Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 10

< August 9	August 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Note that at the time of closure, no independent sources whatever had been added, as was called for in the debate.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Noblit[edit]

Contested prod. Subject fails WP:BIO, and there is no attempt to assert notability. Google hits are from closely related religious sites with seemignly no independent secondary sources. Amazon turns up no hits for his name or books- unsurprisingly as they are published by his church.Farosdaughter 23:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No different from most other preachers - nothing sets him apart from them. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 00:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NN. No independent source. --Evb-wiki 02:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless independent sources are found to establish notability Corpx 06:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hu12 04:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R2K Concert[edit]

Concert review masquerading as an encyclopedia article. This is better off on a fan site. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, nn concert. Unfortunately this doesn't fit any speedy criteria. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSources don't seem sufficient to do a decent article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article needs a lot of work, but a quick Google search shows that it was indeed a notable event. We have articles on other notable concerts, from the Altamont Free Concert to the The Concert for Bangladesh. This concert appears to have been notable, at least in the Philippines. Guanxi 22:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 23:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or possibly merge to the singer's article or that on the stadium). If the concert itself is in fact notable, the article will need an almost complete overhaul to demonstrate that. For mine, the easiest way to overhaul this would be either by starting from scratch or working it up as a sub-section of the articles I've mentioned. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- Kappa 04:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been posted at the Philippines regional notice board. -- bluemask ^(talk) 04:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only ref I can find is this [1] and it just mentions briefly the R2K concert to put context about another singer from our country. Berserkerz Crit 11:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked in Google? Guanxi 14:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a better Google search [2] We need to identify what R2K is/was, since "R2K" was also a name of one of Regine Velasquez's albums. Page 1 of the search consists mostly of videos of the concert. If I've posted a video of myself or any well-established recording artist's concert on YouTube singing at our home would it be on Wikipedia? --Howard the Duck 12:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not as important as the Concert for Bangladesh. --Howard the Duck 14:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) That's one person's POV, and 2) It doesn't have to be that important, only Notable Guanxi 14:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not important enough to be notable. What's next, 2007 Fallout Boy concert in the Araneta Coliseum? Or the StarStruck final judgment nights? --Howard the Duck 16:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I said, that's your POV -- until you provide evidence on how it fails the standard. Guanxi 18:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Can you provide a reason why this is notable, as compared to countless other concerts held at the Araneta Coliseum? This is perhaps notable for Regine Velasquez fans, but not for the general Filipino populace. As I've said, countless other concerts and events are held in the Araneta Coliseum; even the Manny Pacquiao-Oscar Larios match which garnered far more publicity than this one doesn't have (and will never have an article), why should this one? The number of G-hits doesn't mean it is notable, or else Ashley Ferl should have an article. --Howard the Duck 04:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Notability of the concert not established, other than it being Regine Velasquez's major concert (the article is sooo fancrufty, I can't convince myself it was written objectively). That information is better left to the main Regine Velasquez article. Otherwise, I can't find other rationale for it being on the same level as, say, the Live Earth concerts. --- Tito Pao 08:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo Navigator[edit]

Non-notable software. No sources that are not affiliated with product that establishes notability. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 07:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom kateshortforbob 14:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Windows in a sub-section, doesn't look notable enough for its own article.--JForget 23:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom lacks notability. Harlowraman 22:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DES ^(talk) 23:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another Norton Commander for Windows clone. Pavel Vozenilek 23:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 03:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not notable. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 12:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks notability.--Chealer 00:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 01:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SalvosConnect[edit]

Finishing unfinished nom made by anon; I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 05:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article does not meet notability requirements IMHO. Anynobody 00:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 23:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Corpx. If the Salvation Army Australia had an article, I would suggest merging, but they don't seem to. The information is too specific for inclusion on The Salvation Army general article. --Moonriddengirl 14:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Someguy1221 01:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entamoeba coli[edit]

All versions of this article (and the talk page) contained medical advice, so there is no non-advising version of the article to revert back to. Deletion of the article's edit history would probably violate GFDL, as content would exist without giving due credit. Andjam 23:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - species are WP:N. Your purposed reason for deletion is a editing issue - if you feel the second sentence in the article violates the "no medical advice" criterion, simply remove the sentence, not the entire article. -- MarcoTolo 00:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it'd be ok for medical advice to remain in the article history? Andjam 00:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we had to delete an article every time someone added a phrase that could be construed as medical advice, most of the medicine-related articles on Wikipedia would have to be deleted and re-created (some of them daily) <grin>. The idea of "Wikipedia is not a source for medical advice" (as in Wikipedia:Medical_disclaimer) is essentially a guide to point out that an encyclopedia is not (nor ever can be) a replacement for a physician: individuals are all different, treatments change, etc. -- MarcoTolo 00:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Discussing the nature of an organism's infection is not medical advice. The reference I read from the CDC pointed out that though this organism is harmless other pathogenic organisms may have also been introduced during infection. Anynobody 00:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing Maybe I was just a little frustrated that there wasn't some kind of notice board for these kinds of issues. Andjam 00:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 01:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teen Queen UK[edit]

Non-notable teen modeling competition. A paltry number of reliable sources mention it, none actually discuss it. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --PEAR (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No multiple, reliable sources that assert this competition apart from the official websites. Spellcast 17:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 23:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Spellcast. --Moonriddengirl 14:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This competition has a catchy name but doesn't assert any particular importance.--Stormbay 17:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G7 (author blanked), non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lands of Ultima Thule Educational Society (LUTES)[edit]

This is the parent organization of the Kingdom of Hightower, whose article was recently deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Hightower). As with the Kingdom of Hightower article, I've been unable to locate reliable independent sources to establish this organization's notability ([3]). I feel the article in its current state falls short of notability criteria and suggest deletion per WP:ORG. --Muchness 22:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any reliable sources which establish notability for this organization. --Haemo 23:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE???? You people make me laugh. I've never seen such ridiculous rhetoric in all of my life. Merging the page is mentioned in WP:ORG. I've been archiving all this nonsense as reference of your lack of notability so do what you want. Delete yourselves while your at it. Adios and good luck. Anastasia the Innocent 01:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the above says, the author just blanked the page. I've so-tagged it for speedy deletion. This articles doesn't cite any sources, anyways, so I don't what Anastasia is talking about. --Haemo 02:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as current version) the article is empty except the afd tag.--JForget 02:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is little to merge, and a redirect would likely be confusing. The article lacks reliable sources, and an encyclopedic assertion of notability, and might well have been speedy-deleted under CSD A7 in any event. Xoloz 13:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Mary's Senior High School Music Program[edit]

This is an article about a high school music programme. It isn't notable enough to deserve its own article, and it is filled with peacock terms (I removed a lot of them before I decided the article should be deleted). It seems to exist merely to praise the music programme. DearPrudence 22:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to St. Mary's High School (yes I know it's a disambig). Anything noteworthy to be said about this program can be said in St. Mary's High School (Calgary). Kappa 04:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#WEBHOST - WP is not the webhost for your high school programs Corpx 06:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is really a mass vanity piece. The facts belong in the main school article. --Stormbay 20:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. —David Eppstein 17:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 21:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into high school main article. High school music programs are important! Wasted Time R 03:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna beth[edit]

Doesn't appear to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people). She's a person with a blog and a MySpace page. Kurt Shaped Box 22:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defriend. Somebody who's popular on MySpace still needs WP:RS to tell us so. --Dhartung | Talk 22:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, almost a speedy A7.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources Corpx 06:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If she is only popular on social networking sites then she's utterly non-notable. JIP | Talk 07:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability established. Corvus cornix 18:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There seems to be general consensus that the gentleman is borderline notable; however, his range of activities precludes an easy, accurate merge. There is little support for outright deletion, and no call for it on policy grounds (as the article is well-sourced), so no consensus is the only feasible outcome. Xoloz 13:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Lichman[edit]

I was going to nominate this article as delete, except that when I had the chance to do so, the result came out as no-consensus

Nominated for the fact that...

1) he was in a short lived boyband that was less than seriously notable than say Westlife, therefore at that time, none of these members were seriously notable enough, not even Ziggy, to have his own article as until Big Borther, since the split, he has done nothing serious notable

2) There is no evidence of his credentials as a music producer, in another words, there are no proff that he is notable as a music producer

3) not considered as a serious favourite to win BB8, as there are contestants who are more considered to be favourittes to win, thats until he wins, (and I pocket millions from my bet) then I wouldn't have any problem for recreation

4) This article tends to mostly state his appearance in Big Brother page where it belongs, therefore when removed, this leaves it as a stub and not enough to justify his own article. Dr Tobias Funke 20:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Big Brother 2007 (UK) and protect the redirect. Saikokira 20:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Big Brother 2007 (UK) and protect, as the original nominator. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 21:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Big Brother 2007 (UK), but I don't see the need for protection. the wub "?!" 21:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per original AfD, the subject is notable outide of either Big Brother or Northern Line, and the article contains information not relevant to either of those articles. John Hayes^talk 02:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I don't see what's noteable outside BB or Northen Line. Dating Suzanne Shaw? That's not noteable AT ALL. Modeled clothes once for fcuk? That can be mentioned in his Big Brother bio, as the other housemate's occupations are. Appearing on the dating programme? That can be mentioned in his Big Brother bio, as with Shabnam and Britain's Got Talent. Face it, THE SUBJECT IS NOT NOTEABLE! Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 18:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and say he is notable, and that those details are not relevant to an article about Big Brother, only to an article about him. John Hayes^talk 07:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As this is to the article creator, give me a reason why he is notable between 2000 and 2007, as I have to say he did nothing at all

Keep Admittedly very weakly. Although his main claim to fame is BB he was part of Northern Line which did have singles released which charted. For the time being there is little point in deleting as until he gets evicted from BB and fades back into obscurity there is always a slight chance he may do something a bit more worthy. BB has no relevance to Northern Line and Northern Line has no relevance to BB so the guy does have 2 different things about him which are notable.--Catten666 21:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dalejenkins, also for the fact Ziggy was from a now forgotten failure boyband who only lasted half of a typical manufactured groups' lifespan (4 years) and none of their has seen any airplay even on local radio following their split, in addition, if Zach was notable following his the group's split, then he would not have to be in the BB house at all, in another words, he should rather have been in Celebrity Big Brother instead, other than that, are there any source to prove that he is credible as a producer as there is no evidence of it, therefore lessening any notability.

Also fails WP:MUSIC as a producer and also I am very doubtful that he will pass as an individual member. Willirennen 01:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For each of BB, or as a member of NL, and even per John Hayes's comments he is not specifically and separately notable enough. However, simply for the benefit of keeping things tidy, and avoiding unnecessary duplication (and even arguably the cumulative notability), it is worth having a separate article (even if the current article is stubby and poor). Guinness 10:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "For each of BB" - I don't know what you are talking about, do you mean that every BB constestant should have their own page, still not a good excuse to be notable
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Tobias Funke (talk • contribs)

Comment Perhaps if I say it like this; For each of:-
- His participation in BB,
- His participation in NL, and
- His Additional work (as noted previously by John Hayes)

he is not notable enough to warrant an article. However, for the practicality of keeping the place tidy, it's worth having. Notability is a guideline not a rule and this page is useful. Guinness 12:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 22:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. He has done some stuff that's kinda notable, and it is all referenced, but whether this can be anything more than a permastub is questionable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Keep, refer to WP:OTHERSTUFF as none of these give a reason for notability. Lets face it, there is thousands of music producers and models and do I see them ever getting a page and do I ever see every BB contestant getting a page. Dr Tobias Funke 03:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the BAND of which he was a big part, not with the BB series. Kappa 04:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't mind if it is deleted, but we shouldn't merge most of it with Northern Line or BB, as it simply isn't relevant. John Hayes^talk 09:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per his, has additional achievements beyond Big Brother involvement which would warrant a separate article. Yamaguchi先生 01:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As with the current edit, it wouldn't warrent an article on its own. I have nothing against recreation if he becomes notable again after coming out of the house, but I am very doubtful that will happen and in no time he will be stacking shelves at the local supermarket or thats where he belongs. Dr Tobias Funke 23:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that we can't keep him just on the chance he might win, as we must not attempt to predict the future, but on the other hand we also must not get rid of him because he might be "stacking shelves" in the future. John Hayes - On Vacation^talk 08:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will bring this lot for those who nominated keep, according to this previous deletion nomination, this is what it stated Also, we have notability guidelines for people on Wikipedia. "Reality show contestants are generally notable only if they win" and I'm sorry to say that it is doubtful he ever will, so therefore this is why I say delete. Dr Tobias Funke 23:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not so sure that that applies in this case, as Vanessa was only ever a reality show contestant (as far as I remember), and I would completely agree with the deletion of any similar article, but in this case being a reality show contestant is only a part of Ziggy's notability (though I will admit a large part of it). John Hayes - On Vacation^talk 08:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It doesn't matter whether or not he is notable on his own, and whether or not he will be "stacking shelves" in the future. I tend to agree that he is not particularly notable at this time, however the fact is that he is/was involved in two things which are notable and which have separate articles. It would be better IMHO to have a single article which contains information about him, rather than duplicating this information. Guinness 11:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable other that that if he was notable he wouldn't have to be on a reality show for non-celebs to scrape his last piece of fame. Metallicash 09:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he is notable outside of Big Brother -- Roleplayer 20:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Come On, give me an example between Northern Line and BB, in another word, have you heared of him before he came into the house, I don't think you can think of any. And for John Hayes, have you read the note on above where it says give me a reason why he is notable between 2000 and 2007 which you have not provided any yet. Dr Tobias Funke 23:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you read the note above where it says "notability is a guideline not a rule" The article is justified not by it's subject's notability (although I am not arguing either way as to whether or not he is notable), but for maintenance reasons; i.e. to prevent duplication of information across multiple articles. It is far more sensible to have only one place with information about him. The presence of this article thus improves Wikipedia. Guinness 10:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry didn´t see that. To a large extent he wasn´t notable between 2000 and 2007, and I don´t think anyone is disputing that (I can only find the one source in that period). But that doesn´t stop him having an article, he is notable for two seperate things, yes he shouldn´t have an article as a BB candidate alone, or as an musician alone (and certainly not the other things), but all together it forms more information that could be added to either of the existing articles. While I know other stuff exists, I would like to point you to the example of Bez as this is a very similar case. He is slightly more notable as a musician, and slightly less so as a BB contestant, but essentially they are both notable as musicians, and BB contestants, with a few other minor details thrown in. At least this article is far better sourced then that one. John Hayes - On Vacation^talk 11:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is little real support here to delete the information. Ultimately, the choice of whether, what content, and the method of merging remains a decision for article talk discussion. There does appear here, however, a tentative consensus that this content should not have a stand-alone article. Xoloz 13:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family Feud broadcast history (United States)[edit]

This article is unsourced and seems to read as one large trivia section spun off of the main Family Feud page; as such, it also appears to contain a large amount of original research, speculation, and POV Goldrushcavi 21:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the alternative, merge it back into Family Feud. TV shows occupy a sacred spot in Wikipedia, for whatever reason, and this TV article is far better written than most of that genre. Perhaps this should be the Family Feud article itself, rather than the spinoff. Mandsford 22:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delele or Merge what little is salavagable into Family Feud. It reads largely like an essay, not an encyclopedia article. I see no reason why any topic is a sacred cow. If all the fluff, opinion, and descriptive language were cut and this article was reduced to the core factual content, it would be a fraction of the size and easily incorporated into the main article. Agent 86 22:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with edits The subject itself is reasonable to cover on Wikipedia. See the [4] coverage to be found in Google news. But I don't know that this page is the right path to go on. I suggest a careful merge back, with an emphasis on looking for sources. FrozenPurpleCube 01:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or Merge I agree with Mandsford. Also, the article itself was created just to save room from the original Family Feud article, as was another article, Family Feud references in popular culture, which was deleted for apparently no reason. This article delves into detail what exactly went on while Family Feud was in production. In my view, that's important. The Green Lantern 02:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - contains lots of info that is sourceable and that would clutter up the main Family Feud article if merged. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 02:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back...Not sure why this is a separate article Corpx 06:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Family Feud, with substantial trimming. Some aspects of the broadcast history of this show belong in the article, but I have trouble comprehending why someone thought that an encyclopedia should discuss ephemera such as the color of the floor and the types of video screens used in different incarnations of a TV game show.--orlady 18:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge back to Family Feud. An obvious content fork--how did this survive past December? Blueboy 96 18:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, the Family Feud article is already lengthy, so I don't see a problem with having this as a spin-off article. It needs some trimming, but for the most part, the information is notable, especially for such a popular and long-running game show. --musicpvm 23:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This information is certainly not a large trivia section; the content here is good and in fact I could see how it could substitute for the main Family Feud article. I personally do not see the POV/OR problems others have alluded to; some examples from those in favor of a merger might be helpful. If some editors would actually merge all of the worthwhile content here into the main Family Feud article, I think there would be a far stronger argument for deletion than at present. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
Merge Unless this is a sandbox for someone's work, merge it back into the original article. --Mnemnoch 05:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Just a bunch of unsourced trivia and cruft, can easily be widdled (remember, this is an encyclopedia, for overview articles, not a fansite) into main page. Biggspowd 05:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even though it's not about a fictional show this reads like a big ol' plot summary in violation of WP:PLOT. The level of detail is truly excessive. Do we really need, for instance, multiple specific examples of times that a host lost his composure? Otto4711 13:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

88-Keys[edit]

No reliable sources can be found to establish notability. Has been tagged for SOURCES for one year and no one, including me, has found any. Pharmboy 21:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V and WP:BIO Rackabello 21:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No demonstrated notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., and above.--JayJasper 12:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hu12 04:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry's Legend[edit]

Non-notable Happy-melon 21:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose - When a famous video gaming magazine (EGM) and a popular internet comedy site (Something Awful) mention and lampoon the game, you know it is notable. WhisperToMe 21:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Unencyclopedic and NN. A mention in a single magazine and on a website do not constitute substantial coverage. Rackabello 21:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The reasoning demonstrated in the post above is flawed. Electronic Gaming Monthly is a major United States gaming magazine. 1up.com, EGM's affiliate, is ranked 2,937 - This is a very high Alexa ranking (See [5]) - Calling it "a single magazine and on a website" is not conveying the major readership of both. WhisperToMe 02:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Happy-melon 21:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One magazine, that's it. Citation on Something Awful does not constitute a reliable source. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Added note, the EGM blurb only mentions the game in brief. Even less in the way of notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and

stuff) 21:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment: This is the paragraph in question: " Hacker Software - What fun would homemade hardware be without homemade software to go along with it? Aside from the wide amount of Asian bootleg NES software available, the most impressive hack we've found is a completely original unlicensed Chinese Harry Potter game in which the young Where's Waldo-looking wizard journeys through the Dursley homestead kicking the crap out of rats, bats, fats (Dudley and Vernon), and, uh, Voldemort. And that's just before Harry learns he's a wizard.

" - This section prominently features the game. How many subscribers of EGM saw this? Do you want me to find out which magazine this appears in? Then what? You are going to have to prove that it is not notable. WhisperToMe 02:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment 2 - As for SA, the site is being used to show that people are discussing Harry's Legend as a proof of its notability. Despite the fact that SA isn't a reliable source, it is an extremely popular website. The actual meat of the article will come from the game itself and from the 1UP.COM/EGM article. Somethingawful is just a signal that people already know about the game. WhisperToMe 05:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails to show reliable 3rd party verification via WP:RS to establish notability. Supplied links are interesting perhaps but fail policy. Pharmboy 21:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How do they fail policy? "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." - I would think that EGM has fact-checking, huh? All I need is one reliable source, right? If so, then this is flawed, and the nominator's argument is flawed. WhisperToMe 02:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above and others. uncyclopedic. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, only one reliable source. Mel sa ran 15:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All I need is one reliable third party source to state that the game is notable. That's it. After that, I can use the game itself as a source about itself. If there is no policy stating that an article like this needs X third party sources to be notable, then this is flawed. WhisperToMe 02:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will say that EGM should be enough of a third party reliable source to keep this article afloat. Unless there is good reasoning to state that more reliable sources have to be placed in order to prove that this article is notable, then the reasoning of all of the delete votes is flawed.

Let me quote from Wikipedia:Notability: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.1 "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability.2 "Sources,"3 defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.4 "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.5 "

From the quote above, in one section, the article addresses the game directly and gives some detail "in which the young Where's Waldo-looking wizard journeys through the Dursley homestead kicking the crap out of rats, bats, fats (Dudley and Vernon), and, uh, Voldemort. And that's just before Harry learns he's a wizard. " - Harry's Legend is a very simplistic fighting game (One can tell this when he or she downloads the game and plays it), so not a whole lot of text is needed to say that the game is addressed in some detail. No, this isn't a full-fledged review, but the game is described to the readers. The editors state WHY they consider Harry's Legend to be "the most impressive hack we've found," so this satisfies the detail requirement.

- EGM is a published news magazine, and 1UP.com is its affiliate. Therefore it satisfies all three guidelines here. WhisperToMe 02:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The author of the EGM article that mentions and describes Harry's Legend wrote his own more-lengthy review of the game on his personal website: http://www.gamespite.net/toastywiki/index.php/Site/HarryPotterForNES (If you look at Parish's profile via 1UP.com, the "personal website" listed in his profile redirects to gamespite, so this IS Parish's website) WhisperToMe 03:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- OK. Your commentary on my talk page aside (which is more or less reproduced from this discussion), you've only turned up one more page that goes into a rather detailed description of game play. That doesn't make the game notable, it just documents game play. That, and it's only one source. You need to do more than one. Unless you can do this, my !vote above stands. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Same about commentary the on my talk page (which I would argue is a very bad idea to do, but I digress). Perhaps there are notable sources that are not in English, which of course would make it notable in THAT language, ie: china. Again, no one is saying the game doesn't exist, but exising and being notable are 2 different things. Pharmboy 12:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Should I ask Voidvector to check Baidu to see if any reliable Chinese sources pop out? He did it before and didn't find anything, but maybe another search will find another source. There was a non-professional/verifiable Japanese source, so maybe a verifiable article exists in Japanese. WhisperToMe 07:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mentioned by 1up. --Voidvector 04:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, seems not very notable, but EGM/1UP and Something Awful found it worth writing about, so that makes it borderline to me. --Allefant 12:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT - This may be a hack of "The Waterboy" - Although technically this isn't considered to be a reliable source, this screenshot seems to suggest that "Harry's Legend" is a hack of "The Waterboy" - If this fails AFD, then we can just merge it into an article about "The Waterboy" - http://www.datacrystal.org/wiki/The_Waterboy WhisperToMe 15:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: WHups - that itself is a ROM hack! AT first I thought this was the original. Hmm, this is confusing... WhisperToMe 15:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only mentioned in passing on EGM. If they devote an entire article to it then it might be notable. Not when it's just a paragraph. -- 我♥中國 16:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They do devote one, apparently, but as I note, it's nothing more than a description of game play. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by User:GDonato. Carlossuarez46 23:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conference Room[edit]

No secondary sources given and reads like an ad. No assertion of notability - plenty of other chat tools available. Does not meet the criteria for WP:CORP. → AA ^(talk) — 21:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Spam. So tagged. --63.64.30.2 21:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I think this is a no brainer. Single line article with link to website. Fails to assert any notability. Pharmboy 21:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of the AK-47 and M16[edit]

There are many different versions of the M-16 and AK-47. Trying to generalize the differences is akin to making an article on the difference between Ford cars and Toyota cars. You could make some generaliztions, but it wouldn't be encyclopedic. So the question is this article comparing the AK-47 vs the M-16 (what the title of the article sugests), the AKM vs the M-16a1 (the two main rifles used in the Vietnam War), the AKM vs the M-16a2 (the main versions used in recent conflicts}? To take one example of weight, the AK47 is heavier than the m16 or m16a1 however the AKM is lighter than the m16a2. So should the article say the "AK47" is lighter or heavier than the "M-16"? So on and so on. So I believe it needs to be deleted because by the very nature they cannot be compared since there is no definitive "M-16" or "AK-47 Homersmyid 21:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no way to write this article without violating WP:OR as the entire premise is opinion. Pharmboy 21:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is simply not true. It is not OR to report expert's published opinions on the subject. JulesH 07:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even though I enjoy using the AK47 (in GoldenEye 007 for Nintendo64, of course), any information in this article deemed encyclopedic should be put in the articles AK47 and M16 rifle or this could lead to hundreds of other articles comparing all combinations of guns, planes, etc. Useight 21:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Over the decades, many a battle has been fought between persons armed by the West (M-16) and by the East (AK-47), so this is notable. Although firearms knowledge is not my forte, I've been impressed by the level of detail in weaponry related articles. Sadly, these seem to get deleted. I disagree with the idea that there is no way to write an article comparing the two weapons beyond "original research", given that The History Channel has addressed the subject using, one would hope, more than OR. Some additional sourcing besides The History Channel would be an excellent idea... surely "Guns & Ammo" has done an article. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that it permits a level of coverage that a paper encyclopedia cannot offer, and a tech-rich article on firearms is more welcome than 1,000 articles about Scooby Doo. Mandsford 22:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would accept trade mags, military papers, and a wider than usual variety of media for comparisons as WP:RS, but I think this is still very difficult to do without original research (ok, not impossible, but damn hard). As someone who actually trained on the M16, I understand the "interesting" factor, and even the historical reasons that make the article concept valid. I'm not 100% convinced it can be done without fighting, flamewars, and in the long run, opinions that dig deep into Original Research. Maintaining a WP:NPOV is also difficult, as non-Americans may have a very different viewpoint. IE: You are right in theory, but I don't think it would work in practice w/o constant violations. Pharmboy 22:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the relevant comparison would be the one about Category:Software comparisons. There are plenty of articles in that category, and as I recall, some of them have been kept after an AFD discussion. If this page were more like those, it might be better. However, I think the page would be better done as a Comparison of assault rifles. Naturally, everything on it should be sourced, but I do not consider that to be a serious problem. [6] is at least one source that looks valid for the question of wounds. I suspect somebody could find an official study from the DOD with looking. FrozenPurpleCube 01:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DOD generally doesn't release this type of info unless it is FOIA related (read: lots of years & lawyers). The current war on terrorism also makes releasing any new info like this impossible. I wish you luck, but I wouldn't hold my breath in getting WP:RS info from the gubbermint. The trade and enthusiast mags are a different matter, but the quality (and debate) will vary. Pharmboy 21:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say you'd likely be correct with your concern if this was something besides assault rifles, but with 30 years of history, I think something could be done. At the least, I know there are congressional hearings that were open to the public. So while I suppose it might be some trouble, I don't think it's inescapable. Especially since there are civilian versions available. FrozenPurpleCube 23:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was in the Air Force, plus I held a FFL (Federal Firearms License) for a long time, and while I am not an expert here, I am pretty sure that any report that affects national security simply isn't published. Try and show me ONE published official DOD comparison of a M16/AK47 from ANY year. I wasn't kidding when I said US DOD documentation like this is only released under Freedom of Information Act circumstances and subject to serious obfuscation or flat out undocumented changes. To your other point: how many companies have made M16 (AR15) and the AK-47, that is why the comparison is void. There are lots of different AK-47s, but fewer different M16/AR15. Making a comparison matrix just doesn't work. The AK-47 has so many different varients made all over the world, which makes it the most prolific gun in history but they all differ in accuracy, durability and quality. It's like comparing the Ford Taurus to Chevrolets. All Chevrolets. There will be no way to pry the original research out of the dead cold hands of this article. Pharmboy 00:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, I have zero idea of your personal qualifications and I honestly don't care, I'd really prefer you not try to prove things to me by asserting personal authority. Sure, I'll concede that there may be some secure reports not readily available, but it's not like it's feasible to claim there are absolutely no reports whatsoever available. I Perhaps there are ones that are more secure than others, but none? Nope. As to your other claim, that would be an editing concern, nothing more. Sure, there are many varieties of the AK-47 made, but then, there's a lot of rifles made. As I said above, I think that this would work best as a comparison of assault rifles in general, not just one or two. If it's impossible to get exact information on some aspects like accuracy, durability or quality, there are other aspects like weight, construction, type of bullet, date of introduction that are not. As for your car comparison, Consumer Reports regularly compares dozens of cars at time. If they can do it, so can we. That some may or may not be built differently is a reason for us to look for sources to discuss those differences while making the page. Perhaps you should consider bringing that issue up on the talk page if this article is kept? FrozenPurpleCube 04:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I should note that are plenty of other countries with access to both the M-16 and AK-47, so it's not like there aren't other potential sources. Supposedly there was a study here by the Israeli Military, but I guess you need to be a member. I have no desire to do that, but perhaps some other Wikipedian will. FrozenPurpleCube 04:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know you are new, so please understand I wasn't trying to impress you, I was establishing the basis for my claim of a modest amount of expertise. Applying WP:AGF would apply. Most people do not understand that there are over 100 million AK47s out there, by over a dozen of manufacturers, which is what makes a valid comparison problematic to begin with. As to the reports you claim are easily available, I am still waiting to see ONE usable link that meets WP:RS and WP:V. The article is automatically a candidate for deletion if you can't do those things, even if it DOESN'T violate WP:OR and WP:POV. Pharmboy 18:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new?? Really? Are you sure? Besides, would it matter what number edit I was on? Not so much as what I'm saying. Anyway, I didn't say anything about reports being easily available, I said to start with that some looking would be required. But then, that's true of many things. Still, can you deny that it would be possible to get the date introduced, the type of bullet fired, the weight, the various models available, the manufactures, the countries that have used these rifles? See, I think part of the problem here is that you aren't even on the same page as me as to what this article should be like. I believe I prefer something more general purpose rather than a direct "is this better argument" which is what I'm suggesting would represent. Do you think there's enough information available for that? FrozenPurpleCube 02:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to jump in here for a second, it doesn't really matter who's new or not, or any other personal qualification. The question is if this is meets wikipedia standards or not, and I believe it doesn't. Simple things like weight and caliber of bullet can of course be compared, but that can be found on the respective pages of the m16 or ak47. The text of the article itself is rife with WP:OR and WP:POV problems, I don't think this is disputed. Homersmyid 03:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, they can be found on those other pages. That doesn't mean a single page with handy access to the information isn't also a good idea. I actually find such things very useful, and I'd prefer something more like that than the list of assault rifles which I consider to be nearly useless. Take for example: List of battleships of the United States Navy. All that information is available elsewhere, but is also useful in one place. FrozenPurpleCube 03:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 02:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is pointless. If we allow this, we could have comparisons of every semi/automatic weapons vs the AK or the M16, and the same for pistols. Corpx 06:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has references to reliable sources that discuss the subject. Looking over the article text, while very little of it has inline attributions, it does appear to be pretty solidly sourced by the references list. Basically, I can see nothing wrong with this article. JulesH 07:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per JulesH and Mandsford. Jmm6f488 09:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second Jmm6f488's Strong Keep per JulesH and Mandsford. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Something like this can't be written without OR or POV. Besides, if we allow this, what are we going to see next? Comparison of the Gold PP7 (Goldeneye 007) and the Golden Gun?" Rackabello 22:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you can do without OR, if somebody *else* does the research. Whether or not it can be done without POV, I don't know, but that's not an inherent objection to an article. Besides, there are things that aren't POV, like weight, rate of fire, range... FrozenPurpleCube 00:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per JulesH and Mandsford. Mathmo ^Talk 04:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Historical relevance. I think the article could be trimmed a bit. I mean, stick to the info that is being compared. Once the fact tags are met, it will be a great article. On a final note, I think it is not true that 'having this article will open the door for articles comparing...' I doubt that OR has been done on every possible comparison. If it has been done and there is no other reason to not have those additional articles, then the more the better (as editors we should not consider space and server performance issues...)Brusegadi 05:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, needs references to legitimize the comparison. Otherwise, it's not a notable intersection of data. Axem Titanium 14:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's not perfetc but I like this article. Is it possible to add a disclaimer at the top "This article may contain opinion, etc." something like that? --Blue387 10:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I keep seeing people say "I like it", but (ie: WP:ILIKE) clearly states that this is a non-argument for keep. I still don't see anyone clearly explaining how it won't violating WP:OR,WP:RS and WP:V other than to make generalized and unsubstantiated claims, OR to accept sources as reliable that would never be considered reliable in any other discussion. I find it hard to believe that world.guns.ru and www.ak-47.us would *really* be considered reliable as defined by policy here. I have yet to see anyone actually address THESE main issues with more than generalization and unsubstantiated claims, and I can't see how you can keep ANY article when it has this many issues. Pharmboy 19:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is interesting encyclopedic article.Biophys 02:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week Delete unless sources can be found. As it stands, this borders on WP:OR, as there are only two sources listed that actually purport to compare the two weapons (I say purport because I've never seen the documentary listed). The rest of the article is a compilation of facts relating to each rifle that are put together to make a "comparison", plus some of the editor's commentary ("The AK-47 is generally considered a less accurate rifle."). I think it's possible that there is some actual scholorly work on this topic, but without it, I think this has to go. JCO312 17:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hu12 04:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanbros[edit]

Non-notable company. It was the subject of one article on page D23 of the Kansas City Star a few years back, but there appears to be no other coverage, so it does not meet the relevant notability requirements. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Moonriddengirl 13:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eluchil404 20:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This should have been tagged for sources ages ago. Since the article is far from new and no one has bothered to provide independent verification, I would delete it for that alone. Pharmboy 21:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (closed early per WP:SNOW, and meets speedy deletion criterion A7). MastCell ^Talk 03:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silanian[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I couldn't find sources to establish notability. Possible hoax. Previously AfD was closed early as a speedy delete, thus, isn't a candidate for CSD G4. Sancho 20:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong delete per WP:MADEUP. --Targeman 20:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jakew 21:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - utterly non-notable conlang, with no sources, no attempt to demonstrate notability, and clear failure of WP:MADEUP --Miskwito 22:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete, obviously.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 23:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable tropical cyclones[edit]

I realize how controversial this is, but it has to be done. The biggest problem, and the primary reason I am nominating it, is the title. Notable is completely subjective. That wording allows for trivial minutiae to be included. List after list could be included of unimportant storms that were "notable" for a minor reason, such as for naming or just a list of storms that affected a certain area. The reason this will be controversial is that it links to over 500 articles, and has over 1500 edits. Indeed, it is one of the oldest continually edited article in the tropical cyclone Wikiproject. However, as a user pointed out a few weeks ago, all content on Wikipedia should be notable; the user moved it to List of tropical cyclones, which is also a bad name for it. Additionally, the article seems to be an indiscriminate collection of information loosely connected by the term notable. For example, the South Atlantic section just lists the three only known possible storms in the basin. The Southern Hemisphere section, which was recently deleted, contained a list of a few destructive storms. The true records could be moved to the already existing article called List of tropical cyclone records, which is much better defined than notable. Rather than deleting it entirely, which would get rid of the edits, I propose to userfy it. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per nom, article is redundant and a duplicate to the various tropical cyclone season articles and records articles in terms of non-trivial information. The list is a loosely connected collection of topics, and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate of information. In its current form the list is mostly unsourced and unverified and may contain some original research. Simple cleanup won't solve this problem given the amount of information that's here. --Core desat 20:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. —Kappa 21:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep "The biggest problem, and the primary reason I am nominating it, is the title." I cannot agree with that as a reason to erase something that has been carefully constructed over what appears to be a period of weeks. I will leave it to others to comment further on that statement. Suffice to say that there is nothing subjective about the criteria that the author uses in describing notable cyclones. Intensity is measured by barometric pressure, costliness by billions of dollars worth of damage, deadliness by thousands of fatalities. I cannot imagine a more objective, nor a less subjective, way of measuring whether a storm is intense, costly, or deadly. Mandsford 22:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The majority of tropical cyclones listed have articles, so they are notable by definition, otherwise the article should be deleted. I recommend moving the few redlinks to the talk page as a list of cyclones that people might consider writing articles on. If an article is written, the cyclone should be moved back to the list. If notable is removed from the title, the list could contain cyclones that are not notable. A list like this gives information that is not given in a category, so readers can use it make comparisons. Such extra information should be in the specific article on the cyclone so sourcing is not a problem. It should be sourced in the article. --Bduke 23:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. The problem with this article is if properly maintained, it will be truly gigantic (think of the order of several hundred storms); "unusual landfalls" is very subjective for example. This list would be much better replaced by a number of lists, List of deadliest tropical cyclones for example, which would provide a much superior experience for any reader and retain useful redlinks. By userfying this list, any useful information can be preserved for addition into the independent lists; which will be much less indiscriminate (once this is done the userfied page can be deleted).--Nilf anion (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a view to splitting the article into smaller bits as Nilfanion mentions above, at which point this could turn into a disambiguation or similar. – Chacor 01:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to be able to find the "top 10" or so of every list that was split out in one article, it would save a lot of clicking. Kappa 04:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep strong keep per mandsford. Mathmo ^Talk 07:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find this type of article useful when doing research. Also per Mandsford. Brusegadi 05:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - change the title if it doesn't meet the rules, List of tropical cyclone records is something different. Abdullah_mk

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon A Greenspon[edit]

Can't determine that Jon A Greenspon been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The subject also doesn't meet the criteria for politicians at WP:BIO. Sancho 20:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources. Candidates aren't automatically notable, it has to be shown in each case. All I could find was a web site for his party, the New American Independent Party, his campaign website, and some Google hits that either weren't independent of the subject, or seemed obscure. Actual mentions of his name in the regular press might change the situation. I didn't even find any links to press mentions on his campaign website. EdJohnston 21:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was ready to jump in with a KEEP, but even his party New American Independent Party doesn't provide any 3rd party sources and has had one candidate (claimed) who received 4% of the vote. Once. No corporate info, only website. This is yet another candidate for a party that fails to establish its own notability. With politicians, I prefer to give miles of latitute to 3rd party candidates as main stream media often ignores and neglects them, but this is just a bit too obscure for me without at LEAST mediocre sources. Fails WP:notability. Might be notable for something other than presidential candidate if the 15 articles claim is true, but that is not really the reason the article is asserting notability, so would require rewrite. Pharmboy 22:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Sancho. Brusegadi 05:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Numerous people declare themselves independent/minor party presidential candidates in every U.S. presidential election. A much smaller number actually make it onto the ballot in even one state. Right now, the subject is just one of the "numerous people". It is too early to know whether he will actually make it onto a ballot, and without ballot access or independent coverage from reliable sources, he cannot yet be considered notable. --Metropolitan90 06:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., and all other comments.--JayJasper 12:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep; merger proposed. Chaser - T 03:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Equality Index[edit]

Itself is not notable, not possible to be more than a stub, suggest merger with Human Rights Campaign. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 16:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want deletion or merger? We don't need an AFD to merge the article.--Chaser - T 20:46, 5 August 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 19:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I want a merger, but since I am only semi-active I have forgotten some procedure for it. So I listed here. Regards. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 01:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per GFDL. The page has already been merged editorially; therefore, GFDL requires redirect to preserve content attribution history. Xoloz 13:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kapampangan Ku[edit]

This article is about a local folk song, and contains its full text. Delete, (or if the song is reasonably notable, transwiki to Wikisource). Shalom ^Hello 02:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This song fails the notability test. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this article from third-party reliable sources as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:22, 5 August 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 19:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Transwiki Agree with the nom, for the purposes of Wikipedia, this definitely fails WP:V and WP:NOT. This may also very well fail WP:N, in which case it should be deleted. If it is in fact notable, then it belongs on Wikisource, not here. Rackabello 21:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails notability Harlowraman 22:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merged to Andy Alviz which I just created, please redirect there as required by the GFDL. Those claiming this is "impossible to verify" apparently haven't tried a Google News Archive search? cab 02:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. cab 02:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect and transwiki. Kappa 04:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think this is Alviz' original composition, rather than being a a pre-existing folk song that he modernised; in that case, it would be copyrighted and invalid for inclusion in Wikisource. cab 06:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hu12 04:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Downey[edit]

Procedural nomination. Expired {{prod}} but an earlier prod had been removed so this should really go through AfD. I abstain. Pascal.Tesson 02:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this subject. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this subject from reliable third-party sources as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- one of the first Ghits was for his work with the the Wooster Collective. The article needs cleanup, but he's notable. Bearian 20:22, 9 August 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 19:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs sourcing and a little cleanup, but he certainly seems notable enough. —Xezbeth 20:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a level of notability and, hopefully, someone will improve it with sources and a clean up.--Stormbay 18:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 01:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contramano[edit]

No assertion of notability, no external sources at all. The Wikipedia citation of the day is WP:HOLE. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. WP:NN, and fails to meet WP:BAND in any case. --Evb-wiki 16:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as it can be verified. See almost 900 Ghits: [7]. Bearian 20:08, 9 August 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 19:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- While the existence of the band can be verified, there is no assertion of notability. All assertions could be true, and the article still fails to meet WP:BAND. --Evb-wiki 20:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim to meeting WP:BAND let alone sources confirming how they meey the criteria. Nuttah68 14:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete looks like a random non-notable MySpace band, notability not asserted, no sources, almost no Ghits, this is A7. Mel sa ran 15:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, nonadmin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Buck and Dex Show[edit]

Article on a morning show at a radio station. Tagged for notability since May 2007. No third-party sources, just a whole whack of myspace pages and the radio station's page. There is no assertion of the show having any notability outside of Albuquerque. Fails WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless somebody else can find sources giving "significant coverage" to this show Corpx 04:43, 6 August 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 19:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A7 I fail to see any assertion of notability in this article, appears to be nothing more than a description of a local radio show that doesn't even come close to passing WP:N. I think we can speedy delete this, I'm going to go ahead and db tag if no one has any objections Rackabello 21:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boyz Nite Out[edit]

Completely unsourced article, fails WP:RS and WP:V (and WP:LIVING maybe?). Only asserted notability is that this group won recognition in their home town of Sacramento - but there aren't even sources for this. Most edits were by WP:SPAs and numbered IPs, so it's also WP:VSCA. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Borderline speedy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:06, 5 August 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 19:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can find no reliable sources that meet WP:MUSIC dissolve ^talk 00:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources showing how the subject meets WP:MUSIC. Nuttah68 14:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was blown up. DS 04:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odin explosion[edit]

No sources to verify the "large cult following", no Google hits, some parts like about the "animal rights activists" make it seem like a hoax. Reinis^talk 19:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say Speedy delete per CSD A7, but that criterion is only for "real" bands/people/etc., and it's pretty obvious to me that this is a hoax (nerd that I am, the thing that jumps to mind is that the "Greek" given isn't real Greek, although it contains Greek letters, and it doesn't spell "Box Yettie"). So if speedy deletion isn't an option, regular delete. --Miskwito 19:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It does assert notability, so A7 doesn't apply, and being a hoax unfortunately isn't a criteria for speedying. Reinis^talk 20:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete per WP:HOAX. The Greek is total bullshit and the author must have been high like a kite when writing this crap. Ban this SPA user for good measure. --Targeman 21:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it looks like a non-notable band, which totally fails our guidelines. --Haemo 23:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious hoax, but this line did make me laugh: "The band finally broke up when, during a performance of the song "Worms will eat your skull" an angry mob of animal rights activists burst into the bar they were performing in and demanded that they stop "advocating cruelty and slaughter to endangered reptile life" (in reference to dragons) or be lynched. The band has not made any new records since."--Nobunaga24 04:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Take your pick--either A1 (nonsense) or G3 (obvious hoaxes are considered silly vandalism). Either way, this is one of the most incoherent pieces of garbage I've ever seen. Kill it quick. Blueboy 96 18:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the speedy tag you added to the article. Not only is it not patent nonsense, articles cannot be speedied during a deletion debate unless the debate is closed as such. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 19:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and send to BJAODN, clearly a joke. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 19:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 reliably-sourced mentions elsewhere, whereupon history undeletion and redirect may be appropriate. Despite verifiable sources, the consensus below determines that the subject simply is not notable enough for an article (failing WP:N). This is a determination within the prerogative of any AfD. Xoloz 14:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Broeker[edit]

More ScientologyCruft, fails WP:BIO. The entire basis for this person's claim to notability (that he was supposedly L. Ron Hubbard's chosen successor but got screwed out of it) comes only from rumours and gossip from an anti-Scn personal page (xenu.net) and a book by Hubbard Jr. whose own article says he retracted and redacted his claims in that book. Gets only 250 unique Ghits and not all of those are even this same person. wikipediatrix 19:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about deletion. (sidenote: retraction does not mean much since they're usually parts of confidential agreements most certainly involving money. At best they are as dubious as some claims) --Leocomix 23:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeWolfe's last retraction (of at least two) was tied to a settlement from the estate of L. Ron Hubbard. AndroidCat 05:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you could look at that two ways: He retracted a true statement for money, or under pressure. Or he made a false claim in the first place looking for a settlement. Steve Dufour 16:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think I've assembled enough good references to build a minor article. The main problem with Pat Broeker is that he is "the curious incident of the dog in the night-time". He is mainly notable for what he didn't do: He wasn't seen for years because he was in hiding with LRH. He didn't assume a leadership position because David Miscaviage did. As an alternative to keep, the hard-ref'ed pieces could be merged with L. Ron Hubbard, and David Miscavage, as succession questions in starting religions tend to be ~~turbulent~~ notable, but then those pieces would mention a Pat Broeker who didn't have an article... AndroidCat 05:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Time and Forbes articles only mention him in passing. Not enough information for an article. He should be mentioned in other articles on Hubbard and Scientology however. Steve Dufour 15:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable role in history of the movement. DGG (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with that is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the general public, not "the movement." Steve Dufour 00:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom.HubcapD 06:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

""Delete"" This article will probably never be more than a stub about a non-notable person. S. M. Sullivan 02:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hu12 05:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bat Mastersons[edit]

Article on yet another band, created by a single-purpose account, who looks like he had no interest in providing any external sources whatsoever, and no verifiability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per ^{[citation needed]}. No notability to be seen. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:-)^{[citation needed]} AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Moonriddengirl 13:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No evidence that any notable efforts have been made to test notability or verifiability, hence not a proper AfD as per WP:DP. Any article can be littered with ^{[citation needed]} notices, whether it's well-sourced or not. I added a quick link to the article. — xDanielx^Talk 00:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as they appear to be notable. They hvae hundreds of Ghits [8] and I have added a bunch of external links, a See Also, and a reflist. Seems to be big in the Dallas area. Bearian 18:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per xDanielx. Mathmo ^Talk 03:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 19:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per added references.^{[citation needed]} Still has a ton of citations needed.^{[citation needed]} Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)^{[citation needed]}[reply]
Problem: all of the references in the article right now are related to the band itself in some way or are promotional in nature (gig lists, etc). Bigger problem: this article is mostly a copy-and-paste of this piece on Pegasus News (which I'm not sure has any substantial editorial policy). Delete this copyvio and allow recreation of an article that a) actually has sources, and b) isn't a copy-and-paste. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but for a different rationale than I held previously. Bearian seems to have addressed notability concerns, but the copyvio per Tony Fox is a bigger concern. Is there an option to Delete without prejudice? --Moonriddengirl 14:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (keep)—no new comments since relisting, and both sides have developed reasonable arguments. — Deckill er 20:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Step Records[edit]

Record label article with no independent external sources, thus no outside assertion of notability. No verifiability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has notability, the author was just too lazy to note it. The two bands it refers to are legitimate bands, that achieved moderate fame. While it may seem a little one-sided to use Google again, but it proves that there is at least some assertion of notability that just wasn't included in this article. Certainly, the article needs to be drastically improved, as it is not really any more than a couple of lists. However, there is certainly possibility for some improvement, and while I doubt it will ever become an FAC with the current available information, it can at least sate someone who wants to know a little about an indie rock label.-Ljlego 23:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The label does not seem to be a major independent record label as defined by Wikipedia:notability (music): an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable. It seems to fail notability as a commercial enterprise as well. --Moonriddengirl 13:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ljlego. Please, read WP:DP. An article may be deleted given "[a]rticle information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources." An article may be deleted if "[a]ll attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed." An article may not be deleted because no one feels like digging up the sources which are readily available in plenitude. — xDanielx^Talk 00:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per xDanielx. Mathmo ^Talk 03:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 18:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as a blatant and self-evident hoax. Newyorkbrad 19:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Lohan[edit]

Hoax, someone with username Leslielohan created this. I'd speedy if it fell under one of the categories. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 18:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, quite clearly a hoax without any shred of evidence to back it up. Too bad there is no speedy category for blatant hoaxes. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.. CitiCat^♫ 02:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of political catch phrases[edit]

Non-encyclopedic jumble of random phrases. Hopelessly biased towards the present day and to "Anglo-Saxon" political figures. Bigdaddy1981 08:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft, could not serve as navigation, not able to catagorise and this is what we have our sister project for. Pedro | Chat 10:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiquote (assuming they'll take it). Not really suitable for Wikipedia, as the nominator points out, but could be useful somewhere. Hut 8.5 17:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I enjoy memorable statements and funny statements and quotable quotes, etc., this list was created simply to be added to by visitors. A "catch phrase" is something that a person says often (as with "perfectly clear" by Nixon), or that has been repeated often enough in the media that it becomes the basis for an imitation ("read my lips"). The real problem with this is that it's got two sources. Yeah, I know, you think everyone's heard of every one of these, but you can't put come up with a lousy footnote? That's why these things are misquoted so often, nobody wants to take the time to verify. Mandsford 18:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very encyclopedic (over a dozen of these have articles), and the fact it demonstrates systemic bias is not a criteria for deletion by any definition. Circeus 02:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note to Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics about this. Circeus 02:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- By the way, pray tell how this article violates WP:NPOV ("hopelessly biased")?? Circeus 18:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 18:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. Information here may be better sorted on the pages of each individual. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 18:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Send it to Wikitionary These quotes are better off there (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivial quotes).--PrestonH 18:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a whole, transwiki to Wikiquote as suggested explicitly above by Pedro and Hut 8.5 and implicitly by PrestonH. In parts, put specific quotes on speaker's article page. -- Lisasmall 19:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no objective criterea for which quotes make it onto this list -- I see quotes that are funny, stupid, profound, clever, egomaniacal, etc. Inclusion is completely arbitrary. Cap'n Walker 19:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiquote if they'll take it, or delete it. This is a collection of trivia, possibly original research. Some of these are really "catch phrases" but famous lines. Useight 22:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiquote, if there isn't an article like this already on there. There are 'Bushism' pages and such on WQ, so I see no reason for this being suitable. It's definitely not WP material. --Joffeloff 18:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Circeus. Many many of these already have wikipedia articles on them. Mathmo ^Talk 04:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonencyclopedic list. JIP | Talk 07:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is definitely not something for Wiktionary, because the phrases are well-known and have been influential for the society. They are not mere dictionary definitions, many of the phrases actually have articles written about them and their impact. Mel sa ran 12:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Firstly, we're talking about transwiki to Wikiquote, not Wiktionary. Secondly, there is no talk of deleting the phrases that have articles about them. Making a link on Wiktionary or Wikiquote directly to Wikipedia is very simple. --Joffeloff 19:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is useful general content. WP is not the online version of (for example) Encyclopedia Americana, but rather IMO the Encyclopedia of the People. Just because I personally have no use for the Encyclopedia Americana's article on the brown recluse (EA 4:639a) does not mean it should be deleted. However, there should be some criteria established to avoid endless proliferation of phrases one person finds interesting. As a suggestion, perhaps we could require a catch phrase to be annotated with two independent uses in the media to validate its status as a "true" catch phrase. Frazmi 05:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of living supercentenarians[edit]

Compare this list with 2 other lists:

List of centenarians - when someone dies, all you have to do is update by changing:
Centenarian name (brth- ) occupation

to:

Centenarian name (brth-deth) occupation.
List of the oldest people - when someone dies, all you have to do is update by adding her death date, removing Still alive, and changing her age in years and days from the age template to regular text so it won't get any automatic updates.
For this list, it is much harder to mantain updates for when someone dies. What you have to do when someone dies is remove her and make manual updates for all younger people on this list, as well as update the figure on how many there are. Georgia guy 18:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Difficulty in maintenance is not a reason for deletion. In any case, the cited examples, while covering substantially similar subjects, are still slightly different. Those two lists will continue to expand over time, naturally, and trying to wade through that list to find those centenarians who are still living becomes progressively more difficult. There may be some logic in the idea of some form of merge here, perhaps with some kind of sortable table that would enable quicker finding of living persons, but even then the solution is not to delete. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Arkyan. Lugnuts 19:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At some point this will become unmaintainable due to sheer size, and because as this status becomes more common, it is likely that some of them will be overlooked by the media. Casperonline 20:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps some well-written code could make maintaining the article simpler. A merge with list of centenarians is a pretty good idea, too. Useight 22:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep An interesting feature to this article is that it incorporates a program to automatically update the person's age. A supercentenarian is a person who has lived longer than 110 years, and there are, as of today, 85 such persons on a planet with 7,000,000,000 or so residents. In that Wikipedia has a currency that no book can have, and that no newspaper can maintain, this is a perfect example of the type of information that was envisioned for a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I've reviewed the history page, and it is clear that this list is maintained, with one name added and one removed in the past two weeks. Mandsford 22:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Show me how easy you think this list is to mantain. Georgia guy 22:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All we need is an auto-updating 'rank' formula. However, we also need these cases to be referenced...it could be a problem separating true and false cases if we don't maintain standards. So, this could be 'kept and improved' but ideas on how to do so are needed. 131.96.70.164 23:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arkyan. I can think of several users, myself included, who wouldn't mind taking a few minutes to update this, even by hand, when someone dies. It's more tedious than difficult. I do think, however, we need to have to have some standard of who gets on the list. It does seem that some of the decisions to add people in have been subjective. Nicholas Kao Se Tseien is included, but Ruby Muhammad is not. Neither are on the GRG, yet both have available citations for claims of being supercentenarians. Fan Shee Hoo is an unverified Canadian case not on the list, but two other unverified Canadian cases are. I admit the page needs some (maybe a lot) of elbow grease, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Canadian Paul 01:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Nicolaus Kao Se Tseien case has been falsely reported as accepted by Guinness. However, it is still arguable that his case is accepted by the Roman Catholic church as 'oldest priest'. Ruby Muhammad was named the 'Mother of the Nation of Islam' in 1986, of which great age ('89' at the time) seems to not be the only motivation for such a rank. Subsequent research has cast doubt on her age claim, suggesting she is a decade younger than claimed. I do have the birth records for Bessie Roffey so she will be verified; however I have not even started on Dorothy Hodgson so that seems a bit speculative.Ryoung122 19:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you have trouble maintaining the rank column, then the rank column (which appears entirely superfluous to me) can be removed. JulesH 07:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. As per "Arkyan" and "Canadian Paul". Extremely sexy 17:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
- List of centenarians includes only people who are notable for reasons other than age, so it is not useful as a replacement for this article
- List of the oldest people does not include all living supercentenarians

Seeing as the only reason for the nomination was that it was duplicated by the other lists, and it isn't, the choice seems clear.Matchups 01:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep. As per "Arkyan", "mandsford", and "Canadian Paul". Mathmo ^Talk 04:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I can see the value in such a list and believe it to be both manageable and worthy of encyclopedic note. Yamaguchi先生 01:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above. The list is manageable, and if someone finds difficulty in updating it, don't edit the page then. I don't mind updating it at all. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 11:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did you see the lead off news story on the main page? Yone Minagawa, formerly the world's oldest person, is dead at 114 (just a coincidence, folks, nothing to do with this debate, I'm sure), and Edna Parker is now the oldest person in the world. I would bet that someone has already updated the article, and it's that type of currency that makes it a keeper on Wikipedia. Mandsford 21:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 23:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish-Chinese relations[edit]

Looks like a random list of events involving the Italians and the Kurdish people or Chinese and the Kurdish people. Intended scope on "A-B relation" articles are diplomatic relations as it is with Turkish-American relations, Franco-American relations and etc. Kurds fortunately/unfortunately do not have a country to have diplomatic relations -- Cat ^chi? 18:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Random events put under unrelated umbrella. An overview article on this topic would be useful, though (e.g. Soviet Union had contacts with leftist Kurdish movements). Pavel Vozenilek 18:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is largely a form of OR, given that there are no supplied references and the subject matter is nebulous. As the nom points out, Kurdistan is not an official country and thus talk of their political relations with another given country is a bit specious at best. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & all above. --Targeman 21:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technically, while the Kurds do not have a country, they do have semi-autonomous governments such the one that is in place in northern Iraq through which diplomatic relations do exist with other ethnic groups within Iraq as well as with, at the very least, neighboring countries. (For example, Kurdish-Turkish relations are very much in the news right now.) The articles could stand a rewrite, as this sort of information is not best presented as a list, but the events mentioned in the articles are certainly verifiable and can be placed (with some effort) into a greater context of Kurdish-X relations. LaMenta3 04:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are many semi-autonomous regions around the world. For example the autonomous region of California (one of the 50 states) cannot have diplomatic relations with China even though California's GDP is larger than all but seven countries in the world (China is an important economic partner). California will have to use Washington DC for its diplomatic relations.

Likewise Northern Iraq claims to be a part of a federal Iraq. All diplomatic traffic about northern Iraq is between Baghdad, Ankara and Washington. Turkey made a point not to deal with people in North of Iraq directly. So the suggested material can be covered in Turkish-American relations and/or Turkish-Iraqi relations, Chinese-Iraqi relations, Italian-Iraqi relations. All Iraqi relations appear to be red links meaning there is adequate room.

I do not see why we should treat Northern Iraq as anything more than a semi-autonomous region. Not even they claim to be anything more.

-- Cat ^chi? 08:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 23:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Moran (writer-actor-producer)[edit]

Notability is not established and page needs wikification even if it is established. The external link included has very weak notability support. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while "Vampire Trailer Park" gets a bit of interest as a "cult classic," it doesn't seem to get enough to be notable on its own. Nor does Mr. Moran; his work just hasn't broken through WP:N that I can see. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of notability can be provided.--Mantanmoreland 15:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. Subject does not meet any of the three possible criteria listed for "Entertainers" in WP:BIO#Criteria for notability of people. -- Satori Son 15:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 an entirely unsourceable article full of original research. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhala Slang[edit]

Delete per WP:NOT a dictionary and absurd verifiability problems. Has anyone read the references section? The article practically nominates itself for deletion, to quote the article: It is difficult and nearly impossible to find referances to Sinhala colloquial slang in any form of formal literature availble in the Internet. The sooner we get rid of this the better. Burntsauce 18:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burntsauce I thank you for your suggestions, which at the end will do good for WP, the article and the Sinhala language itself, whatever the outcome is going to be. Keep the up the good patroling Ritigala Jayasena 08:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is hukanawa-ing awful. While I agree in principle with the idea that unsourced articles should simply be fixed, in this case the lack of sourcing leaves us wondering whether this is even legitimate. Cap'n Walker 19:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats with your first Sinhalese word buddy :) Seems somehow you went though this fucking awful article and able to learn one of it. Keep learning!!! ;-) --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 17:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If engrish and ebonics have pages, I don't see why this shouldn't as well. It should be cleaned up to mimic those pages in my mind. (edit: forgot sig) Mancide 19:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Mancide. Thanks Taprobanus 19:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember this is not a vote. If there are no reliable sources to support the content, we do not host it, period. Burntsauce 20:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not cited work. --Mnemnoch 21:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless independent, credible, verifiable sources supplied. Sources don't have to be online (though lack of online sources would be surprising if a genuine spoken slang), but lack of any attempt to source causes problems with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if only because it's a really awful article. Moreschi ^Talk 21:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a slang guide. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article: unreferenced words, not credible. Many misinterpretations. No authentic sources cited— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.188.69.169 (talk • contribs)
Delete per WP is not a neologism guide Corpx 05:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a slang guide!! As a Sinhalese, I was horrified to see what has put as Sinhala Slang on this page. It is just a horrible list of Fowl language!! Delete It pleaseUser:dharshanav— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.206.24.78 (talk • contribs)

Deleting becuase of lack of sources is valid argument. Deleting because of 'Fowl' language is not a valid argument. Would you recomend deleting Fuck and Cunt as well? Ritigala Jayasena 16:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , I beleive referances can be found and will be included in the article. Scholarly articles on Sinhala language is anyway rare on the net, and I do not agree on making it an excuse to delete the article. The native speakers of Sinhala knows that this is an accurate list of Sinhala slang. The only reason that I can think of that a native speaker of Sinhala opposes this article, is the awakwardness of seeing Sinhala profanity in print (which they are not used to), If the offending section is only the profanity, perhaps we should get rid of only that section. I also have doubts why Sri Lankan Tamil slang has only recived an warning and not recomended for deletion. The article Sri Lankan Tamil slang does not have any more referances than Sinhala Slang and only thing is that it is not being honest about it in "Referances" section like Sinhala Slang. Ritigala Jayasena 14:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (with reservation) . It is useful to have this article about Sinhala Slang, but: 1) it would need an advertisement at the beginning, because of some offending terms; 2) some sources should be cited. Some years ago, there was on the Internet an article about Sinhala Slang on a website that went offline, I have still a printed copy. It was useful, even if some terms were offensive. I believe that if this article is improved -- instead of being deleted -- can be appropriate in Wikipedia. Paryeshakaya 16:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When this article nominate for deletion it was a complete OR but somehow Ritigala Jayasena able to cite some references. If someone think that this article is not suitable for Wikipedia, I like to suggest them to read Category:Sexual slang and Category:Slang by language. Thanks --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 18:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a relatively new article. I believe that references can be found at least for some sections and within few days those will be referenced properly. However any native Sinhala speaker would know the difficulty of finding the proper reference for many entries in this page including most profanity. By the way I can't understand why some Sinhala speakers are 'horrified' to see Sinhala profanity being recorded. This is an attempt to record those in scholarly manner. May be the article has not yet achieved that style. But one should understand the importance of recording those in the path of preserving the same. Without slang, which inevitably includes profanity Sinhala will soon become a dead language. Amiladm 20:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the above claim that the Sinhala language will seeze to exist, with so called recording of the Sinhala profane. When I read it first my feeling was that it was written by someone who had a disturbed mental state or had nothing else important to do, If really want to record profane Sinhala record it in a relevant place.. please do not mislead others (who dont know Sinhala) to think that the Sinhala language slang in mostly consisting of profanity. Actually I think the original authors are trying to kill the language than saving it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.127.228 (talk • contribs)

You can believe what your tastes allow you to believe. However, I personally know that this article is already getting lot of attention from Sri Lankan adolescents and young adults. It is a good exercise fro them to read and understand the underlying assumptions and mentality which leads to the creation of the slang that they use. It is a good exercise for adults as well to understand the evolution of language. What is slang today is the language of tomorrow. All that exercise is good for the language. Besides the concern here is not whether the article agrees with the individual taste of the conservative thinkers from Sri Lanka; but whether the article is appropriate to WP due to pure Original Research (OR) and the lack of cited sources. In this Delete talk page lets talk only about that aspect, and have all the other discussions about the ‘taste’ in the Talk Page of the article itself. Ritigala Jayasena 02:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ritigala Jayasena, Do you really think it is only the Srilankan adolescents and young adults reading this article? And do you think they read it to gain knowledge (this is assuming they have access to internet)??? What about the other people who are genuinely interested in the actual Srilankan Slang?? What you are trying here to distort the real Srilankan slang with some of the fowl language words that you know.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.127.228 (talk • contribs)

Dear 172.201.127.228, your views are better expressed in the Talk Page of the Sinhala Slang Article itself. As I indicated in my above reply, the matter being discussed here in this pageis about the OR nature of Sinhala Slang article, and the lack of cited sources; and not the 'Fowl' (you mean foul?) language. I am sure Burntsauce never had a concern with the contents of the article, when he/she recomended the article for deletion. I infact agree that article lack basic WP needs when he/she first saw it. You however like to discuss the content. You beleive that examples given are not representative. That also means you know better examples. Your views are welcome in the Talk Page or you can even contribute to the article itself. However, I assume you can comprehend the differance between using foul language to discuss scholarly topic vs. discussing foul language as a scholarly topic (i.e. as inhere and here) Ritigala Jayasena 07:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice; throw the baby out with the bathwater. The guiding principle here should be verifiability, which will, alas, do a number on the profanity. The problem here is we've got an article that's not only widely uncited but even admits that it can't be sourced. Scrap it but recreate it if and only if sources can be provided for each term on a case-by-case basis. —C.Fred (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete please with no prejudice the article is widely not verifiable but can be created again later yuckfoo 16:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The so-called "references" recently added after the start of this AFD are not references, they fail to cite or corroborate anything within the article. The verifiability issues have not been addressed, pointing to a list of books does nothing to substantiate the existing problem text. RFerreira 19:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination, the article fails our standards for verifiability and lacks reliable sources. Yamaguchi先生 01:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neil ム 09:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friendship book[edit]

Book made by stapling paper together and writing/drawing on it with friends. Non-notable term that lacks verifiable, third party sources. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 18:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 96000+ Google hits. Just because you haven't heard of something doesn't make it less-than-notable. That being said, this article could use a rewrite. --Myles Long 20:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, the term sounds vaguely familiar to me. But notability has not been established through verifiable third party sources. Simply having google hits is not enough... I viewed some of the links, and they referred to a wide variety of items (including scrapbooks with pictures of friends, which is not the same thing). Could you cite some reliable sources attesting to this term's widespread usage? Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 21:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wish I could say that I have read all 96,000 Google hits, but I have not. Nevertheless, the sheer number suggests notability, and I doubt it would be difficult to locate a source. As with articles about "pen pals", one can imagine that there are magazines that would have a feature on something of this nature. No reason to delete this while awaiting a cite to Parents or Nick or Family Fun or whatever. Mandsford 22:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This activity/phenomenon certainly exists and appears to be somewhat prolific. There is the concern of lack of sources, but that is not necessarily a catch-all reason for deletion when there is no doubt as to the potential for verifiability. LaMenta3 04:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per this, but needs more sources to establish notability. If we were going by google hits, every pornstar would be notable Corpx 05:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite and add sources — this is clearly a legitimate topic. Sourcing shouldn't be too difficult. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LaMenta3. Mathmo ^Talk 04:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to establish notability. Claiming "sources are out there" is not good enough. Jay32183 19:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The source cited is sufficient, & the concept has been used for centuries. DGG (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article currently cites zero sources. Jay32183 22:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ilove friensship books!!!!

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 23:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prints (band)[edit]

nonnotable musicians `'Míkka 17:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, more suited to MySpace or Allmusic than an encyclopaedia. WebHamster 08:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim to, or evidence of, meeting WP:BAND. Nuttah68 15:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Although the article lacks direct citations, for the moment, the surrounding Wikipedia articles on the television show provide sufficient evidence to meet the basic needs of WP:V. Beyond that, this discussion cannot agree on the best result, with some commenters apparently more concerned about this class of articles in general, than this example in particular. Xoloz 14:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Forrester[edit]

DELETE. Child actor in minor recurring role. Not notable per Wikipedia standards. Kogsquinge 04:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article provides sufficient context on her role in the TV series. All the other characters in that series have articles. Though inclusion is not an indicator of notability, I would not support deleting one article and keeping all the others. Shalom ^Hello 12:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So she was "born (...) on-screen in early 2004, although by mid-2006 she had been aged to five years old"? Slight merge into Current characters of The Bold and the Beautiful where she surprisingly seems to be missing.--Tikiwont 13:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current character, and all the other characters have articles. (Also, article is not about an actor, but a character - doesn't affect notability). --Beloved freak 15:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I just don't like articles on "Characters". I find them highly unencyclopedic. Wikipedia needs a "Character Clean Up" project in my opinion. Notability for a character would be for something with great relevance and importance or awards from actors portraying them or at the very least length of time being around.--Amadscientist 05:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Adamscientist --Greatest hits 05:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 17:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability for this character has to come from independent sources, which this lacks Corpx 05:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Character on a television series whose participation is pertinent to some storylines that have gone on or are going on. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 09:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Singu larity 03:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshiyasu Hayashi[edit]

Member of back-up group for Japanese band Do As Infinity. (The back-up group has no article of its own, just a redirect to DAI.) Article contains no reliable sources as references and almost no sourced content at all. I am adding the articles for four of the other five members of the back-up group to this nomination:

Speedy Redirect All to Do As Infinity. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per 日本Joe. Neier 04:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, they will be useful since their only notable contribution, apparently, is playing with the band. -- ReyBrujo 02:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Shmuk[edit]

Not notable enough. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Speedy Keep An entry in the Soviet Encyclopedia (even if I can only puzzle out parts of the entry) certainly suggests notability. ~~I am still uncertain if he was a Stalin Prize winner. Perhaps editors fluent in Russian might be able to shed more light on the issue.~~ Bigdaddy1981 17:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At first I thought "Schmuck, yeah right", but it turns out this guy existed and was a renowned biochemist who, according to this excerpt from the Soviet Encyclopedia, won a "National Prize" in 1942. I don't know what the National Prize is supposed to represent, and reading Russian gives me a headache, ~~so I'll abstain from voting until someone with a decent command of the language explains whether this prize confers any real notability~~. --Targeman 17:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all subsequent input. --Targeman 23:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Real person, notable at least in the context of Soviet Union (the research on Nicotiana rustica, Stalin's prize in 1942), at least one of his works translated to English. Pavel Vozenilek 18:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: There is only 1 Google for his English name (the "Did you mean..." link takes you to a page of irrelevant results), 91 Googles for his Russian name, and 202 Googles for A A Shmuk. A fairly modern person like him should not have so few Googles. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know that having or not having many google hits is the best judge of notability for a soviet biochemist who died more than 60 years ago. The Stalin Prize was one of the highest awards a scientific figure could receive in the USSR at that time (see list of other laureates) and his place in the Soviet Encyclopedia which was the standard reference book in the USSR rather seals the deal for me.

Weakest of all Deletes -- unless there's some more about what he did to earn the Stalin Prize and any good info on his life and career after winning the prize, this bumps up uncomfortably with WP:HOLE. Pat Payne 21:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please review the article, I have made some additions to it that I believe address your concerns. Bigdaddy1981 21:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CSB, obviously a notable scientist of his time and place. GHITS is the wrong metric for this sort of material. The Soviet scientific community was divorced from the world scientific community by the Cold War and material would be limited in any case. --Dhartung | Talk 23:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think the Stalin prize is enough to confer notability Corpx 05:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually the year he got the Stalin Prize makes his notability questionable, as this was the year before, I'm pretty sure, Lysenko cemented his power by purging his number one enemy, and Lysenko was deeply buried in it in 1942. I don't know if this is notable enough or not. Another comment, the name is a modern transliteration, and research translated to English, possibly from the German, would contain an old-style transliteration of the name, Alexander Alexandrovich, probably Schmuk. Regardless, this is not information to be found on the web, because of the timing and his field, agricultural sciences in Lysenko Soviet era is limited. KP Botany 06:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right his name most likely was at some point transliterated into cyrillic from the roman alphabet (he is most likely of jewish or volga german origin so the german or yiddish spelling of his name would be Schmuck) and then transliterated back to roman. You raise an interesting point re Lysenko but I would be hestitant to damn all Soviet scientists involved with plant science of that era based on Lysenko tomfoolery and politicking. Indeed Shmuk may not be involved at all - given a good part of his work was earlier than the Lysenko era and (specially) because he was a biochemist not a geneticist. Bigdaddy1981 16:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right that we can't dismiss him solely because of the era, but the timing of the Stalin Prize means we have to be more careful, was my point. If he was a geneticist, I think I would vote to dismiss until solid references are put up. Still, the article probably requires more care than other Soviet scientists, because he would have fallen under agriculture, and I would like to see some solid off-web references included. I'm not sure about deleting or not, though. Yes, you're right, Schmuck, not Schmuk. Oh, see note below about where Shmuk was working! KP Botany 19:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current transliteration is somehow unusual but not against the conventions, if one can label the few Web references as conventions. (See not very helpful Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian.) According to Nikolai Vavilov, Shmuk/Schmuck was working in a laboratory he headed [9] (page 115, page 5 in the document) in 1939 and this makes him rather unlike Lysenkoist. Pavel Vozenilek 19:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that the transliteration is against conventions or unusual, it's that editors researching him on the web should know that his name might not be spelled consistently, particularly not as Shmuk, in many older scientific references, and should broaden their searches accordingly. So, he worked in Vavilov's laboratory? That really turns the politics on its head!!! Thanks for the information. KP Botany 19:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 17:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based upon the reference provided by Pavel, although it seems to be saying he worked closely with the geneticists. I suspect that there will be enough information about this scientist, and there may be some politics attached to it that make him more notable than initially apparent. There's no need to delete this right now.
Keep. The Stalin prize appears to meet WP:PROF. Espresso Addict 16:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this satisfies WP:PROF based on the references cited within this discussion. Yamaguchi先生 01:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:SNOW. Also, notability is only a guideline, and is not in and of itself grounds for deletion. MrPrada 01:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I doubt his work was contaminated by politics, though practical chemical studies of this sort would normally be compatible with even the Lysenkoist line. And even if it were ,it wouldnt make him un-notable. DGG (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 hoax. Carlossuarez46 23:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vinko šimek[edit]

Apparent hoax. I can't find any online sources concerning this person's existence, despite claiming to be "one of the best comedians of all time". Hut 8.5 17:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't βʊ11§#!+ like this be speedied? This is a very, very obvious hoax. --Targeman 17:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Obvious hoax. There is this ([10]), but all that suggests is that "Vinko šimek" might be some type of performer, somewhere; there's only four other Google hits ([11]). The trivia section looks like a bunch of Chuck Norris jokes with Vinko šimek's name pasted in. ~ Danelo 18:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Obvious hoax. "He is consired as the most famous comedian," "A picture is worth a thousand words. A Vinko Šimek is worth 1 billion words." Tim Q. Wells 21:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lacey Von Erich[edit]

not notable yet professional wrestler & model Mukadderat 16:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being a Von Erich doesn't automatically confer notability, nor does signing a developmental deal with the WWE. If and when she makes it to TV, then maybe she'll be notable, but right now she's not, and has no reliable sources to prove it. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - She is the daughter of one of the most famous wrestlers Kerry Von Erich, i think that is notable, and she is going to be in WWE soon, so, strong keep. AquariusBoy01 20:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is not inherited, in general. Furthermore, a development detail is indicative of future notability; which is also not inherited. --Haemo 23:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She already has a "sub section" in the "Von Erich" family article, there was no need for another creation Art 281 01:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nikki311 03:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Nikki311 03:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list her on her Daddy's page, a myspace page is not enough, she could be released without ever wrestling a single match. Darrenhusted 14:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI also think she should be listed on her father's page until she has a more prominent role in wrestling or whatever.(MgTurtle 17:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)).[reply]
Snowy Delete and Close The only argument for keep is from the article's creator and centers around inherited notability. No one is presenting an argument that the subject meets WP:BIO. -- Ben 18:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if she is only famous through her father. JIP | Talk 07:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 23:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AceProject[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is a 1-line description and a list of features, a classic definition of an ad. Before it was edited down (in several stages), its text was more clearly advertising. The prior AfD reached no consensus, and the issues raised then (notability, sources, alexa rank) have not been addressed since. No independent references are cited. No particular indication of notability is present. Has been tagged for speedy delete twice, each tag removed. DES ^(talk) 16:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nom. DES ^(talk) 16:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely not notable, if it were it would have been made into an actual article since it's nomination. In addition, the image should be deleted ASAP as a copyright violation, it is most certainly NOT PD. Probably impossible to add to the prose of the article without citing primary sources, even if we could find secondary sources that gave it more than a directory mention --Lu c id 18:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without any comment on the notability. A one-line intro and a list of features isn't an encyclopaedia article. This isn't written promotionally, but nevertheless looks like an ad because it doesn't give any actual information on the subject, just a list of features. Mel sa ran 12:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability whatsoever, much less one supported by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 15:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 w/ strong recommendation to redirect. Speedy close given the resemblance to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maureen Johnson (Rent), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimi Marquez (RENT), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Collins (Rent character). - Nabla 15:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Cohen (RENT)[edit]

I am not the original nominator, but User:BaronessofBud nominated it, and never finished the nomination. In the edit summary she wrote: "the article is poorly written, and all information is available in the RENT page. It is unecessary and undeftly executed, so it should be deleted." — Music Maker 5376 16:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rent (musical). The article reiterates the plot of the show, and the subject is not notable enough on his own outside of the musical. — Music Maker 5376 16:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. There is zero reason for a character article that only re-states what happens to that character in the one piece of media in which he is featured. They're even more pointless than "in popular culture" lists--yes, I said it. Propaniac 19:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but for future reference, please note that this can be done by any editor, especially if there is a consensus to do so on the article talkpage, and does not require an AfD. Newyorkbrad 19:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am aware of that; I was finishing the nom for another editor. I would have just redirected. — Music Maker 5376 19:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 creation of a properly sourced and BLP-compliant version. Walton^One 15:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Schrader[edit]

This subject fails WP:BIO. He is a colorful local character who writes a lot of letters to a university newspaper, and has had one human interest feature written about him in the same paper. While I am sure he is well known around town, most college towns have at least one if not several characters around that are just as known locally. That does not make them notable enough for an inclusion in a global encyclopedia. Crockspot 16:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note This article was previously deleted under an expired prod, and was restored upon dispute of the prod. - Crockspot 16:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only independent source is the university newpaper to which he writes his letters. NN. Cap'n Walker 16:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a bit of a mis-characterization of Don Schrader. Don is much more than just the local crackpot that the students know about. I daresay there aren't many Albuquerque natives who don't know who Don is. True, most of his letters are published in the Daily Lobo, which I'd guess is due to the fact that the Lobo has the most liberal standards for letters of any local publication, but he also frequently publishes in the Weekly Alibi which is the Albuquerque equivalent of the Village Voice or Chicago Reader. And sure, it's not like the TV news networks have a "Don beat" (although if he died it would be big news) and his fame isn't as conventional as, say, Mayor Martin Chavez's. Nonetheless, Don has been steadily accreting fame for nearly two decades and he is considered as much--probably more--of an iconic Albuquerque figure as our current mayor. I think you ought to err on the side of not deleting the article. It's a little hard for people not from Albuquerque to grasp the significance of Don. Hopefully someone will come along who can explain it better... Oh, and when the Shins--a band whose latest album debuted on the Billboard charts at 2--returned to Albuquerque for a concert, guitarist Dave Hernandez announced to the crowd, "It's great to be back home. Feels like we're hanging out in the living room with Don Schrader." Tochariana 00:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm busy through August 17, but the following weekend I'll head down to the UNM library and put together a bibliography on Don that includes more than just his Daily Lobo letters. Think you can wait that long? Tochariana 17:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD will probably close by then, but at this point in time, there is not a consensus to delete. - Crockspot 15:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This poor-sourced article appears to exist, and cites materially primarily to corroborate, the working assumption that the subject is -- in the words of its supporter -- "a local crackpot." This nears qualifies as a G10, and raises severe BLP concerns. I will not speedy delete the article at this time, but I will blank and protect it (per standard BLP practice), and I urge the eventual closer to contemplate seriously BLP concerns, in addition to the obvious triviality of the sources provided. Xoloz 14:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Coogee Wanderers[edit]

Non-notable soccer team. Unreferenced article, unable to find verifiable, third party sources. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 15:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No WP:RS and none available. Only 8 g-hits, including wikipedia and mirrors. Zero of the others were reliable. WP:NN football team at best. --Evb-wiki 15:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It reads like a hoax from the Australian Cabal. --Bduke 23:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 23:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a hoax :: maelgwn - talk 23:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no sources provided for this team and I doubt that any are available. It certainly reads like a hoax. I doubt that there were any pizza parlours in Sydney in the late 19th century for a start. Capitalistroadster 01:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. No prejudice towards the new article (Musical depictions of Superman) being nominated. Or not. It's up to you guys! Neil ム 10:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of references to Superman in popular music[edit]

~~Looks like this falls foul of WP:NOT#INFO in as much as the inclusion criteria are pretty subjective.~~ ~~Also has a serious issue with WP:VERIFY and WP:OR. EyeSerene^TALK 15:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)~~ [reply]

[edit] Article has been significantly trimmed, but some issues remain (comment below) EyeSerene^TALK 09:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit2] Article is now sourced; nomination withdrawn EyeSerene^TALK 00:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yet another pointless trivia list. -- Kicking222 17:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is a list of songs that just mention superman and/or anything related to superman and hence, list of loosely associated topics Corpx 17:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Partial move - Move all the useful and encyclopedic stuff to Superman#Musical references, parodies and homages. With the rest of the stuff, just delete the page, and don't bring back the trivial stuff. Don't allow that section to become a trivia list, either. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 17:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the article indicates, the Man of Steel is frequently the subject of popular music that has no connection to the DC Comics franchise. "Kryptonite" and "It's Not Easy To Be Me" are well known examples. Certainly, "Superman in popular culture" would be redundant, but the legend of Superman could accurately be described as American mythology more well known than Hercules/Herakles, Samson, Paul Bunyan, etc. Mandsford 22:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (or partial move) --Leocomix 23:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be okay keeping this, if it was cleaned up a lot, and the inclusion criteria seriously tightened. Right now, pretty much everything under "Other references" needs to be deleted, and definitely the entire "Other songs, which seem to have a subtle Superman connection, may or may not be directly about the comic hero" needs to be deleted. Also, sources need to be added for nearly all of these. I lament of this ever being cleaned up, though; maybe deletion would be better. --Haemo 23:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything you said, except for the last five words. Mandsford 01:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just have a mind to this; the point being that repeated "keep" AfDs with the assertion that it will be cleaned up are pointless if there is no reasonable expectation that it could be cleaned up. But, hell, I'll give it a shot right now. --Haemo 06:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources indicate the importance of this subject. Fails notability. --Eyrian 04:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look at the article as I clean it up. This is very tiresome, but I'm convinced this topic is notable. --Haemo 06:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so as per the Featured List Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, I've tighten the inclusion criterion here to be Musical depictions of Superman, and moved the article to this new page. I also accordingly trimmed out most of the references; the main Superman already adequately treats the notion that he's a symbol in many different musical works. --Haemo 07:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is about to be de-listed as a featured list Corpx 07:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, it's one of the best pop culture articles that are out there...which isn't say that much, but it's something to look towards as we try to clean up this part of Wikipedia. --Haemo 07:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page is looking massively better with the removal of all the marginal stuff (nice job Haemo), but it still has a major issue with WP:ATT. Obviously it is the 'notes' comments that need sourcing (at they stand they come across as OR), but I since even the wikilinked articles for those songs are unsourced I suspect this might be difficult. EyeSerene^TALK 09:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'm fixing that by re-writing and sourcing the information in the "note" section; it's surprisingly not as difficult as I originally expected. You can see the newly sourced information -- mainly direct quotes of album reviews or the lyrics of the song -- is now added. --Haemo 22:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More excellent work! I've withdrawn the nomination, although I won't ask for a speedy close as there are still other objections on the page (albeit for the original version of the article). Good work ;) EyeSerene^TALK 00:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the nomination has been withdrawn.... 'nuff said. Mathmo ^Talk 04:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mathmo. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic. At least it is referenced so we should be able to know that what's in there belongs there, but is a list of any passing reference in pop music to Superman encyclopedic? No, just as any passing reference to zebras, aurora borealis, Helen of Troy, love, hate, masturbation, or what-have-you. Carlossuarez46 22:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to reply, in its current form, it's not "any passing reference" -- it's about albums, songs, and singles that are about Superman — as in, they specifically depict Superman or describe him in some particular way. This isn't indiscriminate or a weak inclusion criterion at all. --Haemo 06:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - at its current length and topic (depictions, rather than references), it may be best to merge this back into Superman in popular culture unless it's going to get really big again. Rhindle The Red 16:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn topic, I don't care if it's referenced, that doesn't mean this should have a page. Biggspowd 05:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you expand on this comment — I would think that the way one of the most iconic characters in American popular culture is portrayed in music is a notable topic. --Haemo 06:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What unbelevably useless information this is! 75.184.84.89 13:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, in other words you don't like it? --Haemo

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

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

The result was Merge to the artist. (SPAs opinions were discounted.) Xoloz 14:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tree Hugger Project[edit]

The organization doesn't seem notable. No refs save its homepage. _{ Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 17:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep apparently gets coverage in press about contemporary art, including Chicago's Museum of Contemporary Art (MCA), and inspires events in countries that have trees. Mandsford 21:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently... could you share the source of this apparent discovery?--_{ Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article was proposed for deletion last month by this user and declined by Wikipedia administrator. Wiktor Szostalo is an artist whose work is recognized worldwide.This project is a collaborative work of environmental art, distinctly different from the main body of work associated with the artist. Although the project was begun fairly recently, numerous references are cited within the article. The project is international in scope with installations having taken place via sponsorship in several different countries.--Harryjoy 15:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been much more media coverage than noted on the page. Among others: The Project was featured twice in 2006 by an international on-line art magazine Art MoCo featuring modern contemporary art news, in the program of the Center for Contemporary Art at Palac Ujazdowski, Warsaw, Poland, several TV and radio station in Poland including national culture news aired from Warsaw in October of 2006. In 2006 the couple was interviewed live on "St. Louis On The Air", by KWMU, a National Public Radio associate. A full page photograph of the project with a short article about the Project was published in 2006 in Earth First!, an international magazine on radical ecology, with following around the world. A photograph of the Project with biographical notes on both Wiktor Szostalo and Agnieszka Gradzik just appeared in "Latarnia Morska" a culture/literary magazine distributed nationally in Poland. In March 2007 the THP won a national on-line competition organized by a New York City based organization "Art For Progress".It has been invited to the Burning Man festival this year which also awarded the Project a grant for the installation which will be seen by ca. 40,000 people. An interiew with Agnieszka Gradzik conducted in July 2007 upon completion of the Stadt Park installation in Vienna, by one of the Vienna cultural magazine is to be published soon, title temporarily unknown. A large article with several photograpfs is about to be published in the Landscape Architecture Magazine, (USA, with international circulation). According to a new press release several new installations are planned internationally: "An Environmental Nativity" in Alabama this winter, several large installations in the Orlando/Tampa area in Florida in the Spring of 2008, and pending funding, a large installation is scheduled for 2008/9 in India, with the participation of several environmental groups from around the world, to commemorate Chipko Women. A documentary film of the Chipko Women Tribute is also planned. It is hard to disagree that Tree Hugger Project Wikipedia article should be more thourough in listing of more of the above references, but since it is still "under construction" some patience might be needed. I believe this on-going Project is very "notable" and deserves its own, separate entry in Wikipedia.--User:balticusa 02:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC) User's second edit.--13:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nabla 14:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

relisting - last 2 keeps are of single-purpose accounts, so we better have more opinions. Nabla 14:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Wiktor Szostalo#Other_Work, source there and add a redirect for Agnieszka Gradzik as well. --Tikiwont 15:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please add the refs to the article so we can see how they justify it. DGG (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Completely agree with DGG. Cap'n Walker 16:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This simply does not meet notability criterion. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 18:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into Wiktor Szostalo#Other_Work. Here are a few additional sources: [12], [13], [14]. -- DS1953 ^talk 06:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I looked through the above mentioned comment regarding new coverage and incorporated several of these new references into the article.--Harryjoy 16:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nihiltres^(t.l) 15:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur behavior[edit]

Patent nonsense. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 14:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, speedy if possibly fits under one of the criteria. A clear hoax. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:CSD#G1. KTC 15:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense and tagged accordingly.--Tikiwont 15:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you beat me to it. I was just onto the page to tag it. :D KTC 15:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. "I found some sources but don't care enough to provide them" is not a winning argument. Neil ム 10:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Jacobs[edit]

Local radio talk show host in Phoenix; sole claim to fame seems to be extremely minor controversy (I could find one story in Google News Archives and that was in the Phoenix newspaper) claiming that an AP reporter was engaged in "boinkage" with her boss. Don Imus he ain't. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC) ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Google search brings up several verifiable sources, including Fox News and Hannity.com. VxP 14:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can you add them to the article so we can see if they are substantial.DGG (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that's what needs to be done, but I don't really have enough interest in the article to do it. VxP 19:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Boinkage" incident aside, there doesn't seem to be anything substantial. The Hannity.com seems to be a picture of Jacobs, due to Hannity's visit to Jacob's radio station (apparently, Jacobs sounds like Hannity). The only other thing I could find is an article on how he joined FoxSportsNet 5 years ago. Mostly, he's known for childish "pranks". He once said, on-air, that an Arizona newspaper was being sold to the parent company of another Arizona newspaper (Oooh, edgy!). He doesn't seem to be much known outside Arizona and the article looks like a PR or maybe a fan wrote it. If substantial sources are found, I'll change my vote.--Sethacus 15:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per local scope of notability and WP:NOT#NEWS. Corpx 17:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Marginal notability. Like to see more sources. I just removed a blp violation. - Dean Wormer 02:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somanglish[edit]

Non notable neologism, a portmanteau of Somali and English. No coverage in third party sources. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 14:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - according to my 7 Ghits, it seems to be even a protologism, unlike Spanglish.--Tikiwont 15:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to have any notability. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only non-notable, but non-interesting article. Some examples of "Somanglish", if such a hybrid has wide usage, would be welcome. For guidance, see Franglais or Spanglish. Question: Is there a German-English mixed language? Seems like ein natural. Mandsford 22:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean Denglisch? Mel sa ran 12:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a real phenomenon with sourced information, this would be a notable topic. However, "Somanglish" appears to be a neologism that is not yet in use. The only non-Wikipedia Ghit I got is http://www.islamicboard.com/misc-language/25182-somali-riddles-here-10.html -- a forum thread from 2006 that appears to be in a mixture of the English and Somali languages, but uses the word "Somanglish" only once. On http://yonko.livejournal.com/ I found a mention of "Somali-English pidgins," but no hint that these pidgins have been given a name. Merge a sentence or two from this article into Somali language and delete the rest.--orlady 22:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced made-up neologism. 9 ghits, 0 sources, article doesn't even contain any relevant information. Mel sa ran 12:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Posse[edit]

Nonnotable person; obvious conflict of interest. I am also implicitly nominating the image contained in the article. Contested speedy A7. Shalom ^Hello 02:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, Very notable in his field. Callelinea 05:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I speedily deleted the article for Posse's company (Del Angel Music, eligible for a speedy under mult. criteria), his AMG profile backs up some of his claims to notability. Caknuck 07:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a poorly written autobiographical piece which contains no references to validate its claims. The name of the creating editor tells you all you need to know. --Greatest hits 05:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The user has now been blocked for violations of username policy. DES ^(talk) 14:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DES ^(talk) 13:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we are going to have an article on this person, this self aggrandizing piece is not the way to start. It would be better to start from scratch. Until (1 == 2) 13:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this person who "is an important and influential figures (sic) in the Latin Music Industry today" doesnt even have a page on the Spanish wikipedia, and as per above.--Nobunaga24 13:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have done a copyedit for style and to remove many of the peacock terms. I have not made any substantive changes to content (except that I added a link to the allmusic profile, from this discussion) and nothing i did really affects notability, one way or the other. DES ^(talk) 14:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This google search returns over 1300 hits. Some of them appear to be from award ceremony pages, and some may well be useful sources, if anyone wants to look through them. DES ^(talk) 14:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I must say, this doesn't look like it could ever have been a proper A7 speedy -- whatever else this article does, it claims notability in spades, and the claims are not obviously and blatently bogus or trivial. DES ^(talk) 14:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I tagged it, perhaps improperly, a7. I picked it up on the User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult page. The man may verge on notability, because the fact that it was an autobiography, even cleaned up, pushes me from neutral to delete. I do believe, as Del Angel Music was, that this page was intended for promotion. The Evil Spartan 15:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You may well be right on the intent, in fact I am pretty sure that you are. But if the subject is in fact notable, we should convert this to a properly NPOV article IMO, rather than deleting. (I don't know the music scene well enough to judge.) In case you missed it above, the original author has been blocked for a promotional username. DES ^(talk) 16:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I was already neutral on it. The man has serious WP:HOLE issues. So the COI part pushes me just ever so much toward the left, putting me from neutral to weak delete. If the article stayed as it was, it would be outright delete. I think the intent of a user is an important, albeit small, part of whether an article should exist. The Evil Spartan 16:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I hadn't encounterd WP:HOLE before, and I'm not sure I think much of it now. people notable within a specialized field will often fail WP:HOLE, but should have articels. if the claims in this article are accurate, and particuarlly if they were sourced, he seems to have been significantly involfved witha lot of very popular music and notable performers. That at least may make him a significant person in his field. That's my whole point. DES ^(talk) 16:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If he were notable, I don't think that the fact that the article is poorly written or even autobiographical is a good reason to delete it. It is much easier for me to take a machete to an overgrown but well-sourced article than it is to write it from scratch. However, this article is not well-sourced and nothing in the article screams "notability" to me. If he is notable, he (or whoever planted this article) has not made it apparent amidst all the verbiage. -- DS1953 ^talk 06:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - although some questions about notability remain, most of the notability involves "working with" a litany of luminaries. Working with can mean everything from managing their careers, producing their records, or giving them pointers over lunch on what gestures are considered offensive in Argentina at the outset of their tour. Which is it? The burden is on the article's writer most especially in cases of self-promotion where one can assume that if a horn can be blown it would have been and assume "working with" is a helluva lot less than anything deserving of note. Carlossuarez46 22:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was invalid nomination because no deletion rationale has been offered and all the comments are keep. If someone desires a proper AfD may be filed later. Newyorkbrad 19:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Martin[edit]

Please dont delete this entry. Lots of people have put work into the page. Christian is a high ranking executive at the largest internet company for women (iVillage.com)and is a highly decorated television producer for both NBC News and NBC Olympics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmastrangelom (talk • contribs) 2007/08/09 14:21:23

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD tag was added by User:192.195.66.58 without any comment, so there is no deletion rationale. --Tikiwont 14:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close this nomination appears to have been made in error. The only record I can find of nominating for deletion is by the nominator, who asks that it be kept. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs)

User:192.195.66.58 is the ~~nominator~~ tagger, but could not create this discussion page. User:Cmastrangelom is the article creator and created (indavertently) this discussion page by defending 'his' article, which was then transxluded by the bot. --Tikiwont 14:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. I've looked over the article, no thoughts on delete/keep at this time. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 15:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well on second thought, just adding a tag without a reason doesn't really amount to a nomination. Since no editor has endorsed the tag, it might still be a case for a speedy closure for procedural reasons. --Tikiwont 15:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep mainly due to notability being established by the awards won etc... although "weak" because this is at present unsourced and therefore unverifiable. EyeSerene^TALK 15:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Barely squeaks by WP:BIO with the awards.--Sethacus 16:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Keep, per USA Today. Christian Martin was one of the first, if not the first, on the scene of 9/11 and got exclusive footage of the first tower collapsing. That, plus the awards, are sufficient, IMO.--Sethacus 16:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted, no real content. No prejudice towards a real article being created, explaining the channel's notability, and providing references. Neil ム 10:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teleasty[edit]

this is a duplicate article, correct one already exists here TeleAsty — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeMan5 (talk • contribs) 2007/08/09 17:03:47

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing one of these is speedily deleted as duplicates and redirected. I am also proposing the remaining article be considered for AfD as non-notable and unsourced. -- KTC 13:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The first one - Because it is a duplicate and appropriately tagged. I would say keep for the other one because it is a TV station, but not completely certain of its notability Corpx 17:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the first one to be deleted due to duplication, the second one (which is curently tagged as well) should STAY! It is a television station in Greece and is relevant. Not sure what non-notable and unsourced refers to, need further explanation?! Please Explain!HeMan5 17:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone need to provide a reliable secondary source talking about the TV station. There's absolutely no reference or links to or about this supposed TV station in the stub article currently. After that, the AfD can be withdrew and closed. -- KTC 03:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One "keep" is from an employee, the other is not convincing. Neil ム 10:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultracker Technology[edit]

Just a free online ads of a small company products. No evidence of notability. Alimevaloz 16:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Alimevaloz seems to be a sockpuppetry of a user voting more than once in a poll about the Chinese vision of Ultracker.--Samli1018 06:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close afd: nice article, a bit more than a stub, why delete... --Yuriy Lapitskiy 08:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since I only find 2,560 Google hits for Ultracker, and since it's the type of thing that should be well-covered on the web, I doubt that the company is intrinsically notable. (i.e. so notable we should keep it regardless of a bad article). The page reads like an advertisement. It is very hard to follow what this company does, and the article is not well written. Apparently this company makes DVRs that record the images from security cameras, but I can't tell if they do that well or badly, and I can't tell if any true third party is impressed by either their technology or their company. The article was created by an editor, User:Samli1018 who claims to own the copyright of one of the Ultracker images, so it presumably is a COI. This editor's user page (not his User talk) shows that he has been warned about spamming links to Ultracker. EdJohnston 05:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 23:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Witches and Wizards from Harry Potter[edit]

Not notable, unsourced, probably already included on other Harry Potter related pages. Guest9999 13:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. nn, unsourced, POV and I'm 99% sure it's a hoax. -- KTC 13:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete If anything, these are just non-notable characters in the video game, which also means the article should be deleted. Sdornan 13:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for notability issues described above. Unable to find verifiable third party sources. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 14:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, unsourced, POV article. Anyway, the "famous" characters mentioned are just characters appearing in the video game. Possibly the images in the article should be deleted as well? Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 17:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this isn't Potterpedia. Lugnuts 17:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be found, in which case merge relevant info (about one sentence, I'd think) to Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (video game). That is, if these characters are a noteworthy element of the game, they should be mentioned in its article. No need for an article of their own, though. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per all of the above.--JForget 02:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely non-notable characters. Content as written is not in a manner conducive to a merge. --- RockMFR 03:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too short and specific list, lacks sources. Note that all the pictures are from some computer game. JIP | Talk 07:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV and inaccurate title, unsourced, OR-ish, characters are not notable at all (they're probably not mentioned more than once in the books). Mel sa ran 19:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails the new WP:FICT, and merging/transwiki do not seem to be options. — Deckill er 00:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SilkTork 14:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge into the season's main article. Xoloz 14:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Champ Car World Series Pre-Season Testing[edit]

Non-notable. Wikipedia is not a directory. Davnel03 12:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. KTC 13:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge would be fine as per all comments below. -- KTC 03:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2007 Champ Car World Series season, as it is part of the season. KTC, PLEASE stop using the very insulting term cruft. What you consider to be a complete waste of time / garbage is interesting to other people. I'm sure that some things that you consider to be interesting are a waste of time to me. Royalbroil 13:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never ever in the last 3 years on Wikipedia suggest there isn't things that I "consider to be interesting are a waste of time to" other people. If I offended you, or anyone else, I offer my apology. I do not however change my view that this is a trivial list of indiscriminate information that do not deserve its own article. -- KTC 14:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion, and I appreciate how you reworded your comment in the last sentence. Thanks! Royalbroil 15:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE into the 2007 season page. 2007 IndyCar Series season#IndyCar Series testing has a section on testing. 2007 NASCAR Nextel Cup Series#Et cetera has one too. Doctorindy 15:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. While notable information, it's not enough to warrant it's own article and belongs in the 2007 Season page. AlexJ 17:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Make sure the information is all accurate and of course sourced, and have the top of the 2007 CCWS page absorb it, as it would pertain to the preliminaries of that season. --Chr.K. 21:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above, testing sessions don't need separate articles--JForget 02:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - It is useful information, but does not have enough notability so it should be merged with the main article: 2007_Champ_Car_World_Series_Season. AVTN 14:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 may be room for an article written on this subject. This article, however, is a graphic display (only partially-sourced) intended, apparently, to simplify the presentation of information. As such, it is arguably speedy-deleteable under CSD A3 (articles with only tables, and no supporting text. That articles must be written is an assumption implicit to the fundamental nature of an encyclopedia. It is also worth observing the inherent POV nature of the present page (Torture and Warrantless Wire-tapping are the only Civil Liberties issues these days?!?!), but this decision is taken on the basis that this content does not constitute an "article", but a pure pictorial display, which Wikipedia plainly is not. Policy demands the removal of this content, and strength of argument for deletion succeeds for this reason. Of course, the composition of a written article on this topic is a separate question, in which many commenters below see some merit. Xoloz 14:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of 2008 United States presidential candidates[edit]

This article does not seem to be appropriate per Wikipedia standards. It is unreferenced and serves only as a voting guide which Wikipedia is not. Metros 12:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have no business making these sort of summaries of positions on complex issues, based on a website with no apparent authority. 15:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Note to closer, this was posted by DGG -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My initial reaction is to side with no-name here, but I haven't made up my mind. Ichormosquito 09:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but reference and source better this seems very educational. Wikipedia is a reference. Candidates should have their opinions and stances known. By putting it in one place, it makes it convenient for readers to read up on. All the information is out there, it just is being consolidated to one page here. I like it. Arnabdas 15:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not arguing that it's not informative or educational, but, instead that it's not Wikipedia appropriate. I don't see how this is nothing more than a voting guide for voters. Metros 17:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the website this is taken from is itself unsourced. EyeSerene^TALK 16:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think the page is a good idea. Very informative as well as convenient. More references would help as well as more issues.--Southern Texas 16:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Same reason as Southern Texas Samaster1991 17:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep Same as above Rysz 16:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be a copy of the list linked to, except it is trimmed down a bit. Just add the external link to the appropriate pages instead of copying this list over here Corpx 17:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Usefulness is not a valid reason to keep. The website where the information is taken from (not that the article acknowledges that fact; it just gives it as a link) is not a reliable source. Either way, it seems borderline copyvio. If it weren't a copyvio, it would probably be original research. Propaniac 17:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of the reasons i created this pages was because the external page is innacurate on some issues (e.g. doesn't mention states decision for some candidates). I figure if each box has a source, than the average user will know the stance on that particular candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corevette (talk • contribs)
- Comment but each candidate has a "Political views of..." page. Why do we need this summary page if users can look for themselves at the other page? "because it's convenient" is not really that valid because it's not our goal to create a convenient summary page per WP:NOT. Metros 18:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, this is a summary. On most of the candidates sites, they give an explanation maybe why the believe on the issue, while this gives a straight forward yes/no so the end user knows. corevette
    - But you DECIDING whether to write a yes or no in that box is textbook original research. Propaniac 18:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't decide yes or no, the candidates do on their websites or other 3rd party websites. i take information straight from the site and currently sourcing everything if anyone would like to help.corevette
Delete. per Corpx. James Luftan ^contribs 18:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename: Rename to "Comparison of 2008 United States presidential candidates." Comparison pages on Wikipedia are very encyclopedic and fulfill the goal of encyclopedias. The condensation of information, especially in this case, seems to be what we're going for. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 18:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The website this is based on is of questionable reliability. Any other attempts on our part to crystallize and categorize the various' candidates stances on various issues will by necessity be forced to either cater to a single source or be composed of what is ultimately original research on our part. It is certainly proper for us to have referenced information regarding the candidates' viewpoints on their respective pages but any attempt to create a summary table like this is wholly inapropriate. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would agree with Arnabdas, that as long as the page is sourced better, this article fits under Wikipedia's standards. -- Wikipedical 19:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs more sources to show that it isn't original research, but it should be too difficult to find out if a candidate is for or against a particular issue. Useight 22:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is exactly what Wikipedia is about... the unbiased presentation of information in a verifiable and updatable form. Unlike a newspaper editorial, this doesn't seek to influence opinion. If people wish to rely upon this to make a voting decision, I think that they could do a lot worse than seeing a table on how candidates stand on particular issues. Mandsford 22:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have to say that a well-sourced comparison of candidates positions in any election is encyclopedic content; interesting, educational, and of historical merit. Everything an encyclopedia should be. Emphasis, however, on well-source. --Haemo 00:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Haemo.--JForget 02:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Same reasoning as I wrote on the talk page: Someone want to explain why religion is in the first chart? Or why certain "issues" like gay marriage have been deemed important enough for inclusion while others like, say, campaign-finance reform aren't? The page is far too inaccurate as to what matters in the US Presidential race, and is far too simple and brief in execution. Fifty7 10:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Fifty7 14:53, 11 August 2007
- "The page is far too inaccurate as to what matters in the US Presidential race," That is simply an opinion. " and is far too simple and brief in execution." which is why i put it on wikipedia for people to expand. corevette

(UTC)

Keep Not OR, not POV, appears reasonably-referenced. Perhaps there is still room for improvement, but I see no reason to delete.Matchups 02:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Summary informative and information very important. Expand number of issues and sources. Put candidate names on top (columns), and issues on side (rows) in order to allow further expansion. JLMadrigal 13:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards keep because of stuff like Comparison of web browsers. Needs to be expanded if kept. Smokizzy (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Rudy Giuliani is for torture and Hillary Clinton is against legal wiretaps? In addition, the issues selected to be addressed in the article seem to be those that would put the democrats in a more favorable light and the republicans in a less favorable light. The wording of the issues themselves seems to do this as well. Because of its summary list style, this article will never advance beyond being POV, misleading, unverifiable assertions. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is referenced, can easily be verified, the material is relevant, no compelling reason to delete. Mel sa ran 19:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article needs more references and may need to clarify certain positions as some issues are not as simple as for/against, but I do believe this information is relevant and well-organized, making it a good source for readers researching the 2008 election. --musicpvm 23:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too simplistic, not encyclopedic. WP is not a voter's guide. Wasted Time R 17:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reason above alone Gang14 04:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - WP is NOT a voter's guide. --Orange Mike 17:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unmanageble list (what's the criteria for "candidate", "what to comparison", "how to compare"?); Original research (pasting several unrelated sources together IS OR) - Nabla 22:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I like the list, it is innacurate. It has a bias by not including certain candidates (John Cox) who are campaigning. Also, unless every statement is linked and cited, then we cannot be sure if it correct or not. Also, candidates change position, which might lead to many edits. Most candidates are not just yes and no on issues. It will become unmanageable. Casey14 23:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These charts tend toward original research and violation of a neutral point of view by oversimplifying the candidates' positions. --Metropolitan90 09:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a factual article that can be listed in the 2008 Presidential Campain Template. Plus, I just added both John Cox and Fred Thompson to the table.71.114.189.135 20:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just realised I was logged out..The edits should be under my above IP listing.CoolKid1993 20:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. As long as all claims can be verified with citations, I think this a great chart to have wikip'fied. Miserlou 22:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after most of the conerns were fixed. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish speedway 1950s[edit]

Absolutely no context, unreferenced, other problems evident. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article, which was only created today, seems to have been nominated for deletion at AfD literally two minutes after its creation [[15]]. This hardly seems fair to me. It is now referenced and has scope to grow. As it is, it gives speedway league results for the decade in Sweden. Speedway was a major sport in the period, more so than today, and such results seem entirely noteworthy to me. Nick mallory 13:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be created in a subspace and moved here then, not created as an incomplete version Corpx 17:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nowhere in policy or practice that mandates the extensive creation of an article prior to it being added to the article space. That may be your preference, but given that any registered editor can make a page, it's probably not going to enjoy wide-spread community support. I'd say it'd lead to more problems than not anyway. It'd certainly be discouraging to newbies. I certainly don't expect articles to spring full-fledged onto Wikipedia like Athena from the head of Zeus. FrozenPurpleCube 19:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep possibly Move I'm sorry, but you need to show some good sense here. This was a nomination of an article less than a single edit old. Heck, within three minutes of its creation. I don't know about you, but I think I would have recommended at least trying a clean-up template, if not talking to the editor involved. This isn't blatant vandalism, this isn't anything but a stub article. If you were worried about the content, you could have tried going to User talk:BoboBult and asking. But instead, you jumped to AFD. That doesn't show much forethought on your part. I suggest you withdraw this nomination and show some attempt at not biting other editors. As subjects go, it looks like it could be the results of a professional sport by a national team. I think that meets the inclusion criteria. FrozenPurpleCube 19:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see some context here now. I fairly nominated this, and CSD would not have been improperly unfair. The argument saying '2 minutes is not long enough' can be applied to any very CSD-able article, but I understand this concern. I hereby withdraw the nomination, but hope dearly for some clean up. Cheers -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter Online Domain[edit]

I'm nominating this page for deletion because I don't feel it's really appropriate for an Encyclopedia article, and I'm not sure if even a redirect is warranted. Since similar AFDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick.com and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StarTrek.com were a bit contentious, I do feel this does at least merit some discussion. Yes, Harry Potter is notable. But do these sites meet the criteria found at WP:WEB? The most I can see is possibly some domain name claims for trademarks, and that's not even in this article. FrozenPurpleCube 08:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

baleet. can be mentioned in Harry Potter. --Stephanie ^talk 09:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it into Harry Potter - does not need a seperate article. Pedro | Chat 09:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any content that should be merged? I'm not sure there is, and if not, I'm not sure that a redirect is needed, given that this is not an official name, or one used in practice. FrozenPurpleCube 10:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I don't think a merge or redirect is necessary as per FrozenPurpleCube. -- KTC 13:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there is some real sourcing available, which I doubt there will be. I note the UK web site is also up for deletion at [16]. DGG (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely no notability for these domains Corpx 17:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Er, it's not clear to me what content these will have that shouldn't just be slipped into the various other Harry Potter articles. I appreciate the author's efforts, but I don't know that these websites, in and of themselves, need an article. Efforts could probably be better directed elsewhere. Looks decent, though, they should stick around and help out. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just mention the 2 websites on the Harry Potter article. --Pixelface 09:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable original research. Marc Shepherd 02:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. *spoiler alert* this will soon be deleted as non-notable original research. Burntsauce 20:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nominator recommended keep. Initial nomination did not have reason given. Non-admin close. KTC 12:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing Day Dip[edit]

Incomplete Afd from previous editor, restarting: Since the Afd tag has been raised on the article, it seems best to finish the process properly. Despite obvious cleanup issues, I see a notability claim based on solid web hits including: media coverage (the BBC among others), longevity (32 years), and growing participation (855, plus 5000 spectators) and money raised (over £66000) from the event during 2006. Accordingly, I recommend Keep. Michael Devore 06:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No reason presented for deletion. Seems notable. JulesH 11:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cadet plex[edit]

Author contested prod for no reason. I still have the same issues - not notable. Seems to be a way of getting that Craigmile person's name on the web. Postcard Cathy 06:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, and wikipedia is not a dictionary. Sancho 07:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sancho. Even if it was notable, it still wouldnt belong here, but Wiktionary... --Stephanie ^talk 09:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sancho. -- KTC 13:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deltete/Send to Wikitionary Even if it is in a dictionary, it is not appropriste here.--PrestonH 19:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, four GHits, two of which are Wkipedia, the other two MySpace. Nuttah68 15:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was

So the walls came tumbling down

And your love's a blown out candle
All is gone and it seems too hard to handle
Chiquitita, tell me the truth
There is no way you can deny it

I see that you're oh so sad, so quiet

— Caknuck 02:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of parodies and references of ABBA in the media[edit]

Delete - there do not appear to be reliable sources that indicate that parodies and references to ABBA in the media is a notable topic. Otto4711 06:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a list of loosely associated topics that list every time this band (?) was mentioned on TV Corpx 17:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. More non-notable trivia. -- Kicking222 17:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You just have to face it this time, you're through. Put this on the list and then delete it per everybody. Clarityfiend 06:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tidy up. Mathmo ^Talk 04:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure trivia with no sources. Nuttah68 15:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, embarrassing listcruft junk. Wasted Time R 22:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 23:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STALLZ[edit]

Non-notable musician - no independent evidence of notability provided other than a MySpace page. Reads like self-promotional spam. Mattinbgn/^talk 06:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 06:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment PROD removed - no explanation given -- Mattinbgn/^talk 06:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --H irohisat ^Talk 06:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: near-certainly a self-made vanity page. "His own social oppression", good grief!--Yeti Hunter 08:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Terribly written advertisment that makes no attempt to assert notability - because there is none! Giggy ^Talk 09:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pour petrol over and light using a flaming Bunsen burner - yep. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not seem to satisfy Wikipedia: notability (music). Seems like it may have been speedied before. While it makes an assertion of notability in this version, it doesn't seem verifiable. --Moonriddengirl 11:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Moonriddengirl has already cited Wikipedia: notability (music), so I suppose I'll just have to cite Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band. Iain99 14:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination it is a vanity page and fails MUSIC guidelines. Burntsauce 18:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. I tried to be funny but the article shames me. -WarthogDemon 00:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly just an advertisement.--Grahamec 01:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a true MC? More like a true... uhh... dee-lete? Sorry. Lankiveil 11:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Dumott Schunard[edit]

No clue. User:BaronessofBud started the Afd - I'm just completing it for completeness' sake SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Love the musical, the character is reasonably notable IMHO. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It has nothing to do with loving he musical or not. The article is atrocious; any information on the character is easily found on the RENT page. If Angel's notable enough, why not make a page for the Squeegee man? Or any character in any work, for that matter?
Keep Angel is a gay and TG icon who embodies the spirit of self-empowerment of People With AIDS and finds true love with another gay man of color making Angel also a hero in the AIDS communities, MSM community and those supporting gay marriages. Benjiboi 13:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete RENT does that in the first place. There's no need for excess articles on the subject. Besides, most of the article is either presupposition and reiteration of facts already displayed on the RENT page. It isn't a question of politics, it's a question of organization.
Comment Disagree, although the musical does eventually do some (but not all) of those things this character is the driving force and tragic hero of the musical and movie. Duplicative material will be lessened as article is allowed to expand covering areas that would be giving undue weight in main article but appropriate in an expanded character article. Benjiboi 14:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you have ever even seen RENT, you would know that Angel is not the tragic hero in tis story; Roger is. Your comment is pretty nonsensical, no offense. Can I make up an entire history about Angel? We apparently do not need to cite sources as is evident from the article. Or maybe I should just describe, in detail, his appearance, or even quote every line he had. That would flesh out the article a bit. User:BaronessofBud
reply Have seen it and the entire story is set at Angel's funeral with the rest of the story as flashbacks, Angel is the inspiration for the film and drove other characters to make better choices and listen to their better angels. True that Angel might not be considered the tragic hero as all of the characters have tragic hero components. Maybe anti-hero is more semantically soothing. In any case, Angel is the freak outsider of the bunch who leads the rest to make better choices, finds true love then dies in his arms. Benjiboi 16:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is all original research. We do not need articles about every single character, setting, prop, or song from every show ever produced, when those articles are simply going to restate the parts of the show that are related to the article's subject. And for the record, I've seen RENT four times. Propaniac 14:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment disagree there as well. This plays development and work-shopping through to it's Broadway debut and numerous incarnations have been well documented. WP:OR hardly needed. Benjiboi 16:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fill up the article with sourced information proving that Angel Dumott Schunard is a notable character outside the confines of the show's narrative, and I will be happy to change my vote. Propaniac 16:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm afraid I'm not terribly inspired by your directive but thank you for the vote of contingency. Benjiboi 17:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rent (musical), unless more sources can be provided discussing the character. The addition of any such sources — for example, an interview with Wilson Jermaine Heredia discussing his Tony Award-winning role, or any reliable source discussing the character as a positively portrayed transgender character/positively portrayed character with AIDS — would be sufficient to change my !vote to "keep". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Changing my !vote to Keep, per the sources Crystallina found. Good work! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've found both. Crystallina 13:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Propaniac -- Kleinzach 10:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR. --H irohisat ^Talk 05:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to RENT. The cheap and easy solution to stuff like this, I don't always understand the rush to AFD some things. Someguy1221 05:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold your horses - This article is unsourced, but it doesn't have to be. I'm working on finding sources. Here's an interview with Wilson Cruz, one of the replacement Angels, from Oasis Magazine, a LGBT-themed publication. It goes in depth about Angel's character and status as a gay icon. There are more out there; I'm working on finding them. Crystallina 05:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: OK, here's what I've got so far. Basically trashed the whole article and started from scratch. I know there's more out there; it's just 3 AM and I'm getting too tired to do this. Crystallina 07:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to a Rent characters article - does not appear to be independently notable. Claims of iconhood require sources and none appear to be forthcoming. Otto4711 06:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rent (musical). On its own, this is not notable enough a subject for a stand-alone article. Combined with the other characters, there's not much to be said that isn't already in the article for the musical. — Music Maker 5376 15:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - Looking through the refs, few of them even mention this character, let alone give "significant coverage" Corpx 17:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - I'm not sure where you're getting this; the only reference that doesn't mention Angel specifically is the tracklisting for Forbidden Broadway, and I'm looking for a better source on that. Crystallina 17:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mmmmm, I searched for "Schunard" in those articles and came up with no hits. Let me try with the first name Corpx 17:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I went through the links again and it looks like only the New York Blade article gives "significant coverage", and even that can be argued. "Oasis" does give significant coverage, but it looks like it is a blog, so it does not qualify as a significant source Corpx 17:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you're using an unnecessarily restrictive definition of "significant coverage". I fail to see how the Broadway.com page, which gives extensive details about the role and the actors who have played it, is insignificant; and while the newspaper articles mention the character only in passing, at least one of them (the Taipei Times article) gives important real-world context (the author's source for the character). Crystallina is to be commended for finding reliable sources for the article. If only all fictional character articles were so well-sourced. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do not think broadway.com is an independent source for this subject. As for taipei.com, a two line coverage is not enough to qualify as "significant coverage" per my standards Corpx 00:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, then it's your definition of "independent source" that is unnecessarily restrictive. Broadway.com covers all Broadway and West End plays. Yes, they sell tickets for them and advertise for them, but if that makes them not an "independent source" then Rolling Stone magazine isn't an independent source for music coverage. (They sell concert tickets, and have advertising for albums and concerts.) Honestly, it looks as if you're just trying to find excuses to delete the page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The main purpose of the site is to sell tickets, hotel packages and other materials, so I do not think they're "independent". Any coverage they give to a topic should be taken with the consideration that their main purpose is promotional Corpx 05:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I still think that's far too restrictive an interpretation of "independent", but you're entitled to your opinion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per above. I would keep this article and toss away some of the other character articles for Rent. This one has real significance. Yes, for the record, I am a Renthead as noted on my user page. Bearian 22:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to Rent (musical). A fictional character who has appeared in one musical and one movie based on the musical does not require his own article. warpedmirror (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel Dumott Schunard

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton^One 15:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Dwight Smith[edit]

Delete - there do not appear to be reliable sources attesting to the notability of this author. Otto4711 03:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Harlowraman 04:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator orginally PROD'd this article. I disagreed and wrote the following under talk:

I removed the Prod tag on the basis that he has been cited reasonably recently as an expert in cryptanalysis even though his books were published nearly 50 years ago. See: Channel4.com for example. Some of these authors who published pre-internet seem to have to meet higher hurdles than existing authors who can put their material all over the web without little problem. Gillyweed 02:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There need to be sources attesting to his notability. The link doesn;t attest to his notability; it just mentions one of his books. Otto4711 05:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the tests for notability is whether or not books are cited. This book on cryptanalysis is still being cited 50 years after it was written by various academics AND Channel 4. This indicates both currency and relevance. Admittedly there are few Google hits for Lawrence Dwight Smith but this is more an indicator that his book has been out of print for 40+ years and all his work was done before the internet. I think we really need to be careful about stating that these pre-internet people are not notable because we can't find many mentions of them on Google. His fiction seems to have been very popular at the time (it is mentioned by crime fans for example), but given they would have been written on crap WWII paper, you won't find many in book shops these days. I'm happy to keep finding references to him but I'd appreciate a little more time. Gillyweed 06:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After some more research, others have spelt his name as Laurence without the 'w'. A Google Search on this will throw up 700+ hits for him. Not bad for someone who wrote 60 years ago. I'm going to move the article to Laurence Dwight Smith - does this change the AfD? Gillyweed 06:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator has given no reason for deletion, other than "No sources". If he thinks that's a problem, he can find sources and cite them, maybe even improve the article. --Stephanie ^talk 09:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given for deletion is that I don't believe he is notable. Otto4711 22:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the books will have been reviewed, so it should be sourceable. DGG (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, his books were reviewed in the NYT contemporaneously. Move article to correct spelling Laurence Dwight Smith, under which spelling Google results improve. --Dhartung | Talk 23:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - many current reading lists on cryptography list his 1943 and 1955 works on that subject, so they appear to be classics (that's not my area, however). -- DS1953 ^talk 05:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was purge. DS 04:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agn-Dalian bridge[edit]

Delete - 99.99999999% certain this is a hoax. The U.S. never had troops stationed anywhere near Hanoi during the Vietnam War, "Agn-Dailan" is not a Vietnamese nor French word, the French did not have Foreign Legion troops in Hanoi in 1970, the French squadron leaders name is Doremee (a doe, a deer, a female deer...get it?), the Marines don't take hostages, the French hostages were whipped in the town square of Hanoi (righttttt), and the only references to it are this and wikimirrors.--Nobunaga24 03:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Very unlikely set of events, no references, no answers to my skeptical questions previously left on its talk page. Hmains 04:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Appears to be a hoax. no references, and very few hits for an Agn-Dalian Bridge while searching for sources... --_Hdt83 _Chat 04:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mine for demolition, fairly obvious hoax. The US and RVN military never really deployed beyond the DMZ. The Battle of Khe Sanh was pretty much the closest major ground action -- several hundred miles from Hanoi. --Dhartung | Talk 05:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Explode it - complete hoax. --H irohisat ^Talk 05:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL -- Great hoax. Infact, I thought about speedying it, but I just wouldn't want to be the person to delete it..... it's kinda sad that it has to go, you know.. --Stephanie ^talk 09:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BJAODN - hoax, nothing to verify this existed but mildly amusing. Pedro | Chat 09:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hmains & Hdt83. No WP:RS & completely unverifiable. --Evb-wiki 16:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Demolish the article, flog its author. --Targeman 18:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax per above. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Falls flat on its face completely as nom says. What would the French be doing in Hanoi in 1970? French involvement, IIRC, for all intents and purposes ended in Vietnam in the mid-50s. It seems to be more a way to weave in something about some stupid wrestling team, more than anything. Pat Payne
Delete There are quite a few authors who have to be enjoying this debate (if you can call a unanimous vote a debate). Sad news for the hoaxsters... a Google search indicates that almost nobody picked this up, though I congratulate them for creating something that stayed up for eight months before being noticed. A six-pack of Baldock Beer is in order. Mandsford 23:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 need to salt at this time. — Caknuck 01:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic Lobster[edit]

Does not appear to have significant coverage by reliable (re: non-MySpace) secondary sources. Prod removed by Sleepv1, one of two accounts that have contributed almost exclusively to this article. 17Drew 03:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Prod removed after time was over and protect against Recreation. Harlowraman 03:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable band. Nyttend 03:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick google search shows up only a few links to this group. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this article from reliable third-party sources. It also fails WP:BAND as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 certainly might be reason to revisit this decision, if additional sources are found. The consensus below is that the person fails WP:PROF, and is thus not notable. Xoloz 15:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaojun Wang[edit]

The article establishes a bit of notability, but I don't believe it establishes enough. If this person is a professor there, then many have written books, it's not notable in and of itself. Wizardman 03:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete appears to fail WP:PROF, if no one else verify notability. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 14:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 15:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This was a modest and totally inadequate article, though the link was right there from which the nom. could have added the basics. I just did. He's a senior lecturer at Dublin City Univ., which I think corresponds to Assistant or Associate Professor at a US university. Published only 2 textbooks, 4 peer-reviewed papers (one in a top journal). 34 Conference papers--which are often very important in this subject--but I do not see any real indication of importance. Below the bar, though I hope someone knowing the subject could confirm my guess about the conference papers. DGG (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Senior lecturer would certainly be at least Associate Professor level, as I understand the US system, but it's not usually a tenured position. Espresso Addict 19:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two peer-reviewed articles (the others appear to be prints of conference papers), plus two books with what look to be minor publishers. Although the Muresan et al. paper has 42 citations on Google Scolar, as Wang is neither the first nor last of the four authors this is hard to interpret. On balance, the subject seems to have an insufficient publication record to meet WP:PROF at this time. Espresso Addict 19:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete no firm assertion of notability. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Yes, I am aware he has motioned for a weak delete, but in this rare case I would prefer to err on the side of caution. I feel that this person actually does meet WP:PROF guidelines given the works cited. Burntsauce 17:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 went and merged everything into kickflip, which I probably just should've done in the first place. Wizardman 20:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

180 kickflip[edit]

I can't see how this would be notable outside of skateboarding circles. Certainly this information could be merged into Kickflip, but no reason to stand on its own. Wizardman 02:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability for this trick Corpx 05:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE to Kickflip. Not much of an article here, probably never will be. Kickflip isn't very long either.. Oh, and you don't need an AFD to merge. --Stephanie ^talk 09:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, and perhaps a speedy merge. A kickflip is notable; simply doing a 180 while performing the trick does not need a separate article. There are a few small bits that could be merged to kickflip, and I'm all for that. -- Kicking222 17:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to kickflip.--PrestonH 19:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to kickflip per above. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep — Caknuck 01:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wapedia[edit]

Non-notable Wikipedia-related website. Obviously does not meet WP:WEB notability criteria; might not have even been created were it not for its connection to Wikipedia. Creator has expressed the concern that it might belong at Wikipedia:Tools. I do not think this article itself would be of much use there, but if someone would like to create a tools page for this and thinks that the current article could be of assistance in any way, it could be userfied. Savidan 02:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per google news hits. The first link + non English sources might be enough Corpx 05:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first source you appear to be referring to seems to be a minor reference, with very few facts about Wapedia. This article, by itself, might not even be enough to establish Wikipedia as a notable website. I think that WP:WEB requires that the article be about Wapedia, rather than mentioning it almost as an aside. Could you be more specific about this foreign language sources claim? Savidan 05:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what they say, but I was willing to give it the benefit of the doubt in this case. Hopefully somebody else can translate some of the other listings there Corpx 05:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to accept foreign-language sources if they can be cited to support a WP:WEB criteria. I'm not willing to keep the article on the basis that we just don't know what they are saying. Savidan 05:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure somebody will be able to decode it within the next 7 days Corpx 05:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quickly browsed through the german Google hits in the link you posted, but I didn't find in-depth coverage. The most detailed and independent article seems to be this one from a major newspaper in Switzerland, but it discusses general access options to Wikipedia from PDAs / mobile phones, and briefly mentions Wapedia as one option. The other hits are similar. --B. Wolterding 09:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [17] is an article primarily about this subject, as (apparently) is [[18] (my German isn't as good as my French, so I can't say I entirely understand this article, but it certainly seems to be). Also reviewed briefly in [19] and [20]. I'm pretty sure between the four of them, that's enough coverage to meet WP:WEB. JulesH 11:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but the second source is nearly a textbook example of trivial coverage. It's an entry from the Q&A section of a computer magazine. It doesn't give in-depth coverage about this company; the first paragraph in fact doesn't mention it, it summarizes a page on German Wikipedia (which covers many mobile access options to Wikipedia). The other part tells us briefly (10 lines) about the website, without even mentioning its name, and gives two links. That's not a "non-trivial published work" about the website, in my interpretation. The French source does not seem to contain much more (although my French is not too good). — Preceding unsigned comment added by B. Wolterding (talk • contribs)
  - WP:WEB doesn't appear to have been updated to bring it into line with WP:N, but going by the definition of notability at WP:N allows us to see that a larger number of less significant mentions is adequate. I'd say that because there are multiple short reviews of this site it is suitable for inclusion. JulesH 12:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that we are obliged to think about the ultimate quality of the article. Are we going to have an article with a dozen foreign language references after the first sentence (the one that says its a way to get Wikipedia on your pda), followed by either nothing or original research? Savidan 15:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Once notability is established, we can use the site itself as a source. No OR necessary. JulesH 16:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More sources. [21] [22] JulesH 16:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (or merge) We accept references in any language (but I imagine there will also soon by English reviews) . The French ref seems a brief editorial notice, the German one a somewhat longer brief review, the title Gibt es Wikipedia auch für den Handheld? (approximately, "Is Wikipedia also available for hand-holds?" may be a title, not a reader question, & I think qualifies as a brief review. The third is pocket pc mag, which I am not familiar with, but it is a long detailed review. Only the 4th, in PC World, is indeed a trivial mention. But there is already a WP space page WP:WAP access that provides the same information. DGG (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The German language sources are clearly establishing notability User:Krator (t c) 23:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - this evaluation explicitly devalues the discussion before TerrierFan's expansion - before that, there was a probably "delete as non-notable" dominant thought position, now notability appears to be established. Cheers, Wily D 14:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linwood Elementary School (Kansas)[edit]

Stub elementary school article with no assertion of notability. Nyttend 01:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - It may be a stub, however educational institutions aren't exactly expendable. WP isn't paper. --Mnemnoch 02:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no assertion or verification of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of schools, and notability is not assumed for anything. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Come on, it's a school. It's not promoting any business or spreading any lies. It's probably very important and notable inside it's community, and educational institutions are generally landmarks and meeting grounds. I know this is going against about four or five arguments to avoid by now, but there's tons and tons of other schools with articles, that are probably even less notable. --Lu c id 02:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Schools are not, contrary to what some think, automatically notable per any policy. This article needs verification of notability in reliable, independent sources just like any other. Just because it is, in your opinion, not doing any harm, does not mean that we just assume notability and forget the very pillars of Wikipedia. The vast majority of school articles that have been vetted through AFD were kept because they passed WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean this should be kept. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Surely a place of learning is notable enough. If it qualifies as a stub, there is room for improvement but this is no reason to delete. Keep & impprove! --Bennyboyz3000 03:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The problem is, Bennyboyz, that in my opinion it doesn't qualify as a stub. There's widespread precedent for deletion of average elementary school articles. Nyttend 03:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is analogous to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flanders Elementary School. And there have been several other deletions and redirects like these. The idea that notability for schools is automatic or assumed is not a reasonable one. VanTucky ^(talk) 03:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Non-notable elementary school. Just because it exists does not mean it should have a page on Wikipedia. --_Hdt83 _Chat 04:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is an elementary school and they're not inherently notable and this has not received significant coverage either Corpx 05:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Eusebeus 08:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Directory information only, and only 2 sentences of it. Directory information alone is not notable. DGG (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have now added sourced, encyclopaedic information. TerriersFan 17:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment overcrowding and drug problems are, sadly, not notable for U.S. schools (even elementary). It's so widespread as to almost be a given. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we keep on meeting WP:N that requires multiple sources that this article now has. TerriersFan 17:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But neither citation is significantly covering the school; rather they are about the children (for the drug incident) and the district as a whole (for the other). These are both trivial mentions, and two such cites from a local paper are not enough to lend notability. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - both references make significant reference to the school. Buildings+faculty+children=school so references to children are fine. Further, anyone coming here looking for information on the school is likely to be interested and not consider the matters trivial; we are writing an encyclopaedia for people to read after all. TerriersFan 18:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That last argument has been soundly debunked over and over again, read WP:ATA for pete's sake. Significant coverage is not a synthesis process, it's black and white. Do sources focus solely and specifically on the school as a whole, not about notable people or events that happen to be related to the school? In this case, they do not. Those sources do not meet WP:N. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that assertion because Notability is cumulative. It is common to merge content about the building, faculty, student body and alumni of a school into a single article. Notability applies to the merged content as a whole. This is why merging topics is suggested in WP:N. Dhaluza 10:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 18:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expand into an article covering Wichita Public Schools (alternately Wichita USD 259 unsure of Kansas naming conventions), not enough notability by self, but would make good subsection of larger more inclusive article. Chris 21:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan, passes WP:N with multiple reliable sources about the subject. A merge would be fine as well. Burntsauce 21:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability whatsoever.--Hús ö nd 01:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an article about two children who took drugs is not notable about a shcool; that is commentary about social problems in the USA. This article is not notable; it is one of thousands of elementary schools in the US. This argument that a school is so important is specious; is not a single human life important? Using the logic of having an article about every school because education is important would also dictate that we need an article about every human that has ever lived because life is important. We could give their name, the fact that they are human, and an address...every now and again we throw in a comment that some of them took drugs. Viola, we now have an encyclopedia with billions of senseless, little articles that say nothing more than a school/human exists. Let's all read WP:PILLARS and WP:WIN again. This is not the place for a community to gain brownie buttons because they have an article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - The merged topics do meet WP:N as a whole because they cite multiple RS, so there is no need to delete. Stub should be expanded, but WP will hopefully be around for a long time, so we can be patient. Dhaluza 10:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expand into what? What is the objective we are trying to achieve. How does it meet WP:N? It was rated by Great Schools; it got a 2 out of 10. This is a rating group, it is supposed to name all schools, there is no notability by being named, and you can not get too much worse. A newspaper article about the school district that simply mentions the school's name is not a source for notability. These sources may verify the school's existence, but does not provide notability. An article about children taking crack is a social commentary and has nothing to do with the school; thus no notability. Just saying it meets WP:N is not could enough; please explain exactly how it meets this standard? It fails every standard set up for notability policy. When we overlook our own policies because we "like" or we are passionate about a subject, we have failed as editors.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep please and continue expansions this is an important school to the community yuckfoo 17:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into article new article covering Wichita Public Schools. Does contain sources and attempts to establish notability, but this school is probably not notable enough on its own; an article with a wider scope would help solve that. Camaron1 | Chris 12:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 21:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wichita Public Schools or Delete. So a teacher did not have a classroom. Do we list every school that has this problem? Bottom line there is no notably for the school. Vegaswikian 01:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not uniqueness. There are dozens of bands with no creativity at all that are notable enough for articles, and plenty that have a great sound that get db-band every day. Notability is being covered by reliable sources, which this has --Lu c id 08:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bennyboyz3000 and Burntsauce. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 08:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep view - digging around a bit shows that this school was only opened in 2004 but replaced a previous school of the same name. Taking both schools together, as is normal, there are tons of references and controversies that can be included. Already the article meets Wikipedia policy so deleting it seems illogical. Bridgeplayer 22:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the modifications made by Terriers Fan, or merge said changes into an existing article about the surrounding community or school district. Yamaguchi先生 04:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.. CitiCat^♫ 02:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of geography[edit]

Would have been an expired prod, but I thought it needed a little more attention. Article has been in a rudimentary state for months despite tags seeking improvement. NawlinWiki 01:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Had this article been modified and more interesting purpose applied to it, I could see where it might not be an AfD. The information can be merged elsewhere and most things on this page are redirects anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnemnoch (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. -- Bduke 04:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, there is an outline here and this could easily be a COTW candidate. I think it's an important role of an encyclopedia to organize information in this way, at this level. Needs sources. --Dhartung | Talk 05:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep My first reaction was to delete, but on checking I found that there are a few academics working in this area (so few that I think it's wishful thinking to put a request for expert attention on the page). But the clincher is that, that the article is poor at present is not a reason for deletion. Give it the benefit of the doubt. Banno 07:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article contains very little in terms of content, although being short in content is not a reason for deletion, a short article with mainly links to others is and that is what this article really is. The article has no additional content then already available in the history of geography article. Theoretically, the article could be a COTW in reality it is an obscure area and considering when the main geography article was up for Core COTF and barely any improvements occurred, I wouldn't have much hope for a COTW.AlexD 11:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, being "a short article with mainly links to others" is not reason for deletion. Nor is being obscure. Keep the stub. Banno 01:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per AlexD & Mnemnoch. Also, the title is misleading and/or inaccurate. It's about the analysis of data concerning patterns of philisophical development throughout diverse regions at best. --Evb-wiki 16:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It contains two paragraphs only, and they are OR, and trivial OR at that. No prejudice against creation of a proper article, but this is not a usable start.

DGG (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will you agree to keeping the stub? Banno 01:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. The article is very poorly organized and unsourced. The overhaul it needs is so big it would be more practical to re-write it from scratch.
Comment Folks, here are the reasons for deletion. Being a poor article is not one of them. The idea that this is "not a usable start" is muddled - it remind me of the old-timer who, when asked for directions by a traveller, stopped and thought for a bit before saying "you can't get there from here". It might also be worth taking the article to the two related wikiprojects - something that appears not to have been done. There are other avenues to explore besides COTW. Deletion would be premature. Banno 20:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed mention of the article on the relevant projects. Banno 20:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. However, in the meantime people keep reading abysmal articles, further confirming Wikipedia's reputation for low quality. I firmly believe that every article, even a stub, has to stick to some standard of quality before going on line. Publishing sandbox cases like this one is embarrassing and IMO does a disservice to the project. Just my 2¢. --Targeman 20:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then put up a proposal for a policy change to the effect that the Wiki should not contain any stubs. Until then, the argument I presented holds, and the article should stay. Banno 21:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against stubs per se - it's articles of any size which are low on quality and content that bug me. But you gave me a good idea - a policy change proposal to set higher standards. I'll think about it. --Targeman 21:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strongest Keep Ever~~ Delete just because it's unsourced, uninformative, uninteresting and untouched for seven months doesn't mean we should delete it. On second thought... I guess it is. (Yes, that was really necessary.)Mandsford 23:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am a demon typicaly for deleting articles; but just being an orphan article is not good enough or an acceptable reason. I agree the current article is bad and has not been edited, but it can become a good article. It is a field of study with a publication dedictated to its pursuit. Surely with the same effort we expend on this RfD we could all pitch in and expand the article. This is notable and should be more than a definition. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The journal you mention stop in 2004 and a new journal focusing on the environment and not geography as a subject has now replaced it. Further, part of the reason for the article's submission for deletion was that it had been unworked on for nearly a year, a request for an expert had been in place for 6 months and I had already added it to the Geography wikiproject to do list a while ago when the article was created and it had still remained as an article that mainly linked to others (which is a criteria for deletion). Further the society you make reference to is now an environmental ethics society (http://www.cep.unt.edu/default.html). These are not focusing on the Philosophy of Geography but on the environment! If the article is going to be kept it needs its named changed to the philosophy of the environment or added to environmental ethics.AlexD 11:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, since I've been unable to trace the journal past 2000. But this is relevant only in that it shows that the topic is an academic discipline, and that there is reasonable hope that the article will develop. Again, my point is that it is up to those wishing to delete the article to state why it should be deleted according to the policy. Being a poor article is not a reason for deletion. Banno 00:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curious indeed, your subscription must not be up to date, if you go to [23] and [24] you will find that the journal was merged in 2005 with Ethics, Place & Environment.
Perhaps I have not made clear under the criteria why the article was nominated. It was nominated because (prior to the recent dramatic slimming down that has occurred on the article) the original was mainly a set of links to other articles which is in the criteria for deletion. Further, the absence of a current journal shows that there is little work in the area and thus is not a notable field and thus should not have its own article and should if it is to be kept be merged with the main geography article or history of geography article, further the change of focus in the journal to environment and ethics shows that much of the work was not on the philosophy of geography.
As an ardent geographer I am keen to see every single article on geography kept, however, most of the philosophy of geography is covered in the history of geography article! Further to this already duplication, physical geography’s philosophy is parallel to that of the philosophy of science and human geography's philosophy is already mention in critical geography, marxist geography and the cultural turn. Thus my question to you is why do you want to keep an article that will merely duplicate (or was prior to its silmming down) what is already on wikipedia?AlexD 21:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the original reason for this nomination no longer holds. Certainly someone who searched for philosophy of geography and found themselves at history of geography would be surprised, so a redirect will not work. The question at hand is not "why should we keep this article" but "why should we delete this article". The topic is notable, although minor. Let the article be. Banno 12:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True the original reasons no longer hold. I do agree with Vince that the article should be renamed to the philosophy of the environment. The question is why should we keep an article as after all this is an encyclopedia and not just a website attempting to list every single piece of information avaliable (that already exists and is called the internet). In regards to being redirected to the history of geography rather than the philosophy, after reading the user would understand why. Geography is shaped more so by philosophical changes than that of new finding, especially in terms of its recent history thsu combining the two makes perfect sense. AlexD 12:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per storm rider. Mathmo ^Talk 04:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider rename - Surely the purpose of having an encyclopaedia with 2 million entries is that it covers obscure topics. There is a society and there seems to have been journal articles on the topic, although perhaps renaming to philosophy of the environment should be considered. If the encyclopaedia is big enough for Wolf Hole, Arizona, it is surely big enough for this. --Vince 12:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the condition that the article will improve; or merge. If an article cannot produce any reliable sources to substantiate its data, then the article should not exist. However, such reliable sources about philosophy of geography do exist: there is a journal with promising articles here. The remedy is to access these sources and cite them with all deliberate speed, not delete the wiki-article, which would prevent the secondary research altogether. However, if Wikipedia cannot find an editor to accomplish these tasks (demonstrating the impossibility of research), then the article should not exist by itself. If the article continues to remain in its current condition, then we should merge it with a related article (perhaps environmental ethics or environmental philosophy?). —Kanodin 19:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that an article a stub, orphaned, and/or no one is working on it is no reason it delete. Articles are deleted because the topic is/has a problem. This is not the case.Zginder 22:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep as per Zginder. Harlowraman 00:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.. CitiCat^♫ 02:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Amory[edit]

non-notable (WP:BIO) — Fingers-of-Pyrex 01:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - If this person were listed on notible people in the other articles, I may have said disagree. --Mnemnoch 02:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article cites no third-party reliable sources, which is necessary to establish notability, so fails WP:BIO.-- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 02:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Bduke 04:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, having a technique that helps your hospital keep its mortality rates down is pretty much the ideal of what accomplished surgeons do. It is not, however, notability. --Dhartung | Talk 05:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 4 relevant publications on Medline under 'SE Amory' or 'S Amory' and no published textbooks per profile suggest that the subject's contributions do not yet meet WP:PROF. Espresso Addict 15:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though as a physician, not a researcher " Chief of the Division of General Surgery at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center. " this is one of the great medical centers, and I think that position is notability enough. He's Clinical Professor not Professor at Columbia, and that is not necessarily based on research. I admit that this level of appointment at a place like this to someone with so little verifiable publication is a little puzzling. He's FACS, but no other out-of-university honors. DGG (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with DDG. If he is one of the chiefs of NYP he is notable for that alone. The division of general surgery, specifically, encompasses many departments at a hospital—some which may include breast surgery, gastrointestinal surgery, minimal access surgery, and even plastic/reconstructive surgery. Therefore Dr. Amory must have exceeded his peers in all areas of surgery in order to be named chief of this overall department. Perhaps the article should be labeled as a stub instead of deleted. This way, it could allow users who know more about the doctor or have better access to information to add to his accomplishments instead of assuming that he is not notable. --Oeawiki 15:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Third-party references are required to establish notability. Also, without citations this article appears to be original research. This person's carreer may indeed be impressive, but that doesn't eliminate the need to follow notability guidelines. I'm also concerned that there may be COI issues, given that the author of the article is a SPA, whose only contributions are creating articles on NYP doctors.-- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 16:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Harlowraman 00:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, withdrawn by nom and no other users supporting deletion. Non-admin close. cab 02:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North China craton[edit]

I know this page is trying to say something, but for the life of me I cannot understand it. Ideogram 01:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Block (North China Craton). --Ideogram 01:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Definitely looks like a notable geologic object, just need to get some people from the geography wikiproject to clean it up and make it encyclopaedic --Lu c id 01:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Left a note for WP:GEOLOGY. --Ideogram 01:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See my reply in the other discussion on the Western Block, but basically, as a real geological phenomena, it merits keeping, if lots of cleanup. FrozenPurpleCube 02:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. Admins, please close. --Ideogram 02:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, withdrawn by nom and no other users supporting deletion. Non-admin close. cab 02:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Western Block (North China Craton)[edit]

I know this article is trying to say something, but for the life of me I cannot understand it. Ideogram 01:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North China craton. --Ideogram 01:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Seems like a notable geologic object, just needs to be made more appropriate for an encyclopaedia, and made more human readable --Lu c id 01:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sometimes when you don't know what an article is talking about, you have to look beyond the article. In this case, this is a geological feature that has had a fair bit of discussion on it. See [25] for a lot of links. This is a scientific subject, and the article is poorly written, but it doesn't warrant deletion, it warrants cleanup. I suggest withdrawing this nomination and the other one and using clean-up tags instead. FrozenPurpleCube 02:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. Admins please close. --Ideogram 02:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protector of Emigrants Pakistan[edit]

This page is "how to" guide on dealing with Pakistani emigration procedures. WP:NOT violation at the very least. Kww 00:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We're not a howto page. Perhaps put this on Wikihow? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete breaks WP:NOT, WP:OR, gives Legal Advice, and a bunch of other absolutely unacceptable stuff. --Lu c id 01:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be concerned about the legal advice, but I'm not sure anything there is a valid speedy rationale. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is this a government agency or a private firm? If the former, it might be worth keeping, though in that case it would need a rewrite. cab 02:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Protector of Emigrants appears to be a government agency ("all emigrants must get their passports stamped by the Protector"), but this article is not as much about this agency as it is a general how-to on emigrating out of Pakistan. Resurgent insurgent 02:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Protector of Emigrants is a government agency. This article is purposfuly written to help people dealing with the agency. This helps them understand the process and easily do what they want.
  - Then the page belongs on WikiHow, not Wikipedia. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia:Legal_disclaimer. --_Hdt83 _Chat 04:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO . Not a place for walkthroughs like this Corpx 04:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page. The purpose of wiki pedia is to provide information to its readers. This page is serving the same purpose and written to help alot of people. Keeping the page will definatly give the site more fame. This will also encourage people to put information pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.59.70.171 (talk • contribs)
- No, it isn't the purpose of Wikipedia is to make a free encyclopedia. See also WP:USEFUL --Lu c id 08:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to figure out a speedy rationale for this page last week, and couldn't find one. It is, however, a How-To page, and therefore violates WP:NOT#HOW. I've just reverted vandalism which removed the AfD link from the page. AlexTiefling 12:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The same IP previously blanked this page. Silly me for not looking at the article to see if anything had been done there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article still contains no independent, reliable sources. Sandstein 16:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xaraya[edit]

expired uncontested prod, but this article has been around awhile with many editors so it should be afd'ed not prod'ed. Prod tag was WP:N and WP:V and WP:SPAM, which about sums up what the article is. Carlossuarez46 00:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the better known CMS / CMF and notable enough, even if the article are in need of drastic improving. -- KTC 03:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Or drastically improve it, if what KTC says is correct, I hope someone who knows about it can rewrite almost all the article. Jackaranga 14:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 03:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable sources: [26] [27] JulesH 16:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are probably not the best links one could have provided. I've never heard of the first one and have no access to the article so can't necessarily comment on it. The second one is an article on XOOPS where the only mention of Xaraya is "Meanwhile, some of the central PostNuke developers have left that project, forking it into software that originally was known as LostNuke and now goes by the name of Xaraya.". KTC 18:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 00:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are so, so many PHP CMS packages (and even so many PHP-Nuke derivants) that reliable sources for importance are really necessary. --Dhartung | Talk 05:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources. Those provided by JulesH are not helpful, either. Xoloz 15:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Silver Lining (game)[edit]

This is an unreleased fan-game, an apparent homage/unofficial sequal to the King's Quest series. While it's rife with good intentions, it just doesn't seem all that notable, aside from a cease and desist order from Vivendi - and if cease-and-desist orders are qualifications for notability, then Action Jackson IV's dating history should be a featured article :-D Beyond self-published claims of being "one of the largest fangame projects", I can't quite see how this is more than crystal ballery. It is, however, a rather well-written article, not quite as self-promoting as one would expect, and perhaps being seven years in the making counts for something. Action Jackson IV 23:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This series does have a section in King's Quest, and works in the context of that larger article. I still see no need for a separate article. --Action Jackson IV 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reputable third party source I see is Gamespot, and its page on the project consists primarily of Date released: TBA. Crystal ballery, as you say. Nothing else in the article is supported by verifiable third-party sources. It should probably be recreated when there's an actual game to discuss and third party sources discussing it.--Moonriddengirl 17:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not quite true, see for example the links I put below. --Allefant 00:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was true. :) It's not true now. --Moonriddengirl

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 00:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First, while it's endorsed by the original makers of Kings Quest, it is a fan-based work - hedges a bit on our thoughts on fanfiction, yet not. Second, like Moonriddengirl, I'm not seeing many sources. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the whole story makes it notable (someone should add references to the article though), it apparently received plenty of press coverage ([28], [29], [30], [31]). --Allefant 00:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(i added three of the references above to the article now) --Allefant 11:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The addition of third-party sources satisfies my concerns with it. It needs to be wikified, but it seems to meet notability guidelines. --Moonriddengirl 12:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 spam (CSD G11). Closed early per snow and consensus for speedy. Nihiltres^(t.l) 03:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Software Ventures International[edit]

expired uncontested prod, but has been around for a year with several editors, so afd is the place: fails notability, WP:CORP and is not verified. Carlossuarez46 23:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find reliable non-trivial mentions by third party sources (just press releases). Doesn't have any significant achievements or what not. So fails WP:CORP.--Kylohk 00:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 00:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam. Been around a while, but old spam by any other name. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Definitely spam. James Luftan ^contribs 02:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as WP:SPAM. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. Carlosguitar 03:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Midtnorsk Helikopter[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. An operator of 5 R-44 helicopters, with nothing found to establish notability of this run-of-the-mill general aviation company. Russavia 21:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 23:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article meets the criteria for notability in WP:CORP through at least two independent, reliable, secondary sources: Scanair and Trønder-Avisa (in Norwegian). Arsenikk 13:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be noted that the Scanair website is an enthusiast website which only confirms in its directory listing that this company exists, it doesn't give Midtnorsk Helikopter notability. Without speaking Norwegian, difficult to tell if it is trivial coverage, or coverage which gives notability. --Russavia 22:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 00:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:CORP. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing in the Norwegian puff piece that really points to notability. It's more of a business profile. --Dhartung | Talk 05:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep = Disagreeing with the above as the coverage 2nd Norwegian article is signifficant, even as a business profile. --Oakshade 07:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as failing WP:CORP. A single business profile is far short of what is required; many of these are based on copy submitted by the company themselves. It is also significant that there is no article on the company in the Norwegian Wikipedia here. Notability simply has not been established. TerriersFan 16:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Zginder 22:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Helicorp[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. It is a small charter outfit of Puerto Rico, with a single bizjet and 2 small helicopters. Nothing found which established the notability of this company. Russavia 21:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- → AA ^(talk) — 23:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is clearly an ad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amadscientist (talk • contribs) 06:05, 5 August 2007.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 00:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:CORP VanTucky ^(talk) 02:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable per WP:CORP. → AA ^(talk) — 08:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not asserted. Mel sa ran 19:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WebGUI[edit]

Fails WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:VERIFY, no third party sources. It may also be spam, but I'm not sure of that. Jackaranga 20:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 23:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Independent sources: [32] [33] [34] JulesH 16:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 00:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on links posted above Corpx 04:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets notability. [35] [36] [37] Carlosguitar 04:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 02:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpswing[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable phenomenon. No assertion of notability in the article and my internet search did not turn up any reliable sources regarding it. Chunky Rice 20:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - You say that you did not find any rliable sources in your internet search....that's odd my google search turned up many. Try again. This may not be as notable as the Jitterbug but passes notablility by my standard at least.--Amadscientist 05:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to provide links to some? All I saw were dance studios and whatnot.-Chunky Rice 05:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with dance studios? This is exactly the place where dances are. It is not, like, a single studio of the dance inventor, so you could have contested on the basis of vanity. Mukadderat 18:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with them, but for the purpose of establishing notability, they're not reliable sources as I understand them. -Chunky Rice 18:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 00:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Google News hits. The Boston globe link expands on this. I cant tell anymore because of the pay to read links Corpx 04:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep, verifiable. However the article must be severely trimmed. In particular, all instruction ("howto") must go into wikibooks. Mukadderat 18:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like sources exist, could use some cleanup though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to no evidence of notability or reliable sources. — TKD::Talk 11:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bodington[edit]

Article has no assertion of notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varezzi (talk • contribs) 2007/08/02 19:57:49

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonnotable software. No third-party sources. Shalom ^Hello 12:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while the product seems both interesting and useful, I can't find any reliable sources to establish notability. -- MarcoTolo 03:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the VLE category items are activity being worked on, and there is no reason why this one shouldn't be saved too.Stuartyeates 15:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 00:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N and WP:RS. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 04:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Minerals[edit]

A Google search of the book & its publisher does not seem to establish notability [38]. --Uthbrian (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The book in question is by C.J. Peng, published by Urban Council, Hong Kong in 1978 (not 1983 as per article) with a new edition in 1991. Weak keep as noted as reference reading by Hong Kong Museum of History for exhibit on The Natural Environment [39]. I would consider this article a case of highly specialized Academic books. -- KTC 04:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- Luke! 04:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless expanded with citations to prove notability. Stifle (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 00:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Content is too short to establish notability. --H irohisat ^Talk 01:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no doubt a "highly specialized academic book", but this in fact pretty much establishes that the book itself is not a good subject for an encyclopedia article. Books like these have limited circulation and fame, and as such are not notable. Would make an admirable source for an article on the geology of Hong Kong, no doubt. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 10:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Bikini of the Universe[edit]

Bikini contest held in China. The People's Daily prints photos of the models who compete in this event, but no one seems to have actually done an article on it. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 00:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The writing is so bad as to practically be patent nonsense. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. A national beauty pageant; one of the winners seems to have gone on to a notable career in modelling. The prose isn't deliberately bad, only made by someone for whom English is not their first language. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What, no photos? Without the details about the winners there's almost nothing left. Deutsche Presse Agentur says that "Miss Bikini of the Universe" is held by an American organisation - not something official by China. This article says that the 2006 winner got US$ 5,000 prize. Qucik googling suggests that the first contest was held in 2003. The field has relatively low entry barriers. All in all, it feels to me a low-cost contest that didn't yet gathered enough of real world notability. Pavel Vozenilek 23:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Chapman[edit]

Delete. Non-notable local politician. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 00:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discospinster. Non-notable. --H irohisat ^Talk 01:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't meet BIO requirements. --Lu c id 01:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 02:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a local politician, and carrying out the associated duties, does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Nuttah68 06:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per other comments and WP:BIO. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination does not meet WP:BIO guidelines. Burntsauce 18:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 11kowrom 19:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Kkr ouni /Ккроунл /ΚκρΩυνι 23:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect for GFDL compliance as information from this article had been substantially merged into STS-115 prior to nomination and to retain any information for future reference. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of STS-115[edit]

To standardize shuttle missions, (see STS-116, STS-117, STS-118) I have merged Timeline of STS-115 into STS-115, and this page can be deleted. It has been orphaned since March 2007. The only link to the page is STS-115 Timeline which can also be removed. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Space_missions is working to standardize all the mission articles into the same format, so the timeline should remain with the mission page, not as a separate article. While STS-115 will need pruning, this orphaned article can probably be purged. Notices placed on Talk:STS-115, the Project talk page, and on Talk:STS-118 (current flight). ^Ariel♥Gold 00:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since you've merge the articles, I don't see how this article serves a purpose. It's far from encyclopedic, anyway. James Luftan ^contribs 00:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to STS-115. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to STS-115. That way if something is missed, others can still look over the information, if they try hard enough. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, there is one other "Timeline" article that could use that as well, for STS-121. Thanks for the input! ^Ariel♥Gold 01:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question How was the merge done? Did you copy from this page? That's the way it looks to me, in which case, a deletion is not appropriate, but rather a redirect in order to satisfy the attribution requirements of the GFDL. FrozenPurpleCube 01:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually had nearly half of the mission notes written up by hand, and then I found the timeline page, so yes I transferred it as written. However, when pages are merged that contain timeline information that didn't change between the versions, how is the merge handled? I apologize if I merged it wrong, and I'd be happy to learn the proper way to merge information such as this. Also, it seems that a redirect is the most appropriate choice, so my apologies for not considering that, I was thinking more of reducing "clutter" from Wikipedia, and I apologize. Thanks. ^Ariel♥Gold 02:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically you cannot copy content from article to another. This is because the revision history must be maintained, otherwise the GFDL is being violated. The 'merge' is handled by re-writing the data yourself from the external sources and deleting the original page.--Dacium 03:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want something deleted in its current form, but used elsewhere, the appropriate way to do it is to work from the actual sources involved, and to not involve any other edits on Wikipedia. Though you can get information such as a list of those references from it, you shouldn't copy the edited text. The GFDL generally requires a record of contributions be kept in order to keep compliant with the license, and that's why in cases where you merge something, you usually do a redirect. The only way you could get around it would be if you were the only significant contributor, which I assume is not the case. I'm also not sure if it's the case that you're copying mission notes directly from NASA, which would also be acceptable. In terms of reducing clutter on Wikipedia, it's really not worth worrying about, as the storage requirements are too vast for the individual to matter with the aggregate. Let's assume it takes 1 megabyte of space to keep this page around. Last year about this time, the database was 1.2 Terabytes [40]. Since one terabyte is one million megabytes, that means we could have over a million copies of this one article and still have room for well...a lot. It's not worth worrying about for that reason. (Especially since in reality, the page probably takes up a tenth or less of that size). Yes, eventually there will be problems with the size of Wikipedia, but it's not going to be handled by boiling tea cups of the ocean with a candle. FrozenPurpleCube 03:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and of course, I knew that copying and pasting entire articles is a no-no, but basically this is a list of activities as stated from NASA's end of day Status Reports, nothing changed in what the crew did, or how they did it, so it makes it quite difficult to even attempt to "rewrite" it. It was just a mistake on my part for not thinking it through, again my most abject apologies. I'd appreciate if someone could handle the redirect, and remove the AFD notice, and feel free to remove my addition, and I'll just try and find a way to re-word everything, without losing all the NASA URL references while doing it. So much for my first foray into AfD, lol.^Ariel♥Gold 04:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, if there's any significant edits done (even formatting) once it gets away from NASA (which is a federal agency and thus public domain), you'd run afoul of the GFDL attribution. Since there are in-line references, I'd say that is your problem, and as such, the best thing to do is to use the merge/redirect solution. It's far less work, and there's no real benefit from doing things the harder way. FrozenPurpleCube 04:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you FrozenPurpleCube, and I completely understand. Again my apologies for handling it in the wrong way. I'd appreciate anyone who can take care of the redirect/merge, as I guess I still don't understand: If you redirect, are you allowed to "copy/paste" merge, or do you still have to re-write the entire thing? If someone would like to remove the AfD, and do whatever is needed, I'll be happy to attempt to rewrite it, if that's required. ^Ariel♥Gold 05:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I redirect/merge, what I do is make sure to note it in the edit summary that I'm copying from a given location, both when I'm pasting over and I'm making the redirect. There is no need to further rewrite it (except for whatever cleanup issues are appropriate). See WP:MERGE for the steps. FrozenPurpleCube 06:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Since info is merged - Stuff like this has historic notability and is covered by reliable sources Corpx 04:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap. If you copy/paste stuff, the edit history has to be preserved. Leave a note on the talk page of the new page as to where to find the edit history. As of now, this cannot be closed because there is still a "Delete" vote on the board and thus, would not qualify for a speedy keep Corpx 05:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it can, since the delete argument can be dismissed as ignorant of the merge. But I'll ask that person to strike their comment unless they feel it doesn't belong as part of STS-115. FrozenPurpleCube 05:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The only reason I said "Delete" is because the OP had already merged the subject. James Luftan ^contribs 15:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and split to Lodestar and Lodestar (disambiguation)--Atlan (talk) 10:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lodestar[edit]

The article is mainly used for advertising from all kinds of companies with Lodestar in their names. Stripped of said advertising, what is left is the dictionary definition of lodestar and two internal links (Loadstar and Lodestar (band)) that don't really require a disambiguation page. Whatever relevant information the article holds besides that, can already be found in more suitable articles. Atlan (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. This appears to be something of a cross between a geography/astronomy stub and a dab page, but it isn't terribly well built. Not spammy at all. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination makes no sense. Loadstar article should be expanded upon to be more than a dic-def. Obviously a disambiguation page is needed, there are more than enough blue links on that article, they can't be spam since the pages they link to are all valid articles.--Dacium 03:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I take it you mean the Lodestar article should be expanded? The Loadstar article is good enough. I can't see how you can expand the article on lodestar beyond its definition. There's hardly more to the word that would make the article anymore than it is now, without all the disambiguations. It's better suited to Wiktionary. Lodestar doesn't need a Wikipedia article but I agree that a disambiguation page could be useful for the band, the aircraft, the magazine and possibly the hoist.--Atlan (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move the other uses content to Lodestar (disambiguation). Otto4711 04:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Lodestar (disambiguation) and moved the relevant other uses there. Please judge the article on what is left. Like I said, I don't think the article can be expanded beyond its dictionary definition.--Atlan (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Mnyeh, it works. Good show. My !vote stands accordingly. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cleaned up version. 132.205.44.5 20:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 10:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle Time[edit]

Originally speedied as a neologism, which is not speedy-able. Anyone think it's notable? Daniel Case 00:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A quick look at google shows it does have some use Google Results, but on the same hand GHITS aren't notability, and it looks like some of them are for completely different things --Lu c id 01:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is neo. The very definition of cycle implies time. The phrase itself is to wide spread to be specifically meaning cycle time of production of a product.--Dacium 03:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a valid concept when viewed in the context of Supply chain management and in manufacturing, but I'm not excited about the article as it's currently written. It teeters on the brink of original research, and it doesn't cite any references. The article isn't a neologism, but I wouldn't miss it if it were deleted. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dove project[edit]

Marked as speedy but it does make an assertion of notability. But is it one that merits reworking into an article? Daniel Case 00:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it was only created yesterday I was going to plaster it with tags and try to categorize it and see what happens over the course of the week. I'll still do that but as it stands now there are no assertations about notability (sorry what's provided is not notable), claimed but unprovided sources and frankly the prose style is a little breathless and some of the claims extremely suspect. I call WP:NN and WP:OR. I will change my vote if the issues are properly addressed.Peter Rehse 00:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with PRehse. It is a original research, and lacks notability.--H irohisat ^Talk 00:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No cited assertion of notability. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 02:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PRehse. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:N. Google did not help. Carlosguitar 03:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination it is non-notable originalresearchcruft. Burntsauce 18:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed with all of above. —Mrand ^T-C 01:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)'[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Google searching turns up plenty of Dove Projects, but they all pertain to domestic violence awareness. LaMenta3 03:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 10:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CorneliOS[edit]

Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFY, no assertion of notability Jackaranga 16:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (not voting) I swear this looks familiar, has this been up for delete before? If so, that needs to be disclosed. Pharmboy 17:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say it has on the talk page, and the page as never been deleted before, so I'm guessing no. Unless someone forgot to put the tag on the talk page last time, but I doubt it.Jackaranga 17:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article could have been deleted last week, and the history would not show up except to the admins. That is the kind of issue I am asking about. I can check the history myself, but not if it was deleting before. Pharmboy 22:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you personaly know how to do, but normal users have the possibility of looking at the page's deletion log, go to the page click the history tab, then click the link that says "View logs for this page", then if you like you can also sort the logs using the drop down menu, but in this case the log is empty anyway so there is no point doing so.Jackaranga 11:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checking, I see no deleted edits. It's a contested prod from July 27. I have not however looked at name variations, as I do not know what would be likely. DGG (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article should first be targeted for improvement. Ubernostrum 18:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are found to establish notability Corpx 04:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete search finds no reliable sources. While it sounds like an interesting project, that's not enough by itself. JulesH 11:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 13:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N. Google did not help. Carlosguitar 01:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this seems like a major project — 76.233.54.182 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veritaserum (website)[edit]

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}}.

nn Harry Potter fansite. Alexa is a modest 13,838, but how is an article about a fansite suitable for an encyclopedia, when there are hundreds of articles on the harry potter universe. Article is somewhat spammy and very non-npov, no assertion of notability. Biggspowd 21:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hmmm...why on earth would this article be deleted? The fansite is big enough, look at the Alexa, and is very notable fro Galleries, forums and news...The article is a credit to the Harry Potter Project and to Wikipedia in general... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.139.74 (talk • contribs) — 80.41.139.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - I agree with Nick. Why on earth would this be deleted? Veritaserum has a very loyal following and strives for a Spam-free and spoiler-free environment. Of all the Harry Potter fan sites out there, VTM is my favorite. The layout is fun and creative. Quite unique to the other sites. The staff is courteous and friendly and strives for excellence. VTM has a great, friendly environment where fans can come together and share ideas without hostility from other members who may not agree with their views. It would be a shame and a disservice to remove Veritaserum from Wikipedia! -- 209.102.152.187 22:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Laura — 209.102.152.187 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - I also agree with the above members. Many other fan sites are listed, most notably the infamous MuggleNet.com. To delete this site would go against all wikipedia principles - and quite frankly, it would be wrong to do so. I would also like to cast out the assumption that this person may even be from another fansite. It would be disgusting to delete this site from Wikipedia simply on this principle. -- 84.13.242.25 22:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC) — 84.13.242.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Whilst i think that the atmosphere of the forum is notable i think it is the sheer weight of the argument against that should be the reason it is kept here. The article is an integral part of the Harry Potter Fandom article as only Mugglenet, The Leaky Cauldron, Veritaserum and possibly one other have their own Wikipedia page. This was decided after lengthy debates and i think it should be kept this way as this article is an asset to the site. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.139.74 (talk • contribs) — 80.41.139.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - Veritaserum is a site for everyone to visit and feel welcome, unlike other sites that will not be named. It's a friendly place for people of all ages, from all over the world to get together and read the Fanfictions, read the News, join the discussions on the Forums and look at the Galleries. How that is spammy is beyond me. Perhaps if people had a look at the site before wanting it's deletion from Wiki they would see that they are wrong about it. -Triadic. — Triadic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Core desat 07:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: This AFD has been advertised here. --Core desat 07:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NN - no WP:RS references documenting that anyone off the website thinks the website is notable. Add a few mainstream-media references to it, and I'll change to keep. --Alvestrand 07:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now adequately sourced. --Alvestrand 07:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This might fail WP:WEB, but the article is definitely unsourced, non-neutral, and reads like an advertisement. --Core desat 07:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personal accounts from Veritaserum users aside, this *might* have some third-party sources covering it. [41] is pretty trivial coverage, but may point to more. I hope though, that the users from the site understand that Wikipedia does have criteria for inclusion that requires third-party reliable sources, which is not solely the testimony of editors here on Wikipedia. Nor is the presence of other sites having articles on Wikipedia necessarily indicative in this case, as these are not being treated as one site, but separately. FrozenPurpleCube 08:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB. No assertion of notability using reliable secondary sources. I'm also very tempted to call WP:SPAM here, especially given some of the comments above and the reasons given for keeping this article. WP:RS and WP:N are quite clear on what sources WP:WEB requires to establish notability. You cannot argue your way around that. MartinDK 09:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neither WP:WEB nor WP:NPOV, also seems difficult to find reliable sources --kateshortforbob 11:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ While I've tried unsuccessfully to find reliable sources about this site, the search is hampered by the large number of results returned that are about Potions in Harry Potter#Veritaserum instead. JulesH 11:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a problem with a web search on this subject vs. this website. But Wikipedia go along the line of it being the person wanting to include something duty to provide the source needed for inclusion. It is not the duty of users on AfD to spend all day looking for the reliable source. -- KTC 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, a search in this case is difficult, however, I can say I made a reasonable effort to find articles. If anything, it's slightly more likely the creator has sources about him than his site. I don't pretend to perfection, and somebody could show up with something I didn't know about, but I gave it a good try. FrozenPurpleCube 13:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to keep per sources found below. I consider an article about the creator of the site to establish notability of the site, because the creator has apparently not done anything else notable. JulesH 07:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail WP:WEB, with no WP:RS, and not WP:NPOV. Possibly WP:SPAM. -- KTC 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination fails the WEB without reliable sources, possible spam. Burntsauce 18:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nominator. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 19:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - going through Google news alone earned me three reliable sources (added now, above should reconsider their !votes). This website is certainly notable. Myself I am doubtful if it requires such detailed coverage though - perhaps merge into Harry Potter? User:Krator (t c) 23:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seen all of those, none of the coverage is specifically about the website, but is rather trivial coverage. Brief mentions of a site are not sufficient to establish notability. For example, the first reference is more in the way of the founder, and the article itself is about Harry Potter's relationship to charitable acts. The second is a quote from the same person in an article about the spoilers related to the books. The third just indicates an author used the biography there. Unfortunately, usage as a source in this case isn't very convincing. Sorry, but it seems your references are not adequate at this time. FrozenPurpleCube 00:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Krator. I might suggest a merge relevant and pertinent parts into the Harry Potter fandom article. LaMenta3 03:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a Google search and found several additional third-party sources referencing the website, which I added to the page. Brethenbrother181 05:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the most on point is [42] which is directly on the topic. The rest are not significant coverage of the site, being focused on other things, or are more properly focused on the creator of the site for example: [43]. The first *may* be enough, it's better than nothing, but it's also a local news spot. I will say this though, your use of in-line references is not ideal. Stacking multiple references in a row, just doesn't look good. You may wish to check the manual of style. FrozenPurpleCube 05:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if this counts as notable, but I thought I would point it out. HPANA[44]has Veritaserum listed on its main page in the "News Sources" box along with 13 other sites.--209.102.152.185 18:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Laura[reply]

No, I'm afraid I'm not convinced that the Harry Potter News Aggregator is quite reliable enough for it to make a good case for the notability of another related site. FrozenPurpleCube 23:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for want of verifiability. All the sources I'm seeing in the article to date (11 August around 23:00 GMT) suggest that this is just another fan site amongst many. --Tony Sidaway 23:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, an argument could be made that many of these other fan sites have their own Wikipedia pages, some of which have fewer or no references cited. Brethenbrother181 02:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! Verifiability is one of our most fundamental policies. --Tony Sidaway 04:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Just another website" is not logical in my mind. It's a website, it's been covered in Wall Street Journal among others (that one was quite a bit mroe than a "reference in passing"). If it satisfies WP:WEB, let it stay. --Alvestrand 08:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, the Wall Street Journal Reference is...two sentences, which I call a very slim reference. FrozenPurpleCube 03:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I make it 136 words - the reason I think it indicates notability is because the journalist, when looking for an exemplar of the "volunteer meme spreading website" phenomenon, picked on Vitaserum as his "well known example". --Alvestrand 05:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

136 words? Are you counting the website and company name? Sorry, but I think you're really reaching there. Besides, you can't deny that the primary focus of the article isn't the website, and as far as notability goes, the only things is says about it is more related to Matthew Vines than the website. There's nothing about the site's content at all. FrozenPurpleCube 15:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to read What about article X which addresses this more fully, but the basic point is that another article's existing doesn't mean this one should be kept. Perhaps those others should be removed as well. FrozenPurpleCube 05:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Denverpost.com [45] has veritaserum.com on its website. Once again, not sure if this will count as notable but thought I'd point it out. Thanks --209.102.152.185 04:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Laura[reply]

No, it won't, as a simple link to a URL isn't meaningful of anything. It doesn't tell us about the site, or its merit. FrozenPurpleCube 05:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry if you are getting tired of me, but I found summervillejournalscene.com [46] had veritaserum.com mentioned in an article. Thanks --209.102.152.185 05:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Laura[reply]

Again, the problem is like with the above, it's a trivial reference to a site, not specific coverage of it. Off-hand references are not really what's desired here, but coverage like: [47]. Note, I'm not expecting anywhere near as much as the Youtube.com article has, but just trying to give you a general idea of what to look for. FrozenPurpleCube 05:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while references exist, they seem to only prove facts about the site ("founded by Matthew Vines.[1][2][3]"); none of them indicate why this site is notable. If "Veritaserum is also known for its accurate and quick news updates and is often right on top of any "big" news that surfaces" can be sourced, that might establish some sliver of notability. Otherwise, the refs are just trivial. Axem Titanium 14:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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