the first paragraph. Much of the article reads like a trivia section, plot summary and/or "how to" guide. No claim to real world notability is made, information in article can easily be attached to the characters who happen to be or to interact with Companions. SolidPlaid 22:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Firefly article. Unlike Derrial Book, who, I believe, was the only known Shepherd in existense at the time of the series, Inara was one of many Companions.--Sethacus 22:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Inara Serra Brianlucas 00:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge simply not enough coverage to warrant its own article per WP:FICT. David Fuchs (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. --Aarktica 09:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mohamed Mooge Liban[edit]
- Mohamed Mooge Liban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Claim of notability, but no sources, no Google hits with this spelling. I don't know how to verify any of this unsourced information. Corvus cornix 22:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Likely hoax. It should be worth noting that Liibaan is a city in Somalia.--Sethacus 23:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I found him as "Mohamed Mooge" or "Mohamed Mooge Liban", accompanied by the song names as cited in the article, at [1],
[2], [3] and [4], which last spells his name as "Mogeh". All these sites have something to do with Somali music and one or two of them cite him as being a bit of a revolutionary (that is, if it's the same guy being cited consistently, since the spellings are a bit of a problem). I'd also suggest that it's worth stretching to include musicians outside the English-speaking world to improve Wikipedia's reach. Accounting4Taste 00:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia has many singers in other languages in it but I see no references in the article.. So a written I say get rid of it. Callelinea 01:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've just added the four references above to the article. Accounting4Taste 01:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; although his name seems to be properly spelled "Mohamed Mooge Liibaan" (but that might be transliteration woes). He appears to have had at least some significant media coverage as well; it doesn't look like much, but relying solely on Google for an African artist is fraught with american/european bias. — Coren (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the sourcing, I'll withdraw this. Like I said, the only reason I listed it here was because I couldn't find any sources. If there had been anything, I wouldn't have listed it. It was most definitely not an American bias issue. Corvus cornix 16:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Callelinea. I'm aware of the WP:CSB issue but can't find notability. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note that while the nominator has withdrawn, this can't be early closed as there are other delete votes. Stifle (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Appears frequently mentioned on African sites, and appear notable there. Rotovia 07:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; I've moved the article to Mohamed Mooge Liibaan, which is the spelling used by most (all?) sources. — Coren (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete--JForget 00:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Owen Davien[edit]
A villain in one movie. He isn't very well known. The only thing he is notable for is the threatening scene, and believe me, that's not very notable either. TheBlazikenMaster 22:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and delete Merge any relevant information into the film, and delete. A single character from one film doesn't need an article. --Nehrams2020 22:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nothing to merge since it's all plot summary. SolidPlaid 22:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - indeed, nothing controversial about this one, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 22:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no context outside of the film. Girolamo Savonarola 22:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete article and create redirect to film article if necessary (check to see what links there). No notability for this character who appears in a single film and no apparent real-world context behind the character as opposed to someone like Palpatine. (Question: Was a proposed deletion attempted? It doesn't seem to be the case.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete after relocating the one or two nuggets of useful info in the article. There are certainly M:I characters worthy of an article but this isn't one of them. - Dravecky 01:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A not-especially-notable fictional character whose actions and motivations seem to be covered quite well by the article about the movie. Accounting4Taste 01:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable AdamSmithee 06:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fairly trivial, delete. • Lawrence Cohen 15:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nonsense hoax. Stifle (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bruno crosier[edit]
- Bruno crosier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Complete hoax. No google results for any of the people mentioned in this, and I'm sure if there were enough info floating around for a wikipedia article, it would be all over the net. ARendedWinter 22:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Bullshit.--Sethacus 22:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No basis in reality, completely unverifiable. I saw this on RC patrol and was waiting for someone else to do the dirty work. Thanks ARW! --Bongwarrior 22:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete patent hoax. I was all ready to G1 this, but now the AfD's up may as well let it run. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I was going to call it something else, but "bullshit" about sums it up. Completely unverifiable. Accounting4Taste 00:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sethacus said it best. GlassCobra (Review) 03:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Why cite policy when Sethacus's pithy Anglo-Saxonism says so much? Pigman 04:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Haha this one is pretty funny, but I don't want to encourage the trolls. Burntsauce 17:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 from merge as it is likely the merge already occurred. GRBerry 14:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Book of Life (Book of Revelations)[edit]
- Book of Life (Book of Revelations) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- Delete, we already have an article on Book of Life. Neutralitytalk 20:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as soon as possible. SolidPlaid 22:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, as a section, into Book of Life (Judaism) and then move that article to back to its original name, which was Book of Life before someone decided that a redirect was in order. The concept of such a book is not limited to Judaism. "Delete as soon as possible" is an interesting comment. Are we in a hurry? Mandsford 23:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not needed. • Lawrence Cohen 15:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and - if there's anything of value in it that isn't already in the other similar articles - merge.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 06:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete
Sifu keith tv[edit]
- Sifu keith tv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable Youtube "channel". This is not a real Tv channel. Article created by User:Sifu-keith, who also removed the prod and prod2 which were added to the page. Corvus cornix 22:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I placed the prod2 tag on this article. It was deleted earlier for the same reasons mentioned above. ARendedWinter 22:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no assertion of notability. Carlosguitar 23:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no notability, suffers from conflict of interest, contains internal contradictions and misrepresentations (e.g. number of employees). Sifu-keith, if you are reading this, it's great that you are making videos and I wish you well. You don't have enough of a following to justify a Wikipedia article yet, but when you do, someone will write it. Good luck! Brianlucas 23:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. The article can't decide whether it's about a company or a series of videos, but there aren't reliable sources to back up either. —C.Fred (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Is this definitively a YouTube channel? If so, that's web content, and it's a candidate for speedy deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No assertion of notability. Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 18:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Brianlucas. Probably speediable. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is definitely an On-line Youtube Channel. I’ve seen this before. All facts are true and I believe that it should stay DoN-TiPzZz (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.114.200 (talk) [reply]
- Comment. This is a real online channel! I used this before it was shutdown . —dean10 (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The dean10 (talk • contribs) — The dean10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment. This does exist! No way is this a fake! I use his on-line channel—ClockworkSatsuma (ClockworkSatsuma) 19:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC) — ClockworkSatsuma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Whether or not is exists or not is not the question. The question is whether it is notable and verifiable. —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suspected sockpuppetry: Accounts DoN-TiPzZz, The dean10, and ClockworkSatsuma were all created within a span of 30 minutes today, and all three have as their only contribs the messages posted above or an edit to Sifu keith tv. Sifu-keith, this is not an honorable course. Obviously you have a lot of passion for your project, but Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of promotion. But if you're a video-maker, your top priority should be to get your videos back online! You need to resume making and posting your videos, and get them back up on YouTube so you have a channel -- then you can work on promoting them, especially through your MySpace page. Brianlucas 22:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I swear from the bottom of my heart that I did not post either of these 3… You can trace an IP Address if u reli would like to but I do not have any connection with these people and do not know whoever they are (Sifu Keith)
- I flagged the accounts as single-purpose. While I find it curious that two accounts were created and discussed here, I don't suspect that Sifu Keith was behind them. Of course, 1) the opinions of single-purpose accounts are usually devalued by the closing admin, and 2) this isn't a vote, so sheer numbers don't affect the outcome anyway. (And 3) don't forget to assume good faith in all the parties involved here.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for keeping your trust in me. Please may everyone accept all apologies from myself if this article may be deemed as not useful. I did not understand very well as i am new and wish to be able to learn from my mistakes while been here (Sifu Keith)
- Delete per nom. Bearian 18:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - seems just about notable, but the real problem would be verifiability.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 06:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable; not verifiable in any event. --Russ (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lila Turjanski-Villard[edit]
- Lila Turjanski-Villard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
No assertion of notability, and no references other than own website. A google search [5] returns only one result which only states contact info. ARendedWinter 22:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete probable vanity bio. Non-notable in any case. The only thing I found was a showing (with other artists) in New York, which isn't even mentioned in the article, whose claims are, thus, impossible to verify.--Sethacus 22:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete... non notable self promotion only one entry on Google Teapotgeorge 14:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Teapotgeorge. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Lila Turjanski-Villard is an emerging sculptor with very few references. The List of sculptors page does not mention that only renown sculptors are listed. If so, then I'll suggest either to create a Emerging artist page or to delete the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YopYopYop (talk • contribs) 12:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fails WP:N and WP:V and because of a total lack of third-party sources.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 06:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 07:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Manetas[edit]
Not too sure about this one. I don't know if this one should be here since I was trying to move it to the artists full name, but the page is locked due to old deletions [6]. He is mentioned in several other articles, but as with the other Afd [7], there don't seem to be any sources around to verify. Just wanted to bring it here and see what others had to say. ARendedWinter 22:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mmm, it's close, but I think delete. This is art? The pollack page was kinda neat, but overall this isn't notable. humblefool® 22:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, the Pollock one is awesome! Not sure about the Warhol one, though. The chans and YTMD come up with better stuff by the hour. Ichormosquito 05:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Horrid article reeking of copyvio/promotion/in-universe perspective. But problematically I think Manetas is notable, because he has exhibited at the Whitney Biennial, the premier art exhibition in the US, and has been the subject of feature articles in Salon and WIRED and the NYT. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neen and the Need (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) deletion log.) In short, would pass WP:BIO in a properly written article (and I think that should be Milton Manetas rather than Neen). --Dhartung | Talk 22:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should clarify that as the sources indicate he was not actually a juried competitor, but he did receive coverage in reliable sources for the activity. "Neen" is essentially self-promotional, and "movement" is not the word I would use to describe it; it's more like his performance art. --Dhartung | Talk 00:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- NYT coverage of prank artnet includes it in a list of Biennial "spinoffs" Whitney curator expounds on significance FOX, more recently In short Manetas is a notable digital artist. I'm undecided whether the article under consideration is, shall we say, an instance of his art which always comes with a soupçon of self-promotion. --Dhartung | Talk 01:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Almost exactly everything I was going to say. A google search of his name (as one word) and Neen produces 10000+ hits. I would argue that we're looking at the creator of a major art movement. But, do let's not delete on the basis of whether or not you like the man's artwork. Needs rewriting.--Sethacus 22:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability well demonstrated. But does need someone to make it an article. Marbruk 22:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Humblefool and due to lack of citations from WP:RS on the page which are required to establish notability. Stifle (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If kept, move to Miltos Manetas, his full name. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, rename, rewrite and wikify. Seems notable enough, plenty of press coverage, works bought by Charles Saatchi. However, the article as it stands has much scope for improvement of the breadth of its coverage and it obviously needs wikification.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 06:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, rename, rewrite and wikify per above. Contemporary art is an important subject, but I can't imagine it would always appeal to Wikipedia's populist sensibilities. We need to be careful not to dismiss this guy too quickly. The sources presented at this discussion are enough to support an article. Ichormosquito 05:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mahatma Gandhi Intermediate college[edit]
- Mahatma Gandhi Intermediate college (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Tiny school with no notability assertion. Unreferenced and wikify tags have been on for months. GlassCobra (Review) 21:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete,No references. Callelinea 01:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. If it was of any importance or notability someone would have improved it by now. Stifle (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unreferenced and no claim of notability. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unreferenced; notability. • Lawrence Cohen 15:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable, unreferenced and non-notable.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 07:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 18:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Columbia traditions[edit]
- Columbia traditions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
I propose deleting the Columbia traditions article for the following reasons: 1. Some of the content is not suitable for an encyclopedia, and has no notability, especially as a stand-alone article. 2. The content that is suitable for an encyclopedia already exists on the Columbia University article. And 3. The “Barnard Jokes” section is the only “addition” to the main article. It was originally created as a stand-alone article which was deleted for “Attack Page” and “Things Made Up in School” reasons. It was later added to, and then removed from the Columbia University article. The Columbia traditions article is an attempt to bring back that individual’s opinion into Wikipedia. While that section seems well sourced, the source links are mostly concerned with a specific incident a few years ago in which the university marching band had an event with jokes about Barnard students. See the various discussions on the Columbia University talk page (removal of "Barnard jokes", and WP:RFC response), and my talk page. Matan 21:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge non-reduntant content back into Columbia University and or Barnard College. Every college and university has its traditions, some more so than others, and these usually involve special rituals for welcoming (nicely and otherwise) new students, events before and after exam week, the big game, etc. Nothing against Columbia U., or college traditions, but against a precedent for every college's traditions to have a separate article. In contrast, a comparative article about college traditions would probably be welcome. Mandsford 22:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Hold off on any deletion of this article and let the deletion debate run for its standard five days. This is a major university, with a 250 year plus history, and doubtless has numerous well documented traditions. It appears to have a number of references. The "Things made up in school one day" complaint would not apply to things made up during the reign of George III which have persisted to the present, should there be any such. There is clearly much more to this article than one incident involving Barnard which irritated the nominator. Edison 02:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If there's a section you think of low quality, edit it--i just moved it under Orgo Night, and the relevant content could probably be combined into that section. -- There's more than enough here for a separate article, and much to be said for keeping it separate from the main article on the University. Articles on major universities can easily get much too long. afD is not for trivial editing difficulties like this. DGG (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But how does having the same text in both places help the Columbia article? Its not as if hordes of users are now expanding the article with more traditions. If there is so much text about true traditions that the main article is too long, then we should have this article. But given the writer's focus on the jokes (and nothing else), I suspect the whole point of this article is to bring back text that was justly removed from the main article. Matan 17:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as all of its content already exists, as far as I can see, in the main university article.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 07:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as being notable enough for English Wikipedia. Bearian 18:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Byron G. Highland[edit]
- Byron G. Highland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Subject seems non-notable. I did a Google search for Byron G. Highland, and there are only two results, this article being one of them. şœśэїŝәқιᅥṱᾅἻқᅡ 21:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep on the basis of this and this, as I strongly suspect other sources do exist but aren't online. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. STORMTRACKER 94 21:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per Iridescent and this.--Sethacus 21:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I made some improvement using the links provided above. Chris! ct 23:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — the article has certainly improved. The sources added are enough to establish the subject's notability and to meet the verifiability policy. --Agüeybaná 23:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, seams fine as it is now.Callelinea 01:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted per CSD A7. -- Merope 17:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 1015 East U[edit]Ordinary student residence. No claim to notability given. Prod deleted by author. Nehwyn 21:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Bearian 18:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] It's Happy Bunny[edit]AfDs for this article:
The result was Delete. If interested editors wish to merge the content, request a copy of the article from me. --Haemo 00:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of Worms weapons, tools, crates and objects[edit]AfDs for this article:
Oh, boy! Another Game-guidish, crufty weapons article. No relevance to outside world; no references, let alone coverage of the weapons. Basically, the guidelines "which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. It is not veribfiable since it has no sources, has plenty of OR, and isn't written from a neutral point of view. 'Nuff said. See also: Halo 2 weapons, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Half-Life 2 (2nd nomination), and Weapons in Halo: Combat Evolved. David Fuchs (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Aarktica 09:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of Konjiki no Gash Bell!! Media[edit]
A POV fork from Buh6173 (talk · contribs) who is on a campaign to make separate pages for the Japanese version of Zatch Bell! despite an agreement having been reached some time ago that the English names are to be used. In any case, even given that he'd be right in the end, this page still contains no useful information beyond what's already in the Zatch Bell! page, other than a list of image songs. JuJube 20:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 13:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Intintuator[edit]Despite my researches, I can find no such object as an "Intintuator". There is the "intinuator" which appears to be a car part related to the alternator. Marketing technobable or hoax? — Coren (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Aarktica 09:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] A56 (software)[edit]
Possibly non notable assembler. Hard to search for sources because of the generic name, and, in any case, I am unfamiliar with Usenet, and this article seems to relate to it, so perhaps I am missing something key. J Milburn 18:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. --Aarktica 09:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] North Andover Middle School[edit]
I simply don't see how this is notable. Also: WP:OUTCOMES. şœśэїŝәқιᅥṱᾅἻқᅡ 18:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sphinx C--[edit]Non notable compiler. I can find no reliable sources. J Milburn 18:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. -- Jreferee t/c 21:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Indian Campaigns[edit]
It's an article on history, apparently either completely or extensively plagiarized from a U.S. Army account (here) with a potentially biased perspective. (U.S. Army was a party to the conflict.) Agyle 18:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete by WP:SNOW based on WP:N, WP:OR, and WP:RS. Bearian 18:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Phyxius[edit]Mississippi State University's entry into some competition, which it didn't win. I don't think notability is asserted but this article is three years old so I figured I should bring it here. Calliopejen1 18:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete by WP:SNOW as violating WP:NOT and WP:LIST. Bearian 19:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of historical people portrayed as villains[edit]
Delete - wildly indiscriminate list, enormous directory of loosely and unassociated items, giant trivia dump. Otto4711 18:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Verrai 18:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Hardy Jackson[edit]AfDs for this article:
The primary reasons I am proposing deletion is because Wikipedia is not a memorial, as well as the article failing to provide notability. Thousands of people died during Hurricane Katrina, and tenfold more were affected by the hurricane. Some might argue for his notability in that he briefly became an international news story on the personal affects. First, this isn't Wikinews, and second, his being on the news was being at the right place at the right time. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--JForget 00:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Kevin Muller[edit]Non-notable YouTube "celebrity" - No secondary sources. Article was speedy deleted before and recreated. I'd like to get a little more consensus on this. While this is sort of a procedural nomination, I am advocating deletion. Mr.Z-man 18:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Estudillo Center[edit]
Short, amateurish article on a strip mall in San Leandro. The article makes no claim to notability; in fact, it seems to do just the opposite by stating that the shopping mall is "one of many". Only Google hits are for yellow pages listings. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Verrai 00:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] International Marketplace (San Pablo, California)[edit]
Non-notable, half dead strip mall in California. Page's content has not been changed significantly since creation. No claim to notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Kappa's research established that the topic meets the general notability guidelines, which was not rebutted by the delete arguments. The spam was cleaned up during this AfD (see WP:HEY), and the importance/significance concerns do not rise to the level of the topic meeting CSD A7. -- Jreferee t/c 21:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sierra Vista Mall[edit]
Non-notable mall in California. A search turns up no reliable sources to verify most of the page's content. Borderline spam. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Consensus is that the article is original research. If the table was a sourced summary of a publication by Roald Dahl (or someone else) that noted the differences between the book and film versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, that may have turned the deletion argument since it would have been Dahl's research rather than a Wikipedia's research. As it is, the source for this article is concluded by consensus to be original research. -- Jreferee t/c 21:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Differences between book and film versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory[edit]
This article fails to be verifiable as the content is wholly based on the subjective determinations of editors regarding what differences are appropriate, which violates Wikipedia's no original research policy. Furthermore, this topic fails to be notable as there is no significant coverage by reliable sources about adaptations of the source material. Basically, the table is pieced together indiscriminately, with items like whether business cards were shown, the presence of contracts, the act of getting out of bed, etc. There will be creative and conventional differences in any, if not most, adaptations of the source material, and the threshold for inclusion is for there to be real-world context, based on the preceding arguments of notability and relevance. This article meets none of these factors, being the originally derived piecemeal of editors that do not use secondary sources. According to WP:WAF#Secondary information, "The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded. It necessitates the use of both primary and secondary information." No secondary information is used here. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter film/book differences (2nd nomination) for similar precedent. Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus/keep. W.marsh 21:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] MadV[edit]Notability: MadV does not meet the notability requirements for a biography of a living person, as stated on the Wikipedia Notability page. Copyright Infringement: V is a character copyrighted to Vertigo and DC Comics, and MadV does not have the rights to use it. Images: The image on the page is of very low quality, and is hardly encyclopedic. Bias: Although I know that this is not criteria for deletion, the article needs to have (be?) NPOV Content not suitable for an encyclopedia: It is badly written, misspelled, and does not state the name, birthdate, place of birth, or any other biographical facts about MadV. Even where his accent is from is mere speculation.
The result was no consensus. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Post Oak Mall[edit]
Non-notable shopping mall in Texas. A search turns up no reliable sources to verify the page's content (e.g. the cancelled Joske's anchor). Features some original research as well. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are certainly not... quadrivial... --Victor falk 05:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to John Grisham. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Clanton, Mississippi[edit]
It's not actually very notable, and though I cherish a deep admiration for the town and its inhabitants, there's no possibility of expanding the article without going into the realms of OR. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Michael Madonick[edit]
First several pages of non-wiki ghits don't show notability as a professor. Movie information not backed up by sources and conflicts with info in sources such as IMDb. Speedy was contested, so I assume a prod will be as well. Fabrictramp 17:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was disassemble (er, delete). Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] GoAsm[edit]Non notable assembler. I can find no reliable sources. J Milburn 17:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] SjASMPlus[edit]Non notable assembler. I can find no reliable sources. J Milburn 17:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. W.marsh 21:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Peach (film)[edit]Unfinished film with no claim of notability in article. (Perhaps once it's released, it might be notable.) Contested prod. Fabrictramp 17:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 18:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Tasty planet[edit]Yet another flash game article. Nothing notable about it at all. ARendedWinter 17:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Captain Fateh Singh[edit]
No assertion of notability, seems to have been an Army captain, but I can't find anything that asserts notability. Also, extremely difficult to read even after much editingKernel Saunters 17:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Deer Park, Co. Leitrim[edit]
Delete. This article is a weird mixture of garbled a garbled piece of local history and an attack page. Attempts appear to have been made to tidy it up, but I don't think there is anything worth salvaging. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] The Lost Tapes 2[edit]
This article has no reliable sources whatsoever. It is also contradictory as it claims to be a compilation album yet it also claims to be by rap singer Nas. The article states the album was never released and never will be. If there is anything here worth keeping it ought to be on the Nas article - that's if its notable at all, which this article isn't. B1atv 17:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete under WP:CSD#G4 GRBerry 14:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] B'nai Elim[edit]AfDs for this article:
Stub article on a subject that fails WP:ORG (the same reason the previous version of the article was deleted). Little potential for growth due to the lack of available third-party sources. For the same reason, any potential additions would likely fail WP:V. Google hits virtually all link to the organization itself or to blogs authored by its proponents. No press coverage.
The result was deleted, non-notable organization. —Verrai 18:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Usha studios[edit]non notable private film studio. A google search produces only 320-odd youtube, myspace flickr and blogs [19]. The article claims films have received news coverage but the link goes only to a newspaper, not to any articles. B1atv 17:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Generic terminology[edit]
The title seems innocent enough, but when you read the article, you may have trouble making sense of it. Not only is the article unreferenced; the content cannot be referenced. I'm not sure how to explain this, but read the article and you will understand what I am trying to say. The article is the work of a single user. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Winningest football coach[edit]
A made-up word to describe succesful college sports coaches. Even if the word wasn't made up it is difficult to see how this article could ever satisfy the notability requirements. A college coach is a college coach. B1atv 17:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep--JForget 00:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Editor war[edit]Delete This article seems to be totally based on original research. "The two largest camps are....." - I imagine it's not quite NPOV, and that it contains weasel words or whatever. It neems to be scrapped altogether - as far as I can tell, it's not even all that notable. All that said, those who vote in the AfD will probably all be 'hacker culturalists' themselves and all try to keep the article :-) Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Noochie varner[edit]
Non-notable minor league baseball player Rackabello 16:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep--JForget 00:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] MacArthur Study Bible[edit]
The result wasspeedy delete per WP:CSD#A1, WP:CSD#A7 ˉˉanetode╦╩ 16:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Depulso[edit]Not really necessary, a one liner about a spell in a Harry Potter video game. Rackabello 16:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Consensus is that the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee t/c 20:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Bitterwood (novel)[edit]
An unsourced article about a non-notable novel Rackabello 16:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator. John254 01:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Robert Traynham[edit]
This is a autobiography written in a self-promotional tone by Roberttraynham (talk · contribs). John254 16:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Enterprising Westmeath Network[edit]
This article cites no third-party reliable sources, and concerns an apparently non-notable organization. John254 16:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Coedit[edit]WP:NN program, lacks WP:RS. Self-promotional article. M2Ys4U (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Consensus is that the article is an inappropriate content fork. -- Jreferee t/c 20:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gothic-Americana[edit]
Removed Prod: I think this would be better off in the Goth article, or the like. Article is unsourced, and sadly filled with terms like "Like a medicine show without the snake oil, the shows are filled with an incomparable energy." Also uses Wikipedia as a source. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 15:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all'. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Wuya[edit]
Full of original research, these articles are about anime characters that fail to assert any notability or cite any reliable sources (which would also establish notability). Notability is not inhereted -- even if the cartoon is notable, each character is not (this isn't pokemon). The subjects all fail WP:FICTION, and the articles are full of Fair Use images that do not meet our fair use guidelines. We don't need huge articles on every character in every anime cartoon.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] St. Louis Twang Scene[edit]
While the term "twang scene" can be found, and some references to it located without much difficulty, there is no indication that St Louis's is particularly notable, and the primary contributor to the article appears unable or unwilling to provide citations to establish that it is (simply repeatedly removing the
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Steven karahan[edit]
Non-notable person. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 14:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] The Raven King[edit]
Article fails WP:FICT; merging does not seem reasonable. This article is about a character in two books of Susanna Clarke. It consists entirely of plot summary, no sourced real-world content is offered. The only source given is a private homepage. Since the articles about the two books already contain a good deal of plot summary, there's no point in merging plot details about this minor character into there. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Late additions of reliable source references rebut the delete arguments. Consensus is that the topic does meet the general notability guidelines. Also, the reasonable assertion of importance/significance in the article rebuts arguments that the topic does not meet CSD A7 and the article as of this close does not reflect any WP:COI problems for which the contributors should be blocked from contributing. -- Jreferee t/c 20:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Jena Sims[edit]Previously proposed for deletion with the following reason:
Now re-created by User:Jennifersims [26]. Procedural nomination - no vote. - Mike Rosoft 14:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Consensus is that the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee t/c 20:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Immanuel Lutheran Primary School[edit]
This primary school seems to fail WP:ORG; no secondary coverage is known, and the article doesn't even give a hint as to why the school would be notable, apart from a strange episode in the school's history. PROD was contested with comment: "seems more notable than most". To me it doesn't seem so. Anyway, no secondary sources are given to demonstrate why it's notable. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by Swatjester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as CSD A7. — TKD::Talk 16:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] PAWNGAME[edit]Non notable online game. Hasn't been covered by any independent reliable sources, and the search result only reveals forum entries and directory pages. Doesn't satisfy WP:WEB. Alasdair 14:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Brighton fuzzbox[edit]
Dubious notability outside of the local area ... no nontrivial sources. Blueboy96 13:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] SFSOC[edit]Non-notable student group. Just barely escapes being an A7 speedy. Blueboy96 13:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Steve Williams (blogger)[edit]
An article about a blogger, who's only claim to fame is that he won a prize after a debate between 80 others bloggers on the same subject. While considering whether to create my own group and get my own prize, I'll nominate this article as it fails WP:BIO, and seems more focused on self promotion Trident13 13:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. How could there be a collective consensus when each song is well known and has been around for such a long time? While the songs may have been related, they certainly do not stand or fall together as to the issue of whether each meets the general notability guidelines. The nomination was poorly a conceived multiple related page nomination and the discussion reflected that. -- Jreferee t/c 22:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sweet Transvestite[edit]AfDs for this article:
Delete all - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dammit, Janet!. While Rocky Horror is very notable, none of the individual songs from it (with the exception of The Time Warp) are independently notable and the notability of the stage show and film are not inherited by each of the songs. None of these songs passes the proposed songs guideline at WP:MUSIC. Otto4711 13:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All These are songs from one of the most famous cult movies of all time. The film has been theaters for over 30 years.Ridernyc 17:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 21:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Bela Kiss (band)[edit]
speedy delete declined. notability per WP:BAND not looking good to me: two n.n. record labels, official webpage is a myspace. they have a purevolume site also, and they're playing a festival in New Jersey soon. ...and?tomasz. 12:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Redirecting seems inappropriate since the term was never verified. W.marsh 21:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Philippine mastiff[edit]
8 Ghits only. Links inside the article points to mastiff not Phil. mastiff. My father, a vet, said no such breed exists Lenticel (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anne Beverley[edit]
Only claim to fame is being the mother of Sid Vicious. Jmlk17 11:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 18:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Seomra Spraoi[edit]
Appears to be nothing more than a set of meeting rooms and area. Only open less than three weeks, this just isn't notable on any ground of measurement. Ben W Bell talk 11:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. W.marsh 19:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Spagmumps[edit]Looks like a nonce word -- main article is at Foam peanut. mervyn 11:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 13:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Lucky Ashley[edit]Apparently imaginary show. Referenced only in a few message boards, and even there other participants are skeptical Kww 11:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Russian translation[edit]
Appears to be a How-to guide on Russian translation. It's completely OR and as such unsourced. My prod was recently removed with this rather amusing rationale. Atlan (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep as a procedural close to the AfD process. - Out of process since the deletion tag was not placed on the 1 AH article as required by How to list pages for deletion. -- Jreferee t/c 20:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 1 AH[edit]I include here all the various xAH articles, of which there are some hundreds. Almost all of them are empty other than template content (events, births, deaths, references), but that is not the problem, the problem is that this is another naming convention for years in competition with CE / BCE, but with an Islamic slant. It is thus a POV fork, just as if we had separate articles on AD / BC with the exclusively Christian content for that era. The articles are almost all empty, as I say, or at least that's my conclusion from looking at some tens of them. It might be defensible to have an article on each decade as for example 1920s in Islam, as we do for film, fashion and some other topics, but what we have now is an unmaintainable and seemingly unmaintained series of articles which look as if they are only there to remove Islamic topics from the CE / BCE convention. Wikipedia should not be concerned with what we call a year, only with what happened during it. And since the year is an arbitrary construct anyway, we might as well stick with the convention that we already have. Cruftbane 11:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep and clean up. Espresso Addict 18:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Residual income[edit]
So many reasons. The article reads like an advertisement for network marketing, a practice of questionable legality in many countries, it does not cover information worthy of its own article, plus it violates WP:WINAD. Not to mention it is ugly as sin, although that doesn't really count as a reason for deletion. Gorman 11:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Thomas and Friends - Season 13[edit]
Contested prod. This is about a series that is supposed to premiere in 2009 (2 seasons from now). This is complete WP:CRYSTAL and I can't find anything about the supposed first episode. -- lucasbfr talk 09:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 19:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Guambo[edit]Pure schoolcruft. Highly non-notable team, a quick google search brings up only 17 ghits and zero third party reliable sources. MER-C 09:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 19:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Dewspot[edit]Non-notable software. No evidence of reliable third-party coverage, apart for the usual blog cruft. 394 ghits, some of which are irrelevant. (P.S. I nominated the screenshots for deletion as they are derivative works). MER-C 09:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Greg Conway[edit]Unremarkable person fails notability requirements the article has been unsourced since creation, previous cleanup request diff resulted in the tag being removed after 3 months and request for verifiability being left unaddressed. Gnangarra 07:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 19:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Gary Hayes[edit]Contested speedy and prod. Non notable local politician, nothing offered that meets WP:BIO. Nuttah68 07:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Nuttah68 07:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has already underwent deletion consideration. I request that this deletion notice be removed because this seems like WP:GAME. Sgt. bender 20:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article on Gary Hayes should be left. Considering that a video on YouTube featuring Mr. Hayes was viewed over 500 times in one day, was commented on 25 times, and received two YouTube "honors" shows that he is noteworthy enough to garner at least some attention on a national forum. Let the article stay. Dr.orfannkyl —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never found anything that I felt so strongly about, I guess. And anyway, I just created an account so I haven't had time to do much. Dr.orfannkyl 20:34, 10 October 2007
Keep the material at least until after the election. I searched for 'county elections' for precedents, and found Maryland county offices elections, 2006 and Maryland county executive elections, 2006, along with George F. Johnson, IV, one of the candidates. Perhaps something like New York 2008 county elections could be created, and then the candidates could either have their own articles or be incorporated into the election article. I think that would solve the 'notability' issue. For now, I'll wikify Schoharie County, New York in the article just so it's put in context. Flatterworld 02:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] It has certainly not been Wikipedia policy in practice to declare that "national coverage" is necessary for politicians to be notable enough for an article; virtually no state senators, representatives, mayors (and even certainly some members of Congress and Governors!) would not meet that criteria. If the individual in question is notable in the local area and has received significant news coverage there, he would be worthy of an article. I believe, rather than deletion, a "notability" tag on the article is warranted to get some of these news articles into the article as references (keep in mind that news sources do not have to be online to be included as references).--Gloriamarie 17:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. Espresso Addict 14:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Wittendörp[edit]Per WP:N and WP:V. Link shared among all links in box below description. The Wikipedist 06:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. Espresso Addict 14:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Wittenburg[edit]Per WP:N and WP:V. Link shared among all links in box below description. The Wikipedist 06:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. Espresso Addict 14:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Wittenförden[edit]Per WP:N and WP:V. Link shared among all links in box below description. The Wikipedist 06:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. Espresso Addict 14:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Wöbbelin[edit]Per WP:N and WP:V. Link shared among all links in box below description. The Wikipedist 06:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 19:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Derek Rhodes[edit]Contested Prod. No sources cited for notability claims. No evidence independent of subject or of Wikipedia article found. Subject does not satisfy WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. • Gene93k 06:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. Espresso Addict 14:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Zarrentin[edit]Per WP:N and WP:V. Link shared among all links in box below description. The Wikipedist 06:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 19:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Organization of the Jews in Bulgaria[edit]
looks like an ads Chris! ct 06:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. Espresso Addict 14:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Zierzow[edit]Per WP:N and WP:V. Only one real contributor. Link shared among all links in box below description. The Wikipedist 05:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 19:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Gumfer[edit]Violates WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NEO Chris! ct 05:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. Espresso Addict 14:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Zülow[edit]Per WP:N and WP:V. Only one real contributor. Link shared among all links in box below description. The Wikipedist 05:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] El Rancho Hotel & Motel[edit]
violates WP:NOT#DIR Chris! ct 05:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] John Haugland[edit]
Not notable
The result was keep. W.marsh 21:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Kumar Malavalli[edit]
Not notable - no sources - part of the article looks like an ads. -- Chris! ct 05:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Lucia Chase[edit]No sources - subject at hand not notable Chris! ct 05:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep--JForget 00:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Kidnap and ransom insurance[edit]
sounds like an ads - no sources Chris! ct 05:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 18:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] South ogden jets[edit]
Presumptively non-notable youth American football team, with no sources provided. A Google search found no reliable sources, just mentions on a single message board. This article was submitted for proposed deletion, but the PROD tag was removed. I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 05:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Zane (hairstylist)[edit]
Only reference appears to be a single, human interest interview. Article full of trivia, and notability barely asserted (just enough that I wouldn't put it up for CSD). — Coren (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Boulevard Mall[edit]
Non-notable mall in New York, fails WP:RS. A search for reliable sources online found nothing of note, just another ordinary shopping mall (except for a somewhat bizarre layout). Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck 20:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Human chemistry[edit]
This seems to be an attempt by User:Sadi Carnot to get publicity for a book and/or website. There are also other articles such as Interpersonal chemistry, Heat and affinity, and Human molecule, but I don't want to spam AFD with a ton of nominations. Ggreer 10:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of sources
Consensus update[edit]I really think this entire situation is very ridiculous, both human chemistry (Goethe, 1809) and human molecule (C.G. Darwin, 1952) are not my views, they are historical concepts. To prove this, going on the deletion suggestions, I will merge human molecule to human chemistry, add a few new book references (to the works of others), and splice out references to my work to a “further reading” section. I hope this clarifies my intentions. --Sadi Carnot 06:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Curiouser and curiouser... many of the quoted testimonials on humanthermodynamics.com are attributed to Wikipedia editors, and link to their user pages. link. I find this guy hilarious. --TreeKittens 01:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete[edit]As I am the author of both articles, I am putting speedy tags on both human chemistry and human molecule. --Sadi Carnot 18:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ülker[edit]Fails WP:CORP. No assertion of notability. Vegaswikian 03:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Consensus is that the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines and that the article Reflexive Arcade should be redirected to Reflexive Entertainment. -- Jreferee t/c 19:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Reflexive Arcade[edit]
Does not assert meeting WP:CORP and fails WP:V and WP:RS. Vegaswikian 03:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Consensus is that the topic meets the general notability guidelines, but needs clean-up. The title is incomplete since the reliable source material call it Mid Europa Partners. I tagged the article for clean-up and moved the article to Mid Europa Partners to better assist others to locate the article and improve it.-- Jreferee t/c 19:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Mid Europa[edit]Article does not assert that it meets WP:CORP. Also has WP:V and WP:RS issues. Vegaswikian 03:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Jreferee t/c 16:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] E-RPG System[edit]Fails
Talk 08:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 16:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Headplay[edit]The article reads like a brochure and has not given grounds for notability within wikipedia. I always have trouble with non notable companies making articles for there own products for cheap google indexing. UnlimitedAccess 02:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Consensus is that the topic meets the general notability guidelines. Clean-up, COI, and advertising not reaching blatant advertisement level are not a basis for deleting. -- Jreferee t/c 19:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] School of information studies[edit]
Pretty clear advertising, written by single-purpose account, a non-notable sub-school of Syracuse, which already has a pretty substantial article. Deltopia 02:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, as the "Forewords by Linus Pauling and Albert Szent-Gyorgyi to Irwin Stone's* "The Healing Factor"", and the sources cited in this comment by Thomjakobsen are sufficient to establish the notability of this person per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. John254 01:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Irwin Stone[edit]AfDs for this article:
Djma12 (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Alterrabe 20:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An important addition that should be made to the article is detail about what caused Stone's death at age 77 - after reading his book, and being in the ecstasy of a new convert, I was very disturbed to find out that he had died! Adam Marchant 11 October 2007 Sydney Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.102.134.237 (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Celtic mythology. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Celtic legends[edit]
no sources, might not be notable Chris! ct 02:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. W.marsh 21:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Settibalija[edit]not notable, lack of sources Chris! ct 02:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Very Large Vehicles of BC[edit]
listcruft - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information NeilN 02:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|