Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 15

< August 14	August 16 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, user with long history of creating articles on fake books/series. NawlinWiki 13:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zodiacs (Power of the Zodiac)[edit]

Un-Notable. Google Search shows nothing about this subject. Tinkleheimer 07:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: yet another of User:MrFijiax's hoaxes.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Power of Zodiac (Anthology)[edit]

Non-Notable Book. Google Search (Advanced Search) does not list anything similar to article, even with Exact Search. Tinkleheimer 07:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: yet another of User:MrFijiax's hoaxes. Miremare 13:14, 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, non admin closure. Giggy ^Talk 07:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Marazzi[edit]

My reason for deletion is neither has no other notablility on their own right other than their stint in a boyband so why should they have their own stub sized page. Dr Tobias Funke 23:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band passes WP:MUSIC (They had 3 albums), and the singer caused the band to break up, according to the article, so he seems to be notable. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 03:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, A1 has toured asia and was reported by MTV Asia, I remembered those years ago. Of course, as a touring member he satisfies WP:MUSIC.--Alasdair 03:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. The band passes WP:MUSIC, but the singer does not seem to have notability yet outside of the context of the band. Until his new band meets notability, I don't think he merits a separate article. --Moonriddengirl 15:45, 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 Speedily deleted as spam by user:Jimfbleak. Non-admin close by Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Critical[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT and WP:SPAM.Hu12 23:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11, so tagged with {{db-spam}}. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 03:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete could have been on the company's webpage it's so spammy. Ohconfucius 06:55, 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. Kurykh 00:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantcast[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Quantcast. Was deleted three times under WP:CSD#G11. Hu12 23:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, tagged with {{db-repost}} per WP:CSD#G4. Would reccomend that the closing admin protect the page from re-creation. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 03:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy declined. Not a repost of material deleted at xfd. --- RockMFR 04:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material.--Alasdair 03:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to just Delete for failing WP:CORP. Would use speedy had it been recreated again.--Alasdair 06:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:CORP. (Not sure why the alphabet soup, nom.) Note that G4 (recreation) speedy only applies to articles deleted through a discussion, not prior speedies under other criteria. I think WP:SALT is warranted. --Dhartung | Talk 03:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone provides sources demonstrating how WP:CORP is met. Nuttah68 08:58, 20 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 Speedily deleted by user:Anthony.bradbury (db-repost). non-admin close. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crosby Textor[edit]

PR piece. Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Was deleted twice previously. Hu12 23:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it was already deleted twice this should be speedied and not afd'd, esp given the appallingly low quality, SqueakBox 00:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We all have seen these types marketing pieces come back over and over again, afd gives the immediate option of deleting future spam articles like this immediately under WP:CSD#g4.--Hu12 00:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete pure advertisement and fails to establish notability as well, SqueakBox 23:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanispamisement. Bigdaddy1981 00:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The two directors of this company are notable and have articles, which I note need cleaning up, but I do not think the company itself is notable, even though it plays an important role in Australian elections. --Bduke 00:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The company is clearly notable as are its directors. Google News Archives gets 150 results for "Crosby Textor" and 170 odd in the archives. [1]. However, the article is very poor quality although I don't believe it is spam. For one thing, Coalition and Australia are both mispelt. Capitalistroadster 02:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think those google stats prove the non-notability, the company I work for has 26,000 hits but no article and that is far more the norm for small to medium companies. I agree its too por quality to be real spam but it is an ad, SqueakBox 02:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment rather a good point, mine has 54,000 and operates in a niche market and has about 30 employees and (rightly so) has no article. Bigdaddy1981 05:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as recreation of deleted material. I suggest salting the deleted page to prevent further recreation.--Alasdair 03:09, 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 Sinai 48; redirect Tom Moncrieff to Sinai 48. Walton^One 16:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sinai 48[edit]

Non-notable band and band member. Also from the looks of it, very likely being used for promotional purposes. There's an apparent conflict of interest as the creator seems to be one of the band members. -WarthogDemon 23:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was careful about making additions and deletions and not stating anything that wasn't independantly cited. I understand the conflict of interest, however I was very careful. Given that this project is sleighted for release on over 200 radio stations, it seems premature to delete something that isn't quite finished. There are several notable musicians involved with the album, so I see no reason to delete it. Many of these musicians are well known to music trivia buffs, who may want more information about these people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajmccarrell (talk • contribs).

Here is a policy that makes it not eligible for deletion, "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. " Both Gary Hodges and Tom Moncrieff were part of Buckingham Nicks. The producer and backup vocalist Charlie Chalmers has also been a major player in the soul music industry with uncountable hits stemming from the 1950's on. This is reason enough not to delete. Ajmccarrell 23:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)ajmccarrell[reply]

Weak keep I think the ability of this band to survive WP:Music is a little slim, given that Buckingham Nicks itself primarily survives WP:Music because of the undeniable subsequent success of Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks. Buckingham Nicks is often described, even on Wikipedia, as a "duo"--for instance, see AMG. But the first source on the page makes it pretty clear that Buckingham & Nicks themselves regarded the entity as a band and Hodges and Moncrieff as members. I am overall inclined to agree with Ajmccarrell that the article should be kept. I have attempted to tone down some of the unencyclopedic material included in the article, but it needs more pruning. The encyclopedic value of the track list of an unreleased album is debatable. While that sort of material belongs on a band website, I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia. As for the Tom Moncrieff article, I'd do a redirect to Sinai 48. --Moonriddengirl 16:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sinai 48 based on meeting notability criterion #6 for musicians and ensembles mentioned above. Redirect Tom Moncrieff to Sinai 48 per usual practice in criterion #6. --MPerel 18:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 16:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is supposed to make the changes, such as deleting the flag and combining the articles?70.102.205.26 16:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)ajmccarrell[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Royal Tenenbaums. Singu larity 04:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Tenenbaum[edit]

Doesn't need a seperate article, doesn't provide any information not given in The Royal Tenenbaums, and there is no information that could be added to it to give it more detail than the film article. SGGH ^speak! 23:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The entire article is a plot summary, and does not have potential to be expanded beyond that point, as there is no additional information about the character to be added, as he character is not of any significance other than within the context of the film. Calgary 23:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete Redirect to The Royal Tenenbaums or Delete. Tinkleheimer 00:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the film article is the only mainspace that links to it, so I guess a redirect isn't needed. SGGH ^speak! 00:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But that doesn't take into account the possibility that someone could type in his name as a search term. -- Kicking222 00:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A merge/redirect would seem to be in order. ~ Infrangible 02:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, a merge doesn't seem necessary, and it is a plausible search term. hateless 02:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:FICT then redirect. As the name of a key character it is a plausible search term. He's a great character and a terrific turn by Hackman but I don't see the outside significance. --Dhartung | Talk 03:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless real world reliable sources are found to give significant coverage Corpx 04:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The character isn't notable enough for his own article, but it's certainly a viable search term. -- Kicking222 00:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Notability is not inherited; he is not notable unless there has been outside-universe, credible, third-party sourcing about him (rather than just something related to him).

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

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

The result was Redirected to List of BBC children's television programmes . ELIMINATORJR 18:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

CBBC On Choice[edit]

This information is already available in the BBC Choice article; there is no need for this article, it is not notable. _TheIslander 23:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Redundant list that already exists at List of BBC children's television programmes. Other information in the article is already in CBBC Channel article. —Travis ^talk 23:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Same reasons as above, already got information about it on the BBC Choice article, this can be expanded (into it's own section) if there is enough information about it. Tiddly Tom 13:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Same reasons that are given above. - Boy1jhn 15:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So. This is mentioned in a list. It could be added to an alternative article. It is already mentioned in other articles. This is an obvious redirect to appropriate target. Splash - tk 21:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

"This is mentioned in a list."

No, this includes a large list that is only a small part of another list that already exists.

"This is an obvious redirect to appropriate target."

Possibly, though there's no need for the snarky tone you took in your comments - I nominated this in good faith. _TheIslander 23:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly, though without a complete consideration of the options. Those three that followed you, on the other hand, have reached incorrect conclusions from their own argumentation, having provided the very definition of a good redirect in their comments! Splash - tk 22:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. Thanks ;) _TheIslander 22:30, 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. Singu larity 04:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harold S. Wright[edit]

Most of the article is fairly inconsequential biography, but the contents of the 'Other achievements' section rise above being an assertion of note. On the whole, I'm not really sure about the article, so rather than delete I've brought it here. Splash - tk 23:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless subject objects, notability is reasonably establsihed and the article is okay but lacking refs, SqueakBox 23:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I don't consider being chairman of the Arizona War Memorial Commission notable enough. Clarityfiend 00:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see no particular notability here, just a successful attorney who did some volunteer work. Accomplishment is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 03:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont really see what his claim to notability is either Corpx 04:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article claims that he was chairman of an organization that does not have its own entry. The website for the U.S.S. Arizona Memorial (I'm not even sure that's what the article is referencing) does not mention Wright. As far as I can tell he is a corporate lawyer in Hawaii. Nothing against that, but there are hundreds, if not thousands, of corporate lawyers in Hawaii, and that alone is not enough to get past the notability threshold. JCO312 04:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It's hard to judge the notability of lawyers when they have not been engaged in spectacular cases. Who's who in america is selective-- as compared to the subsidiary works such as Who's who in American Law, in the east, in Technology etc etc., and i give this some credence. DGG (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is little more than a biography. And biographies of non-notable people aren't suitable for inclusion in wikipedia. The only claim to notability would seem to be the Arizona War Memorial Commission...but there aren't even references to support that claim and, even if that claim was established, the Arizona War Memorial Commission isn't notable. Notability is not "reasonably established" by inclusion on one of hundreds of commissions in Arizona...Let us look to the "General notability guideline" for guidance: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Significant coverage requires "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail [and is] more than trivial." This person fails the guideline, especially the "significant coverage" requirements. And, as policy tells us, "Notability is not temporary....Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events8." Long-term written coverage? None. Significant coverage? Zero. I submit this article must be deleted. JasonCNJ 00:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything more than the routine career of a successful professional, so he's only likely to be of interest to friends, family and associates. Mowsbury 19:24, 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. Singu larity 04:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Odlum[edit]

Being the first to jump off a bridge does not make you notable enough for an encyclopedic article. Information should be included only in Brooklyn Bridge article, not seperate. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 22:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in this article isn't already included in the Brooklyn Bridge article. In any case, this early Darwin award attempt does not make the man notable. —Travis ^talk 23:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already described in the Brooklyn Bridge article, although I hesitate to encourage others to be the first to jump off other notable high places in hopes of becoming famous. Pending a check of the newspapers for that year and afterwards to see how much coverage he got; maybe he gained some notability, although it would run contrary to my view that a newsworthy event, especially a stunt like that, is not always encyclopedic. Steve Brodie claimed to have taken the same leap and lived, but nay-sayer claim it was a dummy that went off the bridge. Edison 23:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails notability, SqueakBox 23:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems like a stretch to make the first suicide off a particular structure a basis of notability. A remarkable suicide, perhaps, but there's nothing special about this one. There are hundreds of potential structures here. First guy to jump off the Woolworth Building? There must have been somebody ... --Dhartung | Talk 03:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brooklyn Bridge is iconic, as is jumping off it--as the first really famous large city bridge. I'd include him. My Proquest connection to the NYTimes is not working today. DGG (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but if you check the bridge's article, you will see that almost the exact information in this article is included there. So, why keep a stub which simply duplicates existing information? —Travis ^talk 00:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bearian 18:47, 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 Speedy delete. Pascal.Tesson 05:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sell the lexus, burn the olive tree[edit]

Does not seem to quite meet WP:MUSIC guidelines; there is a lack of reliable coverage of the band. Crystallina 22:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, fails WP:MUSIC. Tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N, and WP:MUSIC. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 03:08, 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. This article is obviously adequately sourced - I have my suspicions about the reasons for its proposal for deletion. It does, however, need tidying and checking for POV. ELIMINATORJR 18:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geron Corp.[edit]

Unsourced and unverified article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, and WP:SPAM. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Geron Corp. Stoic atarian 22:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is heavily sourced and has received hundreds of edits from dozens of unique users. The company is among the leaders in the field of embryonic stem cell reserach, as the documentation clearly shows. I propose that this attempt to delete the article be immediately dropped. --Biotech1 10:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 14 references backing the notability of Geron Corporation. I move to immediately drop this claim that Geron Corporation lacks notability.--Biotech1 13:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Geron Corp. has developed technology which may change healthcare and the human condition. The article should be expanded to include all the potential areas which may be affected by their incipient technologies, i.e. aging, disease, medical testing, agriculture, etc.Zabsz 01:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page, do not delete. It is so obvious religious radicals are attempting to erase this company out of exsistance. It saddens me that sick and injured people are waiting and hoping for treatments that Geron is working on, yet a few so called "fundamentalist christians" want to end that hope. Save this Geron wikipedia page, those who have requested the deletion, are a minority few wacko cult members.

Keep. Needs an impartial view to check it over, but obviously meets notability requirements. Nuttah68 09:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have made contributions to other wikipedia articles; this is my first to Geron's. Much of the information is factual, some controversial but is looks like the controversy is well discussed. Geron is certainly a notable company if only because of the controversy. It deserves an entry in wikipedia.Jrm2007 10:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously the holy warriors would like to see this science go away. Maybe we should change the solar system wiki to show that the sun orbits the earth.

Keep. If Geron is to be deleted then you might as well just delete Wikipedia. Geron has the cure for cancer. It is under attack by people who do not understand Stem Cell research which is another totally separate business line at Geron. I have seen Geron repeatedly attacked by liars that claim Geron kills babies and such. There is no biblical basis against Stem Cell research. And even if Stem Cells are derived from discarded embryos (in which even those embryos are not harmed) this moral issue, if there is one, should be why there are so many discarded embryos at fertility clinics (1/2 of a million), and not how using stem cells extracted from them can cure most diseases. Regardless of the basis for the ignorant attackers of Geron, politically motivated attacks against an entry, should not be allowed at wikipedia. Suppressing information, particularly the truth is rather Orwellian and the hallmark of a totalitarian state.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stellavista[edit]

Can't verify Square Enix connection. Unrelated LED manufacturer is probably not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. Plinth molecular gathered 22:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One sentance, fails WP:N. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 03:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a South African LED manufacturer named Stellavista, when I searched for +Stellavista +LED -wikipedia. However, it's nothing to do with that ex Squareenix person. Also, I can't find any independent reliable sources for the corporation from those results, likely to fail WP:CORP.--Alasdair 03:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, surely a cromulent stub must contain information about what a company does, not just who founded it. Wikipedia is not a business registrar. --Dhartung | Talk 03:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. almost devoid of content DaveApter 17:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability. Carlosguitar 01:05, 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. Singu larity 04:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salem Witches' Institute[edit]

This detail was mentioned once in the entire series. This article could never be expanded beyond what it is now. Even if the author were to give more detail in the future, still not important enough to exist as an independent article. Christopher 05:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an off-hand mention doesn't deserve an article. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Already mentioned in other Harry Potter articles, so no need to merge. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 22:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. -- Jelly Soup 22:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is not encyclopedic, and it is a stub that is too small and unreferenced, and that probably will not change over time. LOZ: OOT 22:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of real world notability Corpx 04:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. n-n per nom.DaveApter 17:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — no real-world context. Harry Potter Wiki already has an article on this, so no need to transwiki. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:16, 19 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 00:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes Ashley[edit]

Non-notable person. Porn actress with only the thinnest of assertions to notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Valrith 22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Man It's So Loud In Here 22:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 22:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:14, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 23:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wausau Center[edit]

Non-notable mall. Has remained almost entirely the same since creation, fails WP:N and WP:RS.

I am also nominating the redirect:

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The shopping center is not notable. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 22:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most mall articles on here aren't really notable either, but I haven't seen them tagged for deletion. Maybe this article could be improved a bit?--jonrev 22:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists is rarely a good argument. I've tried to improve this article, but there's nothing more to be said about it than "it's a mall in downtown Wausau, Wisconsin and it has these anchors". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wausau, Wisconsin, while not enough for an individual article, it is worth mentionning for this city as it is an important mall for the area.--JForget 00:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wausau, Wisconsin. I looked at this article in the past, once, too, and was unable to find much more of interest than what is already here. A redirect to Wausau, Wisconsin#Wausau Center might be reasonable, and it would be a shame to lose the photo here (which is a photo of Wausau, after all) simply because this article is deleted. If someday significantly more info comes forth, it could be re-spun to its own article. Skybunny 15:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It is a regional mall with 429,970 square feet of gross leasable area. I found humdrum coverage of the mall and of events at the mall, but most papers demand payments to see the full article. A typical article from 1993 says that " Wausau Center, an enclosed downtown mall, has at least 60 stores." A St. Paul MN paper from 1989 chronicles the mall as a center of dispute over costs to the city vs economic benefits to the county. The AP wire mentioned it was for sale in 1999 [2]. It seems to be somewhat notable because of crime, if nothing else. Someone beat up the Easter Bunny at the mall [3] and this story was picked up by Fox News.Robbers in 1993 stole the Salvation Army red kettle [4]. In 1993 the police called it a gang hangout [5]. The mall outlawed bandanas in 2001 to discourage gangs. The mall tried to use classical music to drive off the gang members [6] "MALL HOPES CLASSICAL MUSIC WILL DRIVE OFF RUDE TEEN-AGERS," St. Paul Pioneer Press - NewsBank - Jun 16, 1993. So it sounds like a better-sourced than average mall article could be written. This does not say it has any special historic or architectural importance, or commercial importance beyond other regional malls, which have had a mixed record with respect to being kept in AFDs. Edison 18:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good job, Edison. Please add them to the article. I'm usually skeptical of mall articles, but if they all had this kind of sourcing it would be another matter. Controversies over relations with the community are encyclopedia-worthy content. DGG (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aren't stories like the Salvation Army kettle being stolen or the Easter Bunny being beaten up incidents that aren't necessarily notable to the mall at all? You can see how if you actually have a sentence in this article that says 'In 1993, robbers stole a Salvation Army red kettle' isn't really...notable even within the context of a theoretical mall article itself. Crime happens in malls. Gang problems are probably not terribly unique to Wausau Center, but more a problem in large malls in general, depending on the locale.

(above...) This does not say it has any special historic or architectural importance, or commercial importance beyond other regional malls... ...this is why I believe a merge is the right thing to do, lacking more. For an example of a regional mall that seems to survive AFD criteria, have a look at Valley Fair Shopping Center, which is being torn down as this is written, and yet probably has more than enough to survive deletion. I'm still not convinced Wausau Center does. It needs more meat, like history, ownership, quotable public lauding or criticism of the complex...famous firsts...something. I would much prefer to see references to the 'possible sale' and the 'costs to the city versus benefits' here, than 'someone stole the red kettle'. If there were several of those, which can put together a mall history, I would be more inclined to support keeping this article. Skybunny 15:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that the sources we are readily able to access (even in snip view, without paying some newspaper $3 to see a story) tend to cover "news" rather than substantial analysis of "history, ownership, quotable public lauding or criticism of the complex...famous firsts" which are apt to be found in ICSC publications ($$subscription), and in industry publications ($$subscription), that are harder to find or to read. It seems unlikely that a multibillion dollar industry does not analyze its own substance, with discussions of successful and unsuccessful malls, good and poor siting choices, good or poor management, successful and unsuccessful renovations, and special problems such as the hints of a crime problem found for this one (I think my town's gangs would eat alive the bandanna wearing, bunny bopping, kettle stealing classical music haters which seem to be the bane of Wausau Center, yet we have successful malls nearby with no such problems). It is really an issue for the Mall Project to get volunteers with academic library access or access to industry subscription publications to beef up these articles and to separate the wheat from the chaff. Edison 16:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fail to see any reason for notability in the article. It is a run of the mill mall. Vegaswikian 02:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being non notable. No sources are given and those so far found are rather trivial news stories, the majority of which the mall plays no part other than being a location. Nuttah68 09:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can come up with some sort of assertion of notability. Is it significantly different than average mall? Is "429,970 square feet" which "displaced eight city blocks" significantly larger than the thousands of other malls across the nation? Or was it built on an Indian Burial Ground and named after the tribe or the famous "Chief Wausau"? Or perhaps was it built on a swamp that was a former battle ground in the French Canadian Wars where many valiant soldiers of the Wausau Battalion perished? Or perhaps is it on the site of Fort Wausau which was the first fort in the northern plains? Or, shifting gears, is the mall perhaps the host of the largest number of crafts kiosks, and underwrites the nation's largest crafts and antiques show? These are the sort of things I think would be indicative of notability for a shopping center, providing a wonderful supply of primary and secondary sources, as required for notability for organizations and such. Sorry, but I'm just not seeing anything yet that can be defended on the firm grounds of notability. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 14:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some good thoughts there on what couod make a mall notable. Being built on a historic site would not qualify something for its own article. If a mall were on the site of the an historic battle or notable cemetary that would rate a sentence in the article on the battle or cemetary, unless the mall was otherwise notable, or unless the questionable use of the historic site got lots of press coverage. There are a non-notable strip mall, a non-notable police station, and a non-notable campus of a notable college built on the site of a notable defunct amusement park called Riverview Park.Edison 15:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Thanks - but my (attempted) point was not so much that if the mall might have been built on a historic site, then that in and of itself would have made it notable per se, but that this sort of historical cross-reference would be presumably well documented with secondary sources, which would improve notability; and even more so it could be boosted on the notability scale if the mall was actually named after a historically significant and notable person, place, event, etc. It is sort of like the old notability guidelines for WP:SCHOOL, which I still refer to from time to time when trying to decide if the new Jones Elementary School in Tippewajaraville, Mississippi is notable enough to keep. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 16:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Wausau, Wisconsin. I don't see anything about this that makes it notable beyond being a local mall. The news coverage listed in one of the comments isn't so much about the mall as it is about events that happen to occur at the mall. JCO312 18:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do not know what is notable.Harlowraman 20:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A second vote would be Weak Merge to Wausau, Wisconsin. The Mall is not too notable. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 22:02, 22 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. bibliomaniac 15 23:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teenwag[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Totally non-notable company. Obviously an advertizement. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 22:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, either {{db-repost}} or {{db-spam}}, your choice. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks media coverage Addhoc 23:36, 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 Speedy delete as spam, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MARKETiN[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account (User:Marketin) with no other edits other than related to MARKETiN. Hu12 22:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Hu12 22:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please give a reason why -- this is consensus, not a vote. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reason per my nomination:)--Hu12 22:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't catch that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete {{db-spam}} is the best choice I can think of. Clearly COI spam. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:19, 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. Kurykh 00:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maritz Inc.[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP and WP:COI. Also the IP edits are registered to Maritz Inc. Was deleted twice under WP:CSD#A7 and prod. Hu12 22:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Hu12 22:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, written like a WP:SPAM. Carlosguitar 09:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. If someone cleans it up and provides some sources (which surely exist for a 100 yo notable company?) I'll reconsider. Nuttah68 09:32, 20 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 nonsense, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Johnson (conductor)[edit]

Text is clearly nonsense and has no obvious relation to the subject of the article (which is not clear either). The author has removed Speedy Delete and PROD tags but made no serious attempt to justify the article. DanielRigal 22:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G1 (or A1, take your pick). Deor 22:14, 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. Moreschi ^Talk 14:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt Mall[edit]

Non-notable strip mall in Philly. No notability even asserted; fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability at all, no important information worth merging. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 22:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication it is important beyond the neighborhood it serves, and no sources to satisfy WP:N. Strip malls have generally not survived AFD unless they have some unusual things going for them to show they are more notable than the average strip mall. Edison 23:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article for Northeast Philadelphia. To call it a strip mall is perhaps misleading. The Roosevelt Mall is as large as a regular mall, it just lacks a roof. If it were simply a strip of stores along an avenue, I'd vote to delete, but as the major commercial area for Northeast Philly, it is somewhat more important. People have tried to kill this article before, and I can't hold off the deletionist tide forever, but I think some of the info in the article should be preserved in some form. Coemgenus 10:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How large is a "regular mall?" How large is this mall? I could not find a source. What the article needs is a source stating the gross leasable area which is the gold standard for classifying U.S. malls. Otherwise discussions of size are just an exercise in hand-waving. Edison 19:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't been able to find an answer either. Here's a map of the area. [7] I'd say it's more than a half mile long, but how much of that is leasable space, I can't say. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not against getting rid of a separate article; I'd just like to preserve some of the info in the Northeast Philadelphia article, which mentions the mall already. Coemgenus 19:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This page lists this strip at 560,439 square feet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The number of parking spaces sounds a bit small for that much GLA. Edison 04:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if there is sourcing. this is a regular size mall, with a similar number of stores and layout. For Philadelphia, even this sort of a mall is notable, though it was fairly grimy last time I saw it a few years ago. I think there's enough to keep. DGG (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fail to see how its location and the bus routes serving it make it notable. Vegaswikian 02:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some attempt to establish notability is made. Nuttah68 09:35, 20 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 00:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golden East Crossing[edit]

Non-notable small mall in North Carolina, fails WP:RS. Only 500K square feet, no sources, no claims to notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are some discrepant numbers. The source quoted by the nominator says the Gross leasable area is only 219,057 square feet, but the same source says the "retail square feet" equals 583.183. These terms have sometimes been used interchangeably. Another source [8] says Total Gross Leasable Area (GLA) : 1,633,000, Total Gross Leasable Area Post Expansion : 584,176 . So by the largest figure it would be a super-regional mall, but by the smallest it would be less than a regional. The last source calls it "eastern North Carolina's dominant shopping center." which is something of a claim to notability, even if it comes from the management and is not independent. Is there an ISCA directory with some kind of official numbers, or a way to reconcile the figures? Edison 00:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 1,633,000 figure inclues outparcels. Judging by the mall map and number of stores, even if it were 1/3 vacant it couldn't possibly be more than 500K-ish. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article asserts notability. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Vegaswikian 02:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources establishing notability are provided. Nuttah68 09:40, 20 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. Moreschi ^Talk 15:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Authenticism[edit]

"Authenticism" is Tim Saunders' personal "theory" about the arguments regarding the orthography of Revived Cornish. Whathojeeves is quite evidently Mr Saunders. That user has been vandalizing regularly the pages of people who are active in the Cornish Language debate but with whom he disagrees. Every one of this user's edits has been in bad faith as is this article. I recommend speedy delete. -- Evertype·✆ 21:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and warn user per nom. Obvious disruption of Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~speedy~~ Delete per nom--Hu12 22:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)speedy part of vote was struck, delete was kept per DuncanHill comment. --Hu12 22:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have no intention whatsoever of supporting or opposing the deletion of this article, but as the user who first welcomed Whathojeeves to Wikipedia, I do feel this debate should not be excessively speedied until s/he has had a chance to contribute to the debate. DuncanHill 22:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment especially as the nominator is one of the authors of the paper criticised. DuncanHill 22:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Authenticism, used in this sense, is a neologism, intended to be offensive to those to whom it is applied. I hope that the editor who generated this article may find a way to reconcile themselves to the consequences of the recogition of Cornish as a European Minority Language and the possibility that all parties will be reconciled to an official "standard" written Cornish. If this can happen, then there could be thousands rather than hundreds of fluent speakers and a blossoming of Cornish culture. . . . BTW, User:Evertype has identified himself on his userpage and is not the author of any of the papers criticised. I hope (probably in vain) for a constructive comment from User:Whathojeeves Vernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 22:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - author Michael Everson is identified as one of the Authors of the Kernowak paper criticised in the nominated article, see this link [9] on page xiii. DuncanHill 23:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (again) - Oh Yes, apologies - Whatho faces a rather broad opposition, doesn't he - there are 21 "authentic" signatories. Michael Everson also typeset the document (a nightmare task, I would think!). However, as I understand it, from another signatory, no-one has any intention of forcing anyone to abandon their mode of speech or adopting an irrational alternative. Anyway, "Authenticism" is a neologism, unless you are referring to the instrumentation of ancient music. It's not in OED and sounds a bit Klingon.Vernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 23:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment I have actually seen "authenticism" used in language-related discourse, in a similar sense to that suggested in the article (though it was in relation to the languages of former-Soviet Central Asia), and in poetry criticism in relation to writing only about direct-experience, however please do not anyone construe this as being a "keep" or a "delete"! I really don't want to get into the rights and wrongs of the Cornish Language revival movement(s). Got enough trouble in my life already. DuncanHill 23:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ah. Michael is busily trying to suppress yet another idea with which he disagrees. This does rather tend to confirm a recent analysis of authenticist ideology on Cornwall24. Even if 'authenticism' *were* a neologism, Vernon's progression to support for suppression would be a non-sequitur. Not quite sure what Vernon means about 'Klingon', a tongue with which I'm unacquainted. Whathojeeves 23:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox for your theories, Tim. You invented this term "Authenticism" to try to belittle those people in the Cornish Revival who are opposed to Kernewek Kemmyn. this "term" is not found in the literature or any other source apart from your own postings to Cornwall24. -- Evertype·✆ 07:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Vernon - you'll probably catch this tomorrow - are you on principle opposed to neologisms? If a word's non-neologistic statement is demonstrated, will you withdraw your objection to it? If not, then could you explain what in fact is the gravamen of your apparent support for Everson's attempt at suppression of dissent from his ideas? (By the way, Nicholas Williams, the main proponent of Authenticism, is on record as wishing to do away with Modern Cornish as spoken by the overwhelming majority of Cornish-speakers in Cornwall. That is why this article is important, and why agrreing to delete it will be tanatmount to aligning Wikipedia with an anti-humanist ideology). Whathojeeves 00:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Williams is not a "proponent of Authenticism". Only Tim uses this word. -- Evertype·✆ 07:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just one more thing (as Lt. Columbo used to say) ... since the exponents of Authenticism insist that (undefined) 'authenticity' is the chief criterion for their acceptance of any variety of our language, it follows that to describe them as Authenticists can hardly be offensive. Nos da! Whathojeeves 00:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but probably rename/move/combine. The article seems to be based largely on recent material by the eminent poet Tim Saunders. While many others share his views he has the unfortunate habit of using his own ideosyncratic terminology which can be confusing. E.g. "Modern Cornish" = 'Cornish as used by most people today' = Kernewek Kemmyn, whereas generally "Modern Cornish" means some variety of Revived Late Cornish (used by a small clique). I will comment further when I've had time to study the article more fully. The topic is without doubt notable within the current debate around Revived Cornish. It may have wider relevance as similar disagreements are likely to arise whenever a language is revived/reinvigorated, and there are many such projects being initiated at present. See Language revival although the list on that page is far from complete. Evertype is extremely partisan in this matter, indeed he is the main publisher/propagandist for the authenticist faction. Mongvras 02:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I doubt very much that you can establish "notability". Saunders uses the term to try to pigeonhole and discredit people who disagree with Ken George and his orthography. -- Evertype·✆ 07:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment While I agree that the article in its present form violates a number of Wikipedia's rules, especially through personal attacks and the use of idiosyncratic terminology, the ideological underpinnings of the Cornish Spelling Debate, alledged or real do merit mention. They should be put in a proper context and the article renamed. "Authenticism" seems too general a term to me. I would rather like to see this as part of an article about the Spelling Debate. The question is if this can be done in a way more in line with the general policy of Wikipedia. --Pokorny
    - Is that a Keep but rename vote Pokorny? Mongvras 18:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Saunders' amusing article is merely a projection of his paranoia. By using the term 'Modern Cornish' in a way not understood by most people (apparently applying it to a form of Cornish based on the pronounciation of 1500!) he is deliberately trying to obfuscate. Either that or he clearly doesn't understand the sources he cites. And I thought his 'authenticists' (which by right is a term that should be applied to all Cornish revivalists - the spelling preferred by the Cornish Language Board was adopted 'for the sake of the authenticity of the language' (Ray Edwards, Kernewek dre lyther: Kynsa Gradh, Sutton Coldfield, 1994, p.iii) had agreed on a consensual spelling for Cornish called Kernowak Standard. Jan penrose 08:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to the above Tim uses Modern Cornish in the same way people use Modern English or Modern Welsh, to mean the language that most people use today, cf Wella Brown's A Grammar of Modern Cornish. Unfortunatly this term is ambiguous and something like Revived Middle Cornish would be clearer. By authenticists he means those who believe modern writers should slavishly follow the spelling practices of the mediaeval and Tudor source texts, even though such an orthography is poorly suited to the needs of modern users. The other side, the great majority of teachers especially, believe that Cornish should have a modern, largely phonemic orthography, equivalent to those used by Breton and Welsh. The reason for this is to help modern learners attain an authentic pronunciation. Hence the term authentic here is also ambiguous, it's all a question of what kind of authenticity, spoken or written you feel is most important. This is an important issue, one that is not confined to Cornish. I believe it is notable, but I'm not sure how to fix the terminology. The advice of other editors is sought. As far as KS goes, this is simply an experimental prototype devised by Everson and his associates in an attempt to unite several dissident factions so as to be able to mount a challenge to the KK majority. So far it seems only to have further confused matters. Mongvras 21:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The normal term is "Revived Cornish". The word "modern" is nothing but confusing, particularly as Richard Gendall used the term for "Revived Late Cornish". Of course this was pointed out years ago to Tim, who persists in using it because it annoys people. How odd, Keith, that you should defend Tim's characterization of us because we "slavishly follow" medieval and Tudor source texts, when KK "slavishly follows" George's "reconstruction" of Middle Cornish of 1500, and since you reject genuine Cornish features like pre-occlusion as "a speech impediment" because they are later than 1500. As far as KS goes, Keith, it is not an experimental prototype. It is a proposed orthography which has succeeded in uniting UC, RLC, and UCR users -- as well as some KK users though you will try to deny it. It is the Kesva which remains outside of consensus. Your calling us "dissident" is part of your own propaganda. Maybe you do believe that the Kesva "owns" the Cornish Revival. That doesn't make it so. -- Evertype·✆ 07:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you read my comment you'll see that I am in fact agreeing with you over the confusing use of Modern Cornish. Kesva an Taves Kernewek/The Cornish Language Board is the established body representing and governing Revived Cornish although there are other smaller break-away groups that promote other versions of Revived Cornish. They not only disagree with the Kesva, they usually disagree with each other. KS is simply a proposal advanced to promote discussion, the draft report of the Linguistic Working Group say as much. It is by no means certain that it has the full support of all the break-away groups. Indeed Dick Gendall has described it as crap as we all know. None of which has anything to do with the value of this article. Most of your comments belong on the talk page, if and when the article is retained and we begin the task of Wikifying it. Mongvras 22:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User:Jan penrose account created 07.51 on the 16th Aug 2007, only edits are to this debate, and are copy-edited by Evertype. Accusations of paranoia are hardly a civilized way to conduct a debate. As to the original nom, if Evertype has seen vandalism, why has he never issued a vandalism warning to Whathojeeves or made any attempt to engage with him on his talk page? This so-called debate is in my opinion demonstrating all that is worst about both Wikipedia and the Cornish Language revival movement(s) (a movement which to this interested observer, seems to alternate between navel-gazing and playground squabbling and name-calling). As far as I can see, both the nominator and Whathojeeves have behaved less than properly on Wikipedia, and if their intent is to destroy what credibility the Cornish Language revival has in the eyes of the world, they are both doing a proper job of it. DuncanHill 10:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment So what's the vandalism warning supposed to look like today? It's so much work to trying and tag every vandalism compared to just reverting it.--Prosfilaes 13:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Answered For those users who don't know, the set of vandalism warning templates can be found at WP:TT. DuncanHill 13:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't know who User:Jan Penrose is and the copy edits had to do with formatting trivia. I have not engaged with Mr Saunders on his talk page because of two years' of pointless discussion with him on other forums. -- Evertype·✆ 07:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Massively POV attack page. Arguably it could be moved to a name that people on both sides could agree on and fixed to be non-POV...but (a) that would be a new page, and one that could be created whether or not we delete this one and (b) I don't see why the basic concept couldn't be merged into Cornish (nothing from this article is worth preserving.)--Prosfilaes 13:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Although Authenticism as a hypothesis is defunct, that is no reason for deleting this article about it. Compare the articles on Scholasticism and on the Phlogiston Theory, both discredited, but worthy of a place in Wikipedia. Morgowlez 18:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you're voting keep could you please say so clearly, meur ras.Mongvras 21:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I am saying keep. Morgowlez 20:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Morgowlez has made no edits but the above. -- Evertype·✆ 07:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If Authenticism as a hypothesis is defunct, then there's every reason in the world for deleting this article, since it's on a subject that's clearly not defunct and thus is a POV attack page taking up a spot needed by a real article.--Prosfilaes 12:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regardless of the proper approach to the orthography of this language, the term is a neologism in this particular context, the article is exceptional POV, and it should be removed so that possibly a proper article about the general use of the term can be written by someone else.,DGG (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think this is simply a matter of naming. I don't doubt that Authenticism has some more general meaning within some field or other. Furthermore afaik in the present context it is only used in this way by the page's originator and by Tim Saunders, a person notable for linguistic innovation. In the present context we are concerned solely with Linguistic Authenticism which I think is a worthy subject for inclusion here. The Cornish material can then act as a stub until information about parallel cases is provided. To aid this a few lines and a link should be added to the Language revival page. That would be a constructive way to treat this material and build WP. I admit I cannot understand why so many people are willing to come in and support Evertype in his desire to trash this article. It's not as if he doesn't have quite a track record for deleting anything he doesn't personally agree with, and his interest here is plain to see. Mongvras 00:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Duncan, I'm grateful to you for your interest, but think that your description of most of the discourse on this page as 'debate' is more than a little over-optimistic. Mongvras' support is welcome, of course, although I would beg to differ from him on one or two details, but as for the rest ... oh *dear*! Vernon at least went through the motions of consulting somebody who agreed with him before trotting out his knee-jerk reaction (to mix metaphors horribly!), while the others have, it is transparently obvious, fired off a received opinion with such glibness that no fact, it is plain, could divert them. ¶ Do you remember that rhyme about Benjamin Jowett? It finishes 'I am the Master of the College,/ If I do not know it, it is not knowledge.' That is, to a certain extent, the problem with which we are contending. It has always astounded me how the Cornish language, sosmall and vulnerable, can excite so much fervent hostility amongst people to whome it could never be practically relevant, let alone any kind of threat. However, this is a subject for a careful analysis, when this present nonsense is over. For the timebeing, we are in the position of the legendary creature of which it was said 'Cet animal est très méchant: quand on l'attaque, il ce défend.' Our forebearance has been so extreme as to be culpable, and we have let ourselves be blustered to the edge of a disaster. Happily, we have recoiled and the Authenticists are about to see all their ambitions frustrated. For the time being, then, since you've been so considerate I'd like to put a few points to you. ¶ Firstly, 'Authenticists' is only one of the more printable terms for the clutch of groupuscules variously named (with differing degrees of inaccuracy and unfairness) 'Ninja's Gang', 'The Institute Clique', or 'Fascists'. The latter expression I particularly condemn, since, although they collectively exhibit an exagerrated authoritarianism, and although the disparate elements of their ragbag of ideas would, in coherent combination, be highly dangerous, none of them is, as far as I know, a fascist. Since their thought is formulated by several people, and since they make a certain existential 'authenticity' their touchstone, 'Authenticism' seems a preferable term to denote their ideology. Suppressing it will only make the use of other, less neutral terms, more likely. If you, Duncan, have a better expression than 'Authenticism', then by all means please share it with us. ¶ Michael Everson's attempt to suppress the expression of ideas distasteful to him is not surprising. The Authenticists, after all, have form for this. Perhaps, after the humiliating disappointment they suffered over the attempt to suppress the native edition of 'Bywnans Ke', they wish to gain the odd little victory here and there. In a way, I was slightly disappointed that he was so slow in his attempt to suppress the article. ¶ More alarming then Michael's drearily predictable vituperations, however, is the readiness with which people in the Wikipedia environment seem to have swallowed the constantly-reiterated falsehoods. The readiness with which people rush to condemn something of which, it is transparently and painfully obvious, they have no knowledge, is frightening. It is also highly embarrassing. For some time now, I have been championing the cause of Wikipedia, representing it as incapable of the sort of mendacity whereby a certain reference work described Kurt Waldheim as having served in the Austrian Army, and being a student when in fact he was a military intelligence officer. Wikipedia, I said, was a rational and democratic system quite free from the mendacity and the wilful obtuseness of the academic world. Friends of mine, on the other hand, insisted that, whatever it potential, Wikipedia was too vulnerable to the obsessive and the bully. On the showing of this page so far, I shall have to admit that my friends were right and I was wrong. ¶ Take care, Duncan: I wish you very well indeed. Whathojeeves 23:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I nominated this article for deletion because Wikipedia is not a soapbox for pet theories, and "Authenticism" in the context of the Cornish Revival is Tim Saunders' attempt to "classify" people who dislike George's orthography -- and orthography which Saunders himself doesn't use. It is not encyclopaedic. -- Evertype·✆ 07:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This screed doesn't help you one bit. Please avoid personal attacks on Michael Everson and other people. Please try not to bring your disagreements here; WP:NPOV asks for an attempt to state neutrally the issues, not pushing your position. WP:NPOV means that the article should at least state their view in a way that they would feel is fair, even if you also state the view of their critics fairly. Most articles on groups of people, with an eye to WP:NPOV, spend most of the time describing their stated position and their documented actions, giving only a quick statement of criticism from diametrically opposed groups, putting their stated positions on their page. If you had followed these guidelines, then we probably would be a lot less sympathetic to Michael Everson here.--Prosfilaes 14:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails the Google test impressively: including "Cornish" in the search returns a single page of references, some of which are manifestly not relevant. By contrast, a search on "authenticism" by itself returns 3000+ results. I don't see any evidence that this isn't something someone just made up. Mangoe 20:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As stated above, I feel such an action would be too extreme. The title clearly needs qualification and I have already suggested Linguistic Authenticism. I have sought advice but received nothing constructive. I believe a useful and informative article can result if the existing material is used as a kernal and its field of reference widened. Is there some way of bringing other linguists into the discussion? Mongvras 22:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Zounds, Keith. Williams and I are real linguists but you reject everything we say because it doesn't suit you. -- Evertype·✆ 22:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, because your conclusions do not follow logically from the data, as I and others have demonstrated ad nausiam in other places. All of which is in any case OT here. Mongvras 23:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One comfort is the the time and energy that ME is wasting on this blatant attempt at censorship isn't going into far more harmful activities.

Well, no point in trying to argue a case before a blatantly nobbled jury! This issue isn't going away, and it'll be Wikipedia's loss if it isn't dicussed here. Martesen, gwell dhyn dysputya hymma oll war ann Wikipedi y'gan yeith ni - ni a'vydh yn-maes a dhrehaedh ann gwas 'na yna, pan na'woer ev gworra un lavar anydhi war-barth! Whathojeeves 23:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Which being interpreted means Perhaps we ought to argue all of this in the WP in our own language ([[10]] ??) -- ?We won't have to suffer that fellow there/then? since he can't put a single sentence of Cornish together. Mongvras 23:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There was one other thing ... I can't help feeling that there are some interesting comparisons - and contrasts, of course - between some of the Authenticist attitudesm and the ideas of some of the proponents of Katharevousa. Whathojeeves 23:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is WP:OR, and not to be published on Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes 12:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is an English-language Wikipedia, so debate should be in English. In my opinion, both Evertype and Whathojeeves could benefit from reading WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, and a whole host of other policies and guidance. Both might also be interested in engaging constructively with other editors through Wikiproject Cornwall. Perhaps gaining a wider perspective on WP's coverage of Cornwall could help them both learn to engage more constructively with each other and with the broader community, something which I feel would be of benefit to all. DuncanHill 23:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep this article. It provides a useful summary of the current position, To delete it would smack of censorshp. I agree with an earlier comment, that the writer needs to tidy up his or her nomneclature a bit to make it easier for the general reader to understand Zanzibar34 12:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; This is Zanzibar34's only edit.--Prosfilaes 12:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, Korais himself seems to have had some reasonable enough ideas, according to a book about him I once read. Perhaps the Katharevousa-Dhimotiki dichotomy is an over-simplification - Greek friends sometimes offer up to five variants on a simple sentence. The central point, however, is that contemporary and recent usage was rejected as inauthentic, with deleterious effects on speakers' intelligence and morals. Recapturing the language of a specified past will be a means of recapturing the its mentality. This has certainly been a constant theme in the writings of the Steam Authenticists, but I feel a certain caution before ascribing such a modality simpliciter to the Tudor Authenticists. With them, recapturing the language of a specified past seems and end in itself. NJAW's An Testament Noweth, for example, is a tour de force in which the somewhat macaronic language of the Tudor clergy is recreated with astounding conviction. Whathojeeves 21:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PoI NJAW = Nicholas Williams who devised the UCR (Unified Cornish Revised) orthography around ten years ago. Almost all publications in this system are by Williams himself. Mongvras 00:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a point I'd considered, but is certainly an important one. The earlier (or 'Steam' Authenticist tendency, who advocated an Early Modern (c. 1600-1850) base for the Recent Modern (post-1850) language were certainly not a one-man band, although obviously Dick Gendall's work was the most eminent. The Steam Authenticists might have been in the running had they devoted to promoting Cornish the time and energy squandered on attacking the other tendencies. (I've seen literally hundreds of letters from them to offical bodies and funding sources of all kinds). The Tudor Authenticists would have needed not only to do this, but also to become someting more than a one-man band. We cannot but regret NJAW's decision to deprive us of the Cornish poems he might have written by indulging in vitriolic and highly repetitive polemic in English. It also occurs to me that the Authenticist attitude to Modern [n.b. in its normal] Cornish is intriguingly similar to that of some of the Haskalah crew to post-Biblical Hebrew. But it's getting late, so we can come back to this again. Suffice it to say that Authenticism is not an attitude confined to our language. Whathojeeves 21:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC) A[reply]

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

Mes hwath yth eson ni omma! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.217.112 (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guerrilla Geography[edit]

"A form of activist geography". When removing the prod, an anon said "references can be provided; instead focus on whether or not topic is wiki worthy". To which I say: without the refs we must assume the concept is non-notable and therefore not wiki worthy. -- RHaworth 21:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no source, no wiki. hateless 22:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - interesting but non-notable and unverified. I'm tempted to say "probably fringe"--Cailil ^talk 23:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally unsourced and no sign of notability. Nuttah68 09:49, 20 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 00:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott H. Duncan[edit]

Article fails Notability. Fired from his position in an already small media market. Gte893m 21:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about the subject. Whilst article has some content and links these do not do anything to support a valid encyclopaedic entry Dick G 00:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per very narrow scope of notability Corpx 04:14, 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. — Scientizzle 15:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zoomerang.com[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, and WP:SPAM. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Zoomerang.com. Hu12 21:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ --Hu12 22:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)changed to abstain Hu12 05:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
Nevermind, I realize you're the nominator. You did give a reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam (G11), so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has been cleaned up some but still looks a bit spammy. Seems to pass WP:CORP at least now, with some decent sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 04:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, you forgot to put the AfD tag on the article itself. I fixed that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks for fixing that.--Hu12 22:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up/remove all non-neutral info. This company is popular among small businesses, schools, non-profits, etc. that need to run online marketing surveys on the cheap. The company gets reported on a lot in trade journals in articles about how to do market research. Crypticfirefly 02:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleared out some of the dross, added a few references in addition to the company's own website. Crypticfirefly 03:15, 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 Speedy Delete. Hu12 21:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weston crawford[edit]

Page was just created, but it's clear that some kid has created a Wikipedia page about himself. The "I love Courtney" part of the creation page is a dead giveaway. - Smashville 21:34, 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 merge and redirect to The Stage Names. KrakatoaKatie 16:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus Ones[edit]

Does not fulfill any of Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Songs criteria. Not charted, not a single, it's just a track with some references to other songs. Mahanga^Talk 21:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely does not fit notability requirements for music. Anarchia 21:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Stage Names. Precious Roy 14:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Stage Names. The information is important to the theme of the album but doesn't deserve its own page. L4ck 0f 54n17y 15:05, 20 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. Walton^One 16:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jörundur svavarsson[edit]

Marine biology professor who doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF. Clearly nothing in the article to prove that he does, and a quick search doesn't turn up anything. I can't exactly read Icelandic though, so there might be something there. fuzzy510 21:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PROF, not much info in article anyway. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 22:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as of now, its just directory information and I do not see a reason to keep in the current state Corpx 04:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG below Corpx 04:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we're judging the subject, not the article. Apparently neither the nom nor the commentators above bothered to even look at the web page--or at least look carefully enough to see that there is an English version as well as one in Icelandic (as is almost always the case for scientists). He's published 20 papers in the last 5 years alone, many in first rate international journals, such as American Naturalist and Journal of Natural History. He studies primarily Crustacea, and the literature tends to be very specialized, so I don;t expect much in Web of Science, but looking there I see 49 peer-reviewed papers total, with the most cited having been cited 39, 37, 33, 29, 27 times, which is in my opinion excellent for the subject. 13 papers cited 11 or more times, again very good for a subject like this. This much citation shows wide recognition as an expert by his fellow specialists, as judged by third party peer reviewed reliable sources, and thus meets WP:PROF. It isn't absolutely always true, but a full professor at a university will have generally published a good deal, and if a "quick search" doesn't find it, there's reason to go further. DGG (talk) 01:39, 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. Kurykh 00:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stax Inc.[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP and WP:NOT. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Stax Inc. Hu12 21:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. This article just isn't notable. I'd be willing to support a keep if the article could get some information to make it notable. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 21:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then use as redirect to Stax Records. Otto4711 13:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Stax Records isn't known aa Stax Inc. then that would not be a useful redirect. The two seem unrelated. Leebo ^T/C 14:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a logical possible search term. I don't really care whether it's established as a redirect or not. The article there now should be deleted regardless. Otto4711 19:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is nothing establishing notability in the article. If that changes I'll reconsider. Nuttah68 09:58, 20 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 failure of WP:CORP and WP:COI. KrakatoaKatie 16:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L.E.K. Consulting[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account(s) with no other edits other than related to L.E.K. Consulting. Was speedied three times under WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7. Hu12 21:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.--Hu12 21:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- no references demonstrating notability. 774 unique Google hits. --A. B. ^(talk) 23:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was going to propose this for deletion too, since the article appears to be created solely for the purpose of adding "wikilinkspam" to other articles (as opposed to external link spam). =Axlq 05:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That's funny - I get just over 58 000 unique google hits for "L.E.K Consulting" in quotes [11] . Some of those google hits say that the company has won the Queen's Award for Enterprise (see:[12]) awarded by Queen Elizabeth II on her birthday, heeding the advice of the Prime Minister and others. It is described as the UK's most prestigious business award. (official site: [13]) Other results suggest the company is notable in other respects as well. It has advised government bodies like the Strategic Rail Authority (here is a House of Lords transcript just for starters [14] ) as well as several famous companies. I'm not familiar with the business press, so it may be difficult for me to analyse such sources. I submit that if the company is notable enough for Her Majesty, it is notable enough for an article in Wikipedia :-) --TreeKittens 06:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- consider also the 5 seperate Spam WP:SPA WP:SPAM only accounts and IP's noted in the WikiProject Spam Case mentioned above.--Hu12 07:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hu12 - I'm sure you have done excellent work uncovering spam at Wikiproject:spam, but may I suggest that you change your nomination? A google news search [15] clearly shows that this company passes WP:NOTABILITY and WP:CORP. The Queen's Award for Enterprise alone clearly show that it not a candidate for WP:CSD#G11 or WP:CSD#A7. A google books search [16] and a google scholar search [17] add to this perception. I don't see how the article content violates WP:NOT, and I don't really see that any of the internal links created by the accounts you mention are at all problematic - they are all fair edits in my opinion, added to relevant articles and should probably not have been reverted. Naturally only administrators can see the deleted contributions. Conflict of interest is a major concern, but WP:COI is not grounds for deletion. Furthermore, WP:SPAM suggests that deletion is a last resort if attempts to edit the article to comply with WP:NPOV have failed. I see no evidence of this. The article can easily be edited to comply with all our policies and guidelines. Deleting verifiable information on a notable topic because of a user conduct issues goes against the project's main goals, in my opinion. Again, I congratulate you on your work but request a more convincing deletion rationale. Best regards --TreeKittens 10:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - First the WP:SPAM accounts. WP:COI. It is quite evident that the accounts and IP are only contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote L.E.K. Consulting. Two of the 5 WP:SPA accounts do not publicly show contribs, so I'll explain. Agentpanda (talk · contribs) created the fist version (Only contributor not including tags added), Sebvan (talk · contribs) created the second (Only contributor not including tags added), Kid291uk (talk · contribs) created both the third and current version of the article. IP 59.154.61.35 (talk · contribs) (registered to LEK Consulting) has only edited the curent version. Kid1983uk (talk · contribs) has no edits outside LEK Consulting. Second, Non-Notable. It was speedied three times already, under WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7. Simply having search results, may mean well paid Search engine optimization, however those results do seem to be merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. This is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Spam Advertising is prohibited as an official Wikipedia policy of long standing. Advertising is covered in WP:CORP, WP:NOT and WP:SPAM. --Hu12 12:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Let's not forget ~~contributions and~~ contributions wikispamming this article all over the place, singling out this company within the text of articles and in "see also" sections where it isn't appropriate to do so. I am willing to bet these are sockpuppets, especially contributions and contributions (which I have just tagged). =Axlq 15:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        With all due respect, I believe both those accusations are unwarranted. Firstly, contributions has made no edits at all that refer to LEK Consulting. Secondly, contributions has inserted a few links to the article from Richard Koch, the co-founder of LEK consulting , and from other companies in the same industry. See [18] to verify this. Furthermore, a 75 page (including 8 pages of references) literature review authored by Prof. Werner Bruggeman is a detailed analysis of LEK Consulting's methodology in comparison with that of McKinsey and four others.[19] This provides third-party verification of its relevance to that article. I am not experienced with these kind of sources, and it seems that much of the third-party coverage is subscription only, so I think it would be good to get some specialist help here. Thanks --TreeKittens 17:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        My mistake, I got confused. contributions wikispammed ARGE Consulting as you can see by the edit history. Apologies for that. I stand by the sockpuppet accusation of kid291uk and kid1983uk, however, as well as the assertion that the article was created for the purpose of promoting L.E.K. Consulting on other articles such as Management consulting. =Axlq 05:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, no worries. I agree that the Kid(x)uk accounts are almost certainly the same person. All I would say is that it is possible he just kept losing his password and so had to create new accounts. I don't see any bad edits here and all of the articles he linked from seem perfectly relevant to me so I think we should assume good faith here. Anyway, if the consensus here is that articles with some WP:COI issues should simply be deleted, then I don't want to be the one to break it - I'm just trying to do the right thing by this article. Best regards, and thanks for your honesty. TreeKittens 12:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless non trivial sources are provided. Even the Queen's Award appears to have gone totally unnoticed by any form of press. Nuttah68 10:10, 20 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 Close. There was an AfD on this just a few days ago. If you (or any other editor, for that matter) disagreed with that closure, take it to DRV rather than re-nominating it. I withhold any summary judgment on the article itself. Hemlock Martinis 06:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spells in Harry Potter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Ok, looking at the rather peculiar last afd, let's try and address some issues:

it doesn't matter how much it is sourced: it requires multiple, independent sources: has anyone commented on the methodology of harry potter spells besides the leaky cauldron or whatever?
on the "usefulness" rationale provided last time, WP:USEFUL: In spite of this, there are some times when "usefulness" can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest - how is this not of localized interest? If no one has noted anything about these spells, that's a good indicator.
also in terms of use; explaining the plot of the harry potter books or movies does not require one to know what spells are used; hell, the only one you need to know is the killing curse, although if you right it out "killing curse" I'm not sure what the fuss is about. ::P.S.; I also highly doubt simple translating the spell's name from latin is any claim of notability.... David Fuchs^(talk) 20:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete I don't see much in the previous AFD in favour of keeping that isn't WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL, or "it's a good article". Wikipedia shouldn't be a dumping ground for Harry Potter fancruft, that's what the Harry Potter Wiki is for. Miremare 21:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - it should at least be merged. I have found the information in this article great use to me numerous times in the past. There are other articles wuite similar, such as 'potions in harry potter' and 'characters in harry potter' (you can see them at the link-box at the bottom of the article). It is a very useful concoction I think. Lra drama 21:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Miremare 21:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge. Although I am an avid editor of the page, it isn't encyclopedic. The information is very informative and useful, and should be kept in my opinion. At the very least, it should be merged with Magic (Harry Potter) even though Spells in Harry Potter is larger than that page. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 21:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If it's not encyclopedic it shoudln't, by definition, be in an encyclopedia. Miremare 21:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The information is obviously wanted at the very least, and I bllieve it could be a featured list if we just stop all of this nonsensical dicussion. The vandalism, the merging, the deletion. The page is needed and will get more treatment if we stop scaring everyone away. WE can't possibly merge it with the Magic page, becuase then Horcruxes will be moved to the page, potions will be moved to the page, the Deathly Hallows will be moved to the page, other objects will be moved to the page and the Dark Arts will be moved to the page by that logic and after that, the discussion will inevitably become: "Why don't we spilt them up into their former pages?" Everything should stay as it is. Therequiembellishere 21:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Transwiki-The above now sounds ridiculous, even to me. It also isn't very encyclopedic, that's true, so it would do better on a fan encyclopedia.Therequiembellishere 01:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—discussions to merge or transwiki have been met with disapproval, so this remains the logical last resort. Although, a new consensus to merge or transwiki would be ideal. Generally agree with the nom. — Deckill er 21:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information is very interesting, well-compiled and organized, is fairly detailed, and is altogether rather interesting. That being said, it still has no place on Wikipedia. Again, this article deals with specific, in-universe information that would not conceivably be of interest to anyone who was not familiar with the Harry Potter universe. What's more, the article is almost entirely a directory of individual subjects that make no assertion of notability. The only original information is the etymologies, and those alone do not justify the list's existence, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I think it's pretty intersting, and it seems like a lot of work has gone into it, but I can't see any logical justification for inclusion. Calgary 22:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft and listcruft. Baring that, Transwiki to the Harry Potter Wiki. -- Jelly Soup 22:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a Protego Totalis. This is undeniably part of the Harry Potter universe, of which there are tons of articles in Wikipedia, and you sure can't call it original research, since this is all drawn from published material. I will not venture any idiotic suggestions that one must list which page of which book the spell was listed. Mandsford 23:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the fact that other articles which discuss aspects of the Harry Potter universe exist does not exactly provide an argument as to why this article should be kept. Calgary 23:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further note that all the latin roots &c. seem to all be from one published source on about.com. Hardly a volume of literature. David Fuchs^(talk) 23:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This cannot be a featured article. This cannot be any article. There just aren't any references to use to write this article, and the fact that a lot of people wish that weren't so doesn't make it so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but lots of cleanup and cutting out stuff is needed. This information is encyclopedic, and while it may only appeal to a select group, doesn't everything? Useight 23:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Most things may appeal primarily to a select group, but no, articles are not supposed contain information that is of value only to a small group of people. Calgary 23:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response. 3 of the top ten most visited pages on Wikipedia have to do with Harry Potter. That is not a small group of people. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 00:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, irrelevant data. Seeing as how there's already an article on Harry Potter magic, any important data from this page can be merged to it. The article is very poorly sourced, and fails to establish notability with third-party sources. A total re-write, along with many more sources and especially third-party ones would be needed. Important spells can be noted elsewhere, and the rest can be deleted. The Clawed One 22:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the Harry Potter wiki. The thing is, people seem to think overvalue Wikipedia, and undervalue any other wiki. People seem to take pride in the fact that stuff is on Wikipedia. But if the same information is available on the Harry Potter wiki, it isn't give the same level of defense. One of the main editors of this article came out and said that the information isn't encyclopedic. And many people in this discussion agree with him (including me). But that doesn't mean the information is uselss. It can serve its purpose well enough if it was on another wiki and externally linked from various Harry Potter articles, say Magic (Harry Potter). Pepsidrinka 00:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete Calgary said it best.. but please, if it's deleted, make sure it goes somewhere else first, because I want to be able to use it as a reference point sometimes -- even if it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. spazure (contribs) 03:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure fancruft and almost a "guide". Transwiki is the best option here per lack of notability for "spells in HP", let alone a list of them Corpx 04:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for such a successful series, this is a notable topic. Spells play a major role in the books. --musicpvm 06:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis that there is a HP-Wiki, transwiki this there, as suggested above, and possibly leave an external link on this title, to that x-ref. -- Simon Cursitor 06:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki fails several criteria for inclusion as an individual page in Wikipedia - WP:NN, WP:OR but would be useful information in the context of a Harry Potter wiki. [[Guest9999 12:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Heavily trim most of the spells keep, I think, Expelliarmus and the Unforgiveables, as the former at least has a standing (albiet weak) in popular culture, and the Unforgiveables are a major plot point and just might meet WP:FICT. Failing that, merge Will ^(talk) 14:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No actual sources to confirm notability, nor is this list needed to understand the plot. ' 16:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve sources for the exact same reasons I gave in the previous AfD. --Targeman 01:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow, have any of you people voting delete read the last AfD? Evidently not, so I'm going to copy and paste my last response here: what about WP:IDONTLIKEIT? On another note, yes, Wikipedia articles ought to have third-party sources, but have you tried using common sense? Articles need third-party sources when, for example, they need proof that they even exist (like the moon landing hoax). However, I think that in this particular sense there are some pretty reputable sources, like, oh, I don't know...the books that they appeared in, maybe? What about books that have been previously mentioned, The Sorcerer's Companion: A Guide to the Magical World of Harry Potter by Allan Zola Kronzek and Elizabeth Kronzek or Magical Worlds of Harry Potter by David Colbert? I remember people complaining about the etymology sections about WP:OR, but seriously, some of the spells are just plain made up! Only the author knows how she made them, and to get in a twist about that is straight up anal. Get your heads out of your asses, guys, and use your energy to argue about articles that actually cause problems. GlassCobra 02:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I also oppose a merge for strictly technical reasons: this page is huge as it is, merging it into another article would be totally unwieldy. GlassCobra 02:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To the nom, "WP:USEFUL: In spite of this, there are some times when 'usefulness' can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest - how is this not of localized interest?" Way to cherry pick the quote, dude. Here's the entire thing: "In spite of this, there are some times when 'usefulness' can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest (as in the New York phone listing example) or a matter of opinion as in the restaurant guide example. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how broad a segment of the population will consider a piece of information 'useful.'" First off, you're misinterpreting, that's local in the sense of distance. Even taken in the context that you intended, this is hardly localized -- in case you hadn't noticed, Harry Potter is read all over the world and has made Rowling the highest-earning author in history. GlassCobra 02:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Coment: You call WP:IDONTLIKEIT on us, but you should look at WP:ILIKEIT yourself. Yes, the many books on the articles note the spells, but that just means they can provide in-universe information. But third-party sources that establish the spells as important to the real world and relevant to culture are what is needed to establish notability. It's like saying that Provost Zahkarov of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri has notability for his own page because he appears in an important game. Unless a third-party has published an out-of-universe analysis of the spells, they fail notability. I have made many edits to pages regarding fictional things myself. And unless third-party sources are found, then there's no hope for out-of-universe content beyond what is discussed in the books, which are not basis for notability because they are inherently biased. Don't say "this article is notable because it's in Harry Potter", or "because it's in Harry Potter and that's important". The last sentence gives grounds for a subsection of important spells to the HP Magic page, but that's it. Third-party sources are needed for this. 13 references for a page of this size, regardless of how good they are, is simply not enough. The Clawed One 14:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shorten and then merge with the Harry Potter article. Major spells could be done for there. This is too trival to be on a encyclopedia. --H irohisat ^Talk 02:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- from the last nomination: "article is very encyclopedic; it not only provides the list of spells, it explains each one of them and includes more non-trivial information than many lists. It is properly sourced, IMO, and is a B-class article that is discussed constantly. I can't believe it would be nominated for deletion. Afd is not the place for your concerns. If you've got a problem with the references, tag it with {{refimprove}}." I agree with GlassCobra's comments; being useful is an excellent rationale for wanting to keep the article, as being useful is the purpose of an encyclopedia. It is most certainly not of localized interest; Harry Potter is one of the best-selling novels of all time. Also, I strongly oppose any idea of merging it with another article. It has far too much content. --Boricuaeddie 02:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one is worth keeping -- and necessary to be kept-- because it crosses the boundary of the individual books. I doubt there are many other series of books for which I would support such an article. The reason why this series is different should be obvious to anyone not in a coma the last few months. DGG (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Per my reasons in the previous AfD, which had to do with all of the sourceable literature that has been published analyzing and recording the Harry Potter universe in an encyclopedic manner. Can't someone pick up one of these books and source the article already? Ichormosquito 05:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Also see my comments about the currency of these spells in the mainstream media. If a subject is notable, there's no reason why primary sources should be shunned. Wikipedia is not paper etc. Ichormosquito 06:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From Wikipedia:Five pillars: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." I interpret this as meaning not that Wikipedia is a "general" encyclopedia, but that it aspires to be the union of all encyclopedias. Is it conceivable that there could be a specialized Encyclopedia of Harry Potter? Yes (I wouldn't be surprised if it exists already). That means that anything that is "encyclopedic" enough to be published in such an encyclopedia is also eligible to be included in Wikipedia. --Itub 09:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is absolutely not what that phrase means. Notice how it says "incorporating elements" and not "incorporating [all] the elements". General does not mean that it can include anything and everything, down to the last detail, it specifically means the opposite, that wikipedia is meant to give a general view of things, general means global and without too much detail. Like many users you misunderstand this idea, which is why so many people keep creating pages about every single character in their favourite TV series, resulting in the lot being deleted or merged into the main article. Jackaranga 12:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, we disagree. I agree that there needs to be some threshold of notability, but WP:NOTPAPER takes precedence in many cases. Nothing should get deleted for being too specialized or too detailed. For being not notable, maybe. --Itub 13:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per my arguments last time, and the arguments of Glass Cobra, Borricuaddie and others above, this page is useful, relevant and encyclopedic. The reason that this article (and not others which are actually full of more cr*p and less useful to the overall Wiki) is nominated for deletion is because the nominator dislikes it, and thinks that it is unable to be properly sourced. Websites which offer a critical analysis, as Leaky and Mugglenet do, are certainly worthy and reliable. JKR actually likes the structure and content of the websites so much that on more than one occasion she has provided exclusive interviews. If that's not enough, another editor (I'm not sure which one of us it was) found a pronunciation guide for many of the words and spells found in Harry Potter. If we are content to take information from fansites for articles such as Survivor 16, but are ready to delete this one because it cannot be referenced without going to the fansites there is clearly something wrong with Wikipedia. Another reason that it is here is because a lot of the information has been deemed uneccesary, but with the constant pruning of the article that is happening now the extra information put in by who I can only assume are IPs and newly registered users, the seven million times a spell has been used will be cut down to the first time or most notable time.

I do not support a merge with the article the current size it is. As I understand it, a merge is when we take the information from one article and put it into another. It is commonly used when the article to be merged does not contain sufficient detail for a separate entry (this one has more information that the article it has been suggested to merge into), or when two articles have the same content (also not true). As for deletion, I believe I have made myself clear there. A transwiki, on the other hand, may be successful. I would still recommend keeping perhaps a scaled down version of this article, with a link to the transwikied article with full information on all spells. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 10:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The spells are linked on so many pages that if you removed this ppl reading articles where the spells are mentioned wont know what the hell they are, if they havent read the books. CHANDLER talk 11:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction or fantasy-related deletions. — Ichormosquito 10:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC) (UTC) [reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is not a dictionnary, but these words would not be found in a dictionnary. Wikipedia is not a collection of lists, this is not a list in the sense that each item has a short description, there is worse for example List of Content Management Systems. The whole lot together is more notable than any character in the series, and maybe more than Harry Potter the character himself. Almost everyone knows Harry Potter is about magic, nearly nobody who hasn't read it knows who Hermione or Ron are, yet we keep their articles. Each spell is not notable but put together they are almost as notable as the universe itself. Many people don't know the title of each book, yet each has its own article, yet almost everyone knows, that Harry Potter is about magic spells. Jackaranga 12:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as in the previous AFD, all the arguments in favour of keeping seem to be WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL, "it's encyclopedic" when it clearly isn't, or in one case that we should use our "common sense" and let it stay. If common sense were applied to this AFD, the only outcome would be this collection of fictional trivia being deleted from this encyclopedia. Miremare 13:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as in the previous AFD, all the arguments in favour of deleting seem to be IDONTLIKEIT, NOTUSEFUL, "it's unencyclopedic" when it clearly is, or in one case that we should use our "common sense" and delete it. --Itub 14:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What makes a list of spells from a fictional universe "encyclopedic"? I can understand if people think the new WP:FICT is too strict (and can understand if a compromise is needed), but a list of every spell is overboard. Is it needed for a general understanding of the Harry Potter universe? Why not just cite a few examples on the Magic of Harry Potter page like most tertiary sources? — Deckill er 14:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No Itub, the arguments for deletion are 1: No multiple independent sources WP:V, WP:N. 2: Only of interest to people who not only read the books, but have a great interest in the minutiae of the books. 3: In-universe collection of fictional spells WP:FICT. 4: Fancruft WP:NOT#INFO. 5: Unencyclopedic, and I'd like to hear why you think otherwise. 6: Not even notable. Harry Potter may be notable, but notability is not inherited and there is already an article on Magic in Harry Potter. What next, an individual article for each spell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miremare (talk • contribs)
    - 1: We don't desperately need multiple independent sources for the spells (although I am sure they can be found), because these are easily verified from the books alone, and the notability of the spells is established by the notability of the book (which is verified by dozens of sources). 2: Spells play a large part in Harry Potter, Harry Potter is a highly notable series, and it doesn't matter to whom something is 'interesting'. I could pick some random article about a highly complicated science subject I understand nothing of, and say "it is only of interest to professors, so delete". 3: The fact that it looks in-universe is troubling, but is not a reason for deletion, because we can do something about it. 4: "Fancruft" is a nonsensical argument. 5: Why is it unencyclopaedic? You don't like in-depth coverage fictional subjects in an encyclopaedia, others do. 6: Of course it is notable, spells are one of the most important things in Harry Potter, you couldn't cover the books without mentioning the spells. Keep. Mel sa ran 01:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, if we want to get into true WikiLawyering, if I don't like deep fictional coverage and others do, then they would violate ILIKEIT. Such an argument offsets. That's why I don't use those silly "arguments to avoid" hyperlinks, regardless of my stance. The question still stands: what makes it encyclopedic in relation to Wikipedia's vision, policies, and guidelines? — Deckill er 02:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        True, but ILIKEIT says "let's keep it, I like it, it doesn't matter that it isn't encyclopaedic/notable/referenced". In my opinion, this article can easily be referenced, and is notable enough, because the Harry Potter series are very notable and spells play a large role in them. I don't really understand why we should delete every in-depth coverage of fictional subjects or popular culture, and keep everything related to science and history. You can't really say that Harry Potter doesn't pass the notability guidelines, right? Mel sa ran 02:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I used to take the same stance, that "notability can be inhereted". It boils down to covering things succinctly; the basics of spells in Harry Potter can be covered in a few paragraphs (citing specific examples of spells if necessary), because all this page shows is a list of individual spells. Inhereted notability can be taken to extremes; it can be a defense for having dozens of small articles about fictional concepts just because they are part of a notable franchise (after all, we don't have small, individual articles on aspects Bill Gates' lifestyle). The notability of the parent article should, logically speaking, mean that more real-world information would be available to show that subarticles could maintain a balanced, encyclopedic treatment of fiction. The key is at least showing that such information exists. Naturally, there are exceptions, but this is a scenerio where a list of spells is not the same as a complete, prose-based, and general article on Harry Potter magic (which I would be !voting keep on). — Deckill er 02:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I'm admittedly a newcomer to the AfD process, I fail to see the fuss here. WP:N(fiction) states that articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. That seems to be precisely what's presented in this list -- spells are sourced both in the fiction and in secondary sources, providing detail on the development and etymology of the spells. Notability thus seems clear, especially under the fiction guidelines, so I'd stress a keep. Ashdog137 21:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Just because it isn't of interest to everyone on the planet does not mean it isn't notable. The arguments for deletion seem to be "I don't like Harry Potter therefore it's not notable", "I haven't read the book and I don't understand the article therefore it must be minutiae", and "needs more sources". The spells are essentially another character in the book, and an important one at that (there is no story without the spells). It is also a useful reference. I found it very useful just a few weeks ago when I was reading the last book. It is clearly notable. In theory it could be merged with the article about the series, or the Harry Potter Magic article, but then that article would be too long, someone would nominate it be split, everyone would agree, and then were right back here where we started. I really don't understand why there is a crusade to delete this, but it should not be deleted. I don't see why the books themselves are not a significant citation, as they should be for a character in any other book. But if so, there are other books written about the topic by other authors. There are lots of those books listed at the end of the article, but they are not specifically footnoted. If someone who has those books wants to go back and improve those citaions, that would be helpful. But those grounds alone are not enough to warrant deletion. nut-meg 22:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votestacking[edit]

User:GlassCobra has been canvassing for "keep" votes amongst those who voted on this article's previous AFD.

[20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. Miremare 15:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though it is wrong, he hasn't done much. Only two of these people might have been influenced by the message (Ichormosquito and Borricuaddie) The_dark_lord_trombonator had voted before the message was sent. Therequiembellishere 15:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have found my way here, anyway; but I did warn him about it. The opposing side can canvass for 9 deletes now, if they want. Ichormosquito 20:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing is not a tit for tat thing Corpx 20:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Ichormosquito already let me know that technically it was canvassing, if you look on my talk page. Sorry, I wasn't aware of that rule. I'll keep my wording more neutral when letting people know about debates from now on. GlassCobra 20:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I for one am glad you did. I wouldn't have known about it otherwise. I would think nominating the same article for deletion every two weeks would also be against wikipedia policy, but what do I know... nut-meg 22:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point: ideally, consensus should count for something. ichormosquito 22:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Well, I'd already planned to contribute before getting the note, I was just waiting a few days to see how the discussion was going, and I think it's obvious to me that there's not going to be any solution to whatever problems people have here on AFD. I suggest folks take their concerns to the talk page instead. FrozenPurpleCube 02:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)"The opposing side can canvass for 9 deletes now, if they want." That's ridiculous. Two wrongs do not make a right. And what's this about voting? This is most certainly not a vote; it's a discussion. I just want to let you guys know that this page has been in my watchlist for months, and that I was well aware of this discussion before I was contacted. Please note that I also added {{not a ballot}} to the top of this page. I was in no way influenced by the message. --Boricuaeddie 02:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I totally agree with you Nut-meg. Contrary to Thereq...'s belief, I was notified by Glass Cobra and I am glad that I was. As a watcher of the page, I often click "diff" when it appears in my watchlist, and now I rarely look at the article from top to bottom (consequently I was surprised to see about 300 million tags at the top of the page). I may not have learned of this debate otherwise. It is such a shame to see an article so worthy for inclusion proposed to be deleted every other week, and Glass Cobra's message did not influence my vote at all. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 03:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I never said that it influenced your votes, and I'm glad you voted anyway. I was just arguing that he didn't do much anyway as very few responded at the time. I guess I read your times wrong Great Lord Trombonator, I apologise. Therequiembellishere 03:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GlassCobra has stated that he was not aware of the rules regarding canvassing, which is fair enough. However, many of you seem to be entirely missing the point on this. It's not that the messages were likely to influence your viewpoint, it's that they encouraged you to make a !vote when you may not otherwise have voted at all, as at least two of you have already said. A mass encouraging of people with a particular known view to vote WILL seemingly change concensus in this view's favour, and this is why it is not allowed. Please read Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking. Miremare 03:58, 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 no consensus, default to keep - Nabla 17:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marquis de Sade in popular culture[edit]

Trivia collection, imparting no additional knowledge about the subject's cultural impact. Violates WP:NOT#IINFO. Eyrian 20:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete WP:WING Avi 20:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sadistic Keep There were all sorts of ways that this could go off course, but it's a surprisingly straight forward article. The list of film and theatrical productions is proof enough of the fascination that the mean Marquis still generates 200 years later. Thus, it qualifies as a good start. Mandsford 21:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford and by the way, I like the "Sadistic" in your post! It is good to see the creativity! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is simply a list of appearences that the subject has made in various media. Unless there were actual information about the subject in popular culture, the list has no significance, and is a collection of trivial information. As for illustrating the subject's appearances in fiction, this is covered sufficiently in the subject's main article under the section "fictional works". There is no need for an entire article to give an intensely detailed list of such appearences, because the main article gets the point across just fine. Calgary 21:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its mainstream productions of film and theatre, not references in manga and Simpson episodes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for two reasons. (1) This article was created largely as a way to keep this content out of the main Sade article. Without a repository like this, the main article would tend to accumulate this content. (2) At least most of this is pretty notable. For example, most of the plays and films are either biographical or based on Sade's works. If there were only a few of these, they would, indeed, belong in the article on Sade himself, but there are so many that they tend to weigh down the article.

In short, when there are only a few significant popular cultural references to a subject, they belong in the article on the subject itself. When there are a lot then, much like any other section that threatens to swamp an article, they deserve to be factored out into an article of their own. That is exactly what happened here. This may not be a perfect example of how to do this, but it's a good one. - Jmabel | Talk 22:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being a list of loosely associated topics. This is just a list of every time that person X has appeared in a fictional work Corpx 04:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Marquis de Sade has been featured prominently throughout popular culture and has even had his name entered into the lexicon. This is not some forced article about someone whose persona is really not part of the popular culture. Ante lan ^talk 04:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I fail to see how this is "loosely associated". The association between these topics is quite clear, since (nearly) every item listed has de Sade as a central theme in the work. If it were merely a list of every time de Sade had been mentioned, I'd agree the association would be loose, but we're talking about the central themes of cultural works. I'd suggest removing any references that are trivial (e.g. about half of the items in the last section), but otherwise keeping the article as it stands. JulesH 10:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while many if not most popular culture articles should indeed be deleted, this one in well done and doesn't include the usual pointless trivia. IPSOS (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I voted keep, it would be nice if someone would turn this into more of an article and less of just a list. For example, it would make sense to discuss how the image of Sade has changed over time, how he has been used as both a sympathetic and unsympathetic character, etc. - Jmabel | Talk 18:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes, we all can and will turn it into a better article, though it will take more than a few days. Though this series of nominations might have been intended to remove the content from such articles, they will end up in improving and augmenting them. DGG (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Look, most items in history have been referenced in various popular cultures at one time or another. This is just glorified trivia that does not need it's own article. Violates many policies, including WP:TRIVA and WP:NOT and most "IPC" articles have been deleted rightfully. Biggspowd 21:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 22:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Deckill er 02:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just off the top of my head, Angela Carter wrote an entire book about the influence the Marquis de Sade had on popular culture. If the WP:NOT#IINFO problems can be fixed through editing and finding sources, shouldn't that be done rather than deleting the entire article? I'll give it a go --Bláthnaid 11:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is without a doubt an important topic. While it would be better served as a prose discussion about his influence on different movements and in different periods, it should not be deleted. Atropos 05:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's clear that a meaningful and well-sourced encyclopedia article can be written on this subject, and this article is on its way towards that goal. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do! - Jmabel | Talk 05:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - these "popular culture" articles frequently collect a lot of inane trivia, but they serve the very useful purpose of providing a repository for it, thus preventing the main article from becoming cluttered with it. Peterkingiron 15:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Better here than there is not a valid argument for keeping an article. If inappropriate content appears in an article it should be deleted, not given its own article. Jay32183 17:21, 19 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/Weak consensus to keep. Same result Giggy ^Talk 07:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional dogs[edit]

Redundant with Category:Fictional dogs. How big do you think the article will be when it is a complete list of all fictional dogs?? Georgia guy 20:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see what informational or organizational purpose it serves to have a list of every fictional dog in existence. Keeping that in mind, if we were to remove all of the trivial/non-notable dogs, we'd be left with Category:Fictional dogs, which does a much better job of serving this article's potential purpose. Calgary 20:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is already very long and could get much longer. This is a perfect example of what categories are for. Useight 23:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because a category is more than sufficient. Dogs appear waaaaay too much in fiction to be listed like this Corpx 04:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It just takes one look at the article to see why it is better than a category: it provides additional information . for the category, one would have to examine each individual article, unless one happened to recognize a particular name. If any of them are not mentioned in the appropriate articles, they should be added there. The above argument seems rather odd--because they are frequently important, they should not be listed.DGG (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs are so common in fiction that a such a list like this is akin to making one like "List of protagonists in fiction" or something similar, and hence being loosely associated. Corpx 04:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least clean it out with a bulldozer. I've looked at this article, and the list of famous dogs, several times, and felt nothing but despair. Both are so profoundly, uselessly clogged with crap that I don't wonder if scorched earth isn't the best way to proceed. Ford MF 09:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe gut it so that the only entries left are those fictional dogs with their own Wikipedia articles... Ford MF 09:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I agree with User:DGG's assertion that a category would lose the information present here. --mordicai. 20:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per DGG and Mordicai. The most useful aspect of the list is its division by medium; if the list is deleted, Category:Fictional dogs should be subdivided into Category:Mythological dogs, Category:Dogs in literature, Category:Dogs in film and so forth. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but fold in deleted material that is not already into the category. This list would be served just as well, if not better, as a category. Ease of navigation trumps the short description of the dogs, allowing users to find the dogs they are looking for more quickly and get to the main article about the dog (or its parent article).
Keep - There would be no point in this list if all the fictional dogs had their own articles, but many of them seem to be subsidiary characters in articles on other literary subjects. Lists are useful for indicating articles that are needed. Though many of these dogs do not need articles, this list serves a useful function, providing a means of locating articles referring to them. Peterkingiron 15:19, 19 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. John254 00:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Rife[edit]

Does not seem to have any significant sources that pass WP:RS, or much chance of ever acquiring them. Everything's referenced to sites trying to sell something in his name. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This must be a joke. Rife is extremely notable as one of the biggest quacks of modern times, and a pervasive influence within alternative medical quackery. Just ask any scientific skeptic or check anti-quackery websites. That is reason enough to have his article here where all sides of the story can be told. You can bet that alternative medicine sites do not tell about what a quack he was and how worthless his machines are in their many versions and variants made by lots of quacks who copy him. You can also check out the FDA and FTC who regularly bust people for using and selling such machines. It's criminally dangerous activity which they attempt to stop. A search of Quackwatch and its associated sites is enlightening. [29] If your concerns are about misuse of the article to promote his quackery, then follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines to achieve balance and solve weight and advocacy issues. -- Fyslee/talk 22:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep, the internet in english and german language (and many other languages i suppose) is full of garbage and ads around the strange pseudoscientific claims of Mr Rife. We decided to keep a german Rife-page during a similar discussion. Wikipedia may help some ads-impressed or interested people to better understand this issue. Like Lakhovsky, he is a sort of prototype-quack. Redecke 22:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a well-known quack. The rife.org and rife.de websites are not "selling something in his name" (except maybe Google ads), they are simply everyday personal websites that may not meet the highest standards of WP:RS, but include many reprints of sources that do. I'm sure stronger sources could be found including quite a few scientific/medical journals that have investigated the Rife enigma. --Dhartung | Talk 03:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of comments:

The crucial question here is whether Rife meets any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). If he is, in fact, "one of the biggest quacks of modern times", we should have no problem finding a reliable, published source that discusses him. At the moment, however, the article is almost entirely dependent on lunatic websites (and a couple of ridiculous books by Barry Lynes, which certainly aren't "credible independent biographies"). If someone can find a reliable, published source that discusses the guy, I'll vote to keep the article. If we can't find any reliable sources, nothing in the article will ever be verifiable so it should be deleted.
Bear in mind that it's possible that Rife's machines are notable but he's not. If there's substantial coverage of his machines in reliable, published sources (like the FDA and the FTC), we might want to create an article about them. Notability is not inherited though, so we don't automatically have to have an article about the inventor. Sideshow Bob Roberts 12:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Inventors are notable because of their inventions. He did invent a microscope based on sound optical principles capable at least potentially of visualizing some viruses. He also did hypothesize some notable nonsense. In either case, he's notable. A fascinating career. DGG (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, If the guy is found to have been even partially accurate, then egg should be on all of the "Rife was a Quack" detracting editors who have deleted large parts of the article (even Pub-Med sourced information) based somewhat on their feelings about him. Oldspammer 00:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable. scholar.google.com lists 1270 entries under his full name:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=royal+raymond+rife&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr= 82.208.2.214 21:09, 19 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.

Keep, This article is neutral, it does not promote his machines. The article uses the word "claim". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.155.62 (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 04:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cars in the Ridge Racer series[edit]

This seems to violate Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. RobJ1981 19:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be a discriminate list. Doesn't seem to fall prey to the "hit list" of unsuitable lists on WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. --Oscarthecat 19:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:VG/GL and WP:NOT. Andre (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Follows the precedent of the "cars in gran turismo4" articles like 8 months ago. DurinsBane87 01:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again, too much game-guide-ish material Corpx 04:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and other "list of vehicles in games" articles. — Deckill er 02:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is like those silly "List of weapons in Foo" articles. Indiscriminate. Axem Titanium 05:54, 19 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 05:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cars in Project Gotham Racing 3[edit]

This seems to violate Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. RobJ1981 19:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be a discriminate list. Doesn't seem to fall prey to the "hit list" of unsuitable lists on WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. --Oscarthecat 19:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:VG/GL and WP:NOT. Andre (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Follows the precedent of the "cars in gran turismo4" articles like 8 months ago. DurinsBane87 01:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' This stuff is really game guide material and should belong in a fan guide or a game wiki Corpx 04:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. IP198 01:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and other "lists of vehicles in games". — Deckill er 02:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is like those silly "List of weapons in Foo" articles. Indiscriminate. Axem Titanium 05:55, 19 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 05:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spacepol[edit]

This article is spam. It has been spammed across several Wikipedias, but has since been removed from many of them. Currently the only non-english article is in Finnish Wikipedia [30], where it is undergoing a vote for deletion (currently 26 votes for deletion, 2 opposes). Peltimikko 19:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)— Peltimikko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - The Finnish deletion debate referred to may contain unfounded and libelous allegations against third parties and as such be in contravention of US and Finnish law. Additionally, said page contains personal attacks and material which may insinuate dishonest or wrong-doing (including involvement in the editing or deletion process)on the part of the subject of the main article. Criteria applied for deletion appear not be be in keeping with general Wikipedia policies (see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). Further, fi:wikipedia appears to have a practice of archiving deletion votes or debates indefinitely without removing possibly offensive material (see Wikipedia:Courtesy_blanking). There has been no administrator intervention to ensure that offensive, speculative and defamatory comments are removed from the Finnish AfD page on this and related articles.--88.114.56.7 04:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC) — 88.114.56.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - As an administrator for Finnish Wikipedia I checked the Finnish AfD and did not found any unnormal discussion there which could be referred as unfounded or libelous. --Ekeb 05:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not abnormal for many Finnish fi:wiki users, but definitely libellous, unfounded and speculative. See the policies noted and the Wikipage for Libel and Slander. Also, AfD pages should be courtesy-blanked if there is no malicious intent. Translation can be provided to Meta in a closed discussion if there is any doubt about the libelous nature of the content. (Check, in particular, the AfD BLP page for the founder of spacepol)--88.114.56.7 06:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should also notice that the policies of the English Wikipedia are not used in the Finnish Wikipedia which has its own policies. --Ekeb 07:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you seem to feel that the Finnish version of the so-called debate should be carefully considered here? Jreferee: Please let me know, if you feel translation of some of the Finnish comments found on the Finnish AfD Pages would be of help (due to their nature, I don't think it would be wise or morally defensable to publish them publically, though). BTW Ekeb, Finnish administrator, Wikimedia Foundation has certain issues about which there are no "regional variations" inclusing posting insulting or other material hinting at wrongdoing or dishonesty of living persons and organizations. --88.114.56.7 08:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you to specify which parts of the Finnish deletion debate do you consider to be "libellous, unfounded and speculative"? Might this be someone questioning whether the people named on http://www.spacepol.ca/home/who.html themselves know about their association with this company? Speculative, I agree, but falls well short of libel. Unfounded, perhaps, but some of these people have now been contacted in order to verify the claim. Lendu 11:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming or implying that someone likely does not have the credentials (educational, publications, etc.) that they are said to have, with reckless disregard for whether or not that is the case and thereby leading others to believe such things (see BLP AfD in Fi:Wikipedia) or implying that they have done morally questionable acts such as paying to be included in biographical works (that also libels the publishing company concerned, if is not true), just to name a couple. Good that somebody was finally fanatical enough to do "original research" and contact associates of this person. That will probably alert all concerned to visit Wikipedia and discover what has been written in Fi:Wikipedia about them.--88.114.56.7 12:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No comments from the named associates to this day. I wonder why? --Ufinne 11:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Spacepol has been on English Wikipedia for a year and a half. When was the article "spammed across several Wikipedias" and why is the urgency to delete the English Wikipedia article occuring now? -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or do you also notice the penetrating silence on this particular issue, after you asked this question? --88.114.56.7 15:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Spam and libelous allegations can be fixed. However, I could find no English reliable source material for this topic. If that source material is in Finnish, then it should be at least back by someone vouching for its content as posted on the English Wikipedia. Until then, delete as not meeting WP:N. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Spam. That's what it is. --82.128.246.156 07:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. --ざくら木 08:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Jreferee. Article seems to be a vanity exercise. -- NordicStorm (t/c) 09:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Jreferee. Vampcruftspam. --Fredrick day 10:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources except own home page. --Ufinne 18:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment You do all realize that you need to establish a reason to delete right? I'll admit to being unfamilar with the subject, but the article appears to be decently written with sources. It is not enough to say "spam" or "non-notable." Please elaborate as to why it is spam or non-notable. The Wikipedia process is built on logical discussion and debate, not straw polling and vote stacking. I also fail to see how what other wiki's are doing (or for that matter, the alleged conduct of editors of other wikis) is even remotely relevant here. Onikage725 13:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decently written? It's ad-speak waffle - making various grandious claims with little or no link to WP:RS - if this organisation has made the massive impact claimed - why are there no english language sources to that effect? --Fredrick day 13:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the AfD and subsequent debate at the Finnish Wikipedia is largely irrelevant with regards to the AfD here. As for sources, it seems to be mostly its own website. The article reads quite a bit like something a copywriter would cook up. -- NordicStorm (t/c) 14:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Observation Jreferee has stated this article fails to meet WP:N and two others agree. I would just like to mention that [[WP:N] does not mention the word "English" anywhere within its text. Therefore sources should not be considered irrelevant simply for being Finnish. English sources are preferable, not required. However, the article could certainly use more secondary sources. I think the relative lack of such would be the best argument against it. Onikage725 13:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any references to Finnish language sources in the article (and if there were such sources, they would of course not be irrelevant).-- NordicStorm (t/c) 14:24, 16 August 2007

(UTC)

Hmm. Here I'd have to play the Devil's advocate. I would say that Finnish sources would weigh less than English sources from an English-speaking country. The threshold for notability is quite much smaller in Finland than say even Canada or England, not to mention the US or Australia. But that said... --88.114.56.7 15:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Finnish sources either, if you look to Spacepol "Lähteet" (=Sources). Only grandious claims which just makes you laugh. --Ufinne 18:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just plain ol' spam from a cross-Wiki spammer. Less than 10 employees and really hasn't done anything significant, only a lot of talk. --Tve4 19:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam, many big words about nothing. Pavel Vozenilek 21:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-World famous only in wikipedia.--Teveten 15:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above User: 88.114.56.7 and 82.128.246.156 belongs to a serial internet pest and spammer and previous En-Wikipedia administrator and Usernet participant Mr Guy Chapman's alias crusade against honest users on the internet. User: Homing device 139.168.16.151 18:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes and? how does such information affect the notability of this article? --Fredrick day 18:58, 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^♫ 04:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After Midnight Project[edit]

Non-notable band—fails WP:BAND (having a song in a video game is not one of the criteria). No references, either. Lots of ghits but nothing substantial, far as I could see. Also nominating a download-only EP and an as-yet unreleased album. Precious Roy 13:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one "expected" album and one self-released album isn't enough for an article. Notability not verified by any sources. Mel sa ran 14:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, this is going to drive me nuts until I get home now... I know I've got one of their songs on my iPod. Delete - they'll break eventually, but right now the EP and regional touring, combined with a lack of reliable sources, doesn't quite make it. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable enough, in my opinion. Criterion 10 states: Has performed music for a work of media that is notable... Nobody will dispute that Prey is fully notable. I see no real reason to delete. The encyclopedia will not be made any better by getting rid of this one, so what's the point? (|-- UlTiMuS 03:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It further states "if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page." Precious Roy 13:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources establishing notability are provided. They are not quite there yet. Nuttah68 10:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with no prejudice against re-creation...once they are notable. Giggy ^Talk 23:35, 21 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. Discussions on individual merges should take place on talk pages. Bduke 12:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spinner's End[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Spinner's End

I am also nominating the following related articles:

All of these articles deal with locations from the Harry Potter series of books (and movies and games, etc…). I do not believe that they belong on Wikipedia, between them they do give one independent third party source. Violating the primary notability guideline Wikipedia:Notability which states “A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.”. Furthermore the articles do not “contain substantial real-world content from reliable primary and secondary sources.” As mentioned in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Large parts of all the articles are original research – in fact since no sources are presented it could be said that they are completely original research which is unverified and often unverifiable Wikipedia:No original research and WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT. The articles may also go against WP:NOT#INFO given that they appear quite trivial. Harry Potter is obviously notable but that does not mean that everything in the books is - even items or places regarded as important or vital to the plot - if they do not meet the notability guideline. Notability is not inherited. A pub isn’t notable just because it’s in a notable town and there’s no reason why a fictional pub (or house or magic shop) should be notable just because it’s in a notable book. The articles are essentially an extension of the Harry Potter article and if they are not deemed important enough to be on that page do not merit their own articles. They may belong in a Harry Potter wiki but not on Wikipedia Wikipedia:Fancruft. Guest9999 18:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — It's quite clear to me that these articles are encyclopaedic/notable. The nominator provides no substantial rationale to delete other than I Don't Like It. (WP:NOT#PAPER) Matthew 18:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Actually I do like it, I find the information interesting and would like to see it available on the internet, I just don't feel that it belongs on Wikipedia as it violates several important guideline and policies and so will never be an accurate or reliable encyclopaedia article. [[Guest9999 19:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep — Despite all the policies this may or may not violate, the "Harry Potter Series of Articles" is a fairly good set of articles, and personally I found the Harry Potter stuf on Wikipedia to be quite helpful in understanding "Harry Potter" the Phenomenon, so I think at least at this time that it does perform a very good and reasonable function here. John5Russell3Finley 19:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Matthew. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question? Surely Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), Wikipedia:No original research, WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT and WP:NOT#INFO are "substantial rationale". I may well be wrong in my interpretation of policy but I would appreciate a response explaining why. [[Guest9999 19:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep - First of all, the source is the books. Not OR. Some are more or less important yes, but I don't think it would be better not to have these. CHANDLER talk 19:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Some of the sources are the books, some are fansites, some are blogs. Do the books themselves count as sources, if they do then shouldn't everything mentioned in every book have a Wikipedia page. Does this only apply for locations of significant importance in books which are well read enough - how do you define significant, how many copies need to be sold? The notability criteria is there for a reason. [[Guest9999 19:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Strong delete - per the very well-reasoned and -articulated nomination. Nothing has been offered here to rebut the policy concerns raised by the nomination other than "it's helpful" and the oft-bandied about and frequently mis-used WP:NOT#PAPER. "It's helpful" is just a flavor of WP:USEFUL and however useful an article may be it still needs to comply with all relevant policies and guidelines. The editor who referenced PAPER has been advised repeatedly exactly what the problem is with basing a keep on it and at this point I must seriously question whether he honestly does not understand that PAPER is not a free pass for any article or whether he is willfully disregarding that fact in the hope of confusing these discussions. WP:NOT#PAPER states explicitly This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars. These articles do not. Otto4711 19:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge minor locations, keep major locations I'd count the following as very minor: Spinner's End (one book), Beauxbatons (not actually seen), Durmstrang (not actually seen), Hall of Prophecies (one book), Little Hangleton (There's several places in it - the Riddle House, the Gaunt House), but they're all fairly minor, and could be dealt with in an overview of minor locations), Little Whinging (Only one major place, the Dursley House), Shrieking Shack (a few things happen there, but they're best dealt with in plot summaries) St Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries (only really appears in Book 5) Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes (Only in Book 6) The others seem more important, and, while I don't object to merging them, I think they should be discussed separately. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Some secondary sources would perhaps solve notability and original research problems. Jakew 20:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These seem to be prime candidates for heavy editing and a subsequent merge. These articles suffer from far too much in-universe detail per WP:WAF and need to be massively edited down, at which point most (if not all of them) could be safely merged into a single article, such as List of locations in Harry Potter. Having such detailed (particularly in-universe type detail) articles on fictional locations isn't really what an encyclopedia covers - perhaps there is an HP wiki or other fansite somewhere more suited to this level of information. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of places in the Harry Potter books exists. [[Guest9999 20:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Then that should be the target for the merge. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there's three tiers: Azkaban, Diagon Alley and Hogsmeade appear in multiple books in major roles; Knockturn Alley, Godric's Hollow, Hog's Head, and Number Twelve, Grimmauld Place aren't as pervasive, but still have significant roles in multiple books. The other ones are very minor places that generally in only a single book, and so are simple to decide on - merge 'em all! Major fan sites like. hplexicon.org could probably be used for sourcing. I'd be inclined to deal with the easy ones right now, but those seven might be worth a little more discussion. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Timan123 20:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion is not a vote WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, it is a discussion aimed towards forming a consensus - you should give a reason for your position. [[Guest9999 20:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Merge: As per Arkyan and Adam Cuerden above. -Adv193 21:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Arkyan and Adam Cuerden. Wl219 21:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge per Arkyan. Baring that, delete and Transwiki to Harry Potter Wiki. -- Jelly Soup 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only keep Weasleys Wizard Wheezes, Diagon alley, hogs head, hogsmeade, grimmauld place, due to the fact that they have been moderately important if not majorly important. The others havent.Ko2007 18:20, 15 August 2007 (USCMT)

Comment The issue of "importance" has repeatedly come up in this debate. I do not see how importance is relevent, the spouse of a notable politician could be very important to them and have a great effect on their life but unless they were notable in their own right they wouldn't have an article. Importance is something that is subjective and hard to verify; notability as defined by the notability guideline is (to a point) not.[[Guest9999 23:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Basically, we accept that Harry Potter is notable. It's notable enough that sections have gotten split off of the main articles. This is standard Wikipedia policy, of course: Many articles have sub-articles to give more detail. Importance comes in when selecting what deserves its own article, and what should just redirect to a larger collection of information. The Harry Potter articles have fragmented too far, with very minor things getting their own article. It's fine for important locations that a lot has been said about to collect together the information on them. We have to figure out what's important. I'd say Ko2007 has it about right, though I'd add Azkaban (important plot elements in every book from the second on) and possibly remove Weasley's Wizard Wheezes (As a location, anyway - as a concept, it spans four books (The 4th to 7th), as a location we only see it in the 6th.) Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep them all for two reasons. Firstly, I greatly dislike bulk nominations. Secondly, the Harry Potter books are the most popular copyrighted books in history so it deserves a greater breadth of article coverage. Capitalistroadster 02:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions[edit]

Merge Diagon Alley and its sidestreet Knockturn Alley into Diagon Alley - they always appear together.
Merge Hog's Head and Shrieking Shack into Hogsmeade, the town in which they are.
Keep Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes as it forms a major sub-plot of Books 4-6, with appearances in 7. However, revise it heavily.
Keep Azkaban - appears in every book from the second on.
Nominate Number Twelve, Grimmauld Place for a suggested merge with Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, and see what people think. It has a minor role in book 6 and 7, but most of it happens there.
Merge Hall of Prophecies into Ministry of Magic
Merge Little Whinging into either Dursley family or List of places in the Harry Potter books, as preferred
Merge The House of Gaunt, Riddle family and The Riddle House into Little Hangleton
Merge the remaining non-notables Spinner's End, Beauxbatons, Durmstrang, St Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries into List of places in the Harry Potter books
Nominate Godric's Hollow for merger into List of places in the Harry Potter books, and see what people think. It has a couple significant events, but not as many as I'd really think needed. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should reasonably sort out the articles. Note that a few non-nominated articles appear in this suggestion. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is a work in progress but I like your initial suggestions. -Adv193 01:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Aye, wanted to try and come up with something sensible, since, well, if we're not careful, List of places in the Harry Potter books could get pretty random - for instance, putting Hall of Prophecies there when it's just one small part of the Ministry of Magic. And, for that matter, one which had only a few pages - The climax of Order of the Phoenix might be said to start there, but it rapidly leaves there and goes out into the rest of the Department of Mysteries, after all. Very little actually happens in the hall proper. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge and Redirect I still question having any pages which do not meet the notability criteria. I would suggest merging all of the pages and then recreating the relavent articles if and when third party sources can be found. [[Guest9999 01:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
    - That may be, but I think that properly sorting that is, frankly, too big of a job for one AfD. The Harry Potter articles are almost ridiculously sprawling, and it'd be better to work with the Harry Potter WikiProject than to do it by fiat. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Harry Potter Wikiproject states it is "an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Harry Potter universe" - this ~~is at odds with Wikipedia policy and~~ would be more approproate for a dedicated Harry Potter wiki or fansite. I do not see why it would be so difficult just to change all of the pages listed above to redirects to the List of places in the Harry Potter books article, it would then just be a case of expanding the current stubs. [[Guest9999 02:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Mostly Agree with Adam, abstain on Godric's Hollow and Number Twelve, Grimmauld Place. I know this isn't a vote, but I believe that the arguments on both sides apply to all articles, and it's a matter of judgment which are stronger for each. ** With regard to Guest9999's comment, WP:HP's charter is not a violation of WP policy, but as phrased it may go against guidelines. Matchups 02:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind it would seem to go against WP:NOT#INFO but I see your point. Although in almost all cases it seems that - rightly or wrongly - policy and guidelines are used in the same way on Wikipedia. [[Guest9999 03:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Aye, I'm not sure about those two either, hence why I listed them to be nominated - e.g. to have more discussion. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - All are fictional places with no real world notability. A transwiki to a harry potter encyclopedia might also be appropriate Corpx 04:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into relevant articles, except for Keep Little Whinging, since it's mentioned in all the books. M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment whilst I don't think that being in all the books should be a criteria for keeping the article, Little Whinging does actually have a BBC source attached ([[31]]). [[Guest9999 06:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Strong Keep, for such a successful franchise, these are notable topics. All these locations play important roles in the books. --musicpvm 06:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support transwiki, assumning that there is a wiki for this -- Simon Cursitor 06:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second Adam's suggestions, with two differences. Merge Number 12 Grimmauld Place not with Order of the Phoenix, but with Black family, keeping the information, that it later became Headquarters of the Order. And Merge Weasley's Wizard Wheezes into Diagon Alley. The articles about Azkaban, Diagon Alley and Hogsmeade should definitely be kept, as all three locations play crucial roles in several Harry Potter books. Neville Longbottom 12:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the places are important in thier own way.Blackcat52 13:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Adam. Will ^(talk) 14:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Harry Potter Wikia (or delete) per numerous policies and guidelines, including WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:N, WP:OR, WP:FICT, and WP:WAF. These heaping amounts of Harry Potter plot summary articles are alarming; this is a balanced, general use encyclopedia that combines some elements of specialist encyclopedias; it's not a free-for-all to rewrite books. Furthermore, we are a free encyclopedia; we should not be substituting reading the novel by documenting every minor plot and subplot aspect. A general overview of major aspects of a plot or setting are good as part of a larger, academically-treated topic. I used to get Cs on papers that were mere 20-page retellings. — Deckill er 04:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Harry Potter wiki - These articles do nothing but violate writing in fiction guidelines and should be sent packing. Judgesurreal777 04:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Strong Relist as is frequently the case, these are of unequal importance. I am puzzled how anyone could who think Azkaban unimportant as a recurrent plot element--or could think some of the others as similarly important. Let someone who has read and understood the books nominate the weakest. There is no way of sorting them out here--all such mixed nominations have ended up by being properly relisted individually.DGG (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Nobody ever said that Azkaban was unimportant - what is being said is that it is not notable - WP:NN [[Guest9999 18:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep When a series of books this notable creates a fictional universe, the geographical components of that universe deserve their own pages. I think the manner in which locations in Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia are treated is a good example. Simply because the Harry Potter series is more contemporary is no reason why it should not be afforded the same treatment by wikipedia. Bjoel5785 19:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.

OR, delete also the following articles: Byss, Alderaan, Ebaq 9, Hoth, Lehon, Corellia, Bajor, Benzar, Khitomer, Qo'noS, Arda, Black Gate (Middle-earth), Misty Mountains, well, I won't go on. You can see the idea - these are just randomly selected articles about places in other fictional series (Star Trek, Star Wars and the Lord of the Rings, respectively. I could have picked other series but those were the ones that sprung to mind first). None of them are likely to have any "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", because they can't be separated from their subject!! I haven't checked each article so there might be an exception, but if so there are many more articles of this type to replace it By the definition of "notable" above, none of these articles, or any article about a fictional place, person, or event etc, can EVER be noteworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. And yet there can be no argument that these articles are not looked at and considered useful by thousands of readers and researchers. Either we accept that articles such as these have a place in Wikipedia, or we accept that there are literally thousands of articles about fictional places, people etc which need to be deleted for being "not notable". I will not be party to such a massacre, so I choose to invoke Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules to supercede a blatant use of the letter, rather than the spirit, of WP:N.

If this AfD closes as keep, I will be eager to help merge some of these pages into other articles, not because of their notability, but because the quantity of information in some of them does not justify separation. However, I believe that articles about fictional places should be judged based on their notability within the relevant work of fiction rather than the real world. If there is enough information given in canon to create a decently long article, it meets my critera for notability on Wikipedia. Happy-melon 21:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Please read WP:FICT; it provides a logical extension of WP:N for fiction. — Deckill er 03:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NOTINHERITED might also be helpful. [[Guest9999 03:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

WP:FICT is essentially what I have a problem with, not WP:N (which works extremely well for factual articles). Your point on WP:NOTINHERITED is taken and will, as I mention, result in my active participation in the merging of some of these articles which cannot justify their notability within the subject matter (for instance, Beauxbatons and Durmstrang). However, I do not believe that my argument is covered by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (which, incidentally, is neither policy nor guidline). I am not arguing that one other article exists. I am not even arguing that twenty other articles exist. I am arguing that a measurable fraction of the entire article namespace fails the same criteria. The fact that these articles exist, are read by Wikipedia readers and are useful to them, implies that it is policy, not the articles, that are at fault. Happy-melon 10:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline was updated recently to adhere to recent movements at AfD and merger/transwiki proposals, as well as to comply to WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:N. The problem doesn't really lie with WP:FICT, since it's now a logical extention of those guidelines and policies. You are right that there are still a ton of fiction articles that should comply with the new WP:FICT should it remain consensus. As for useful, well, a phonebook or directory is useful, as is a detailed summary of a work's plot (the plot consists of the story, setting, and characters), but these are things that Wikipedia is Not. I think that's your fundamental disagreement may lie with WP:NOT. — Deckill er 12:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite possible. However, an AfD is not the place to argue such a fundamental policy! Happy-melon 15:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy requires that these fictional articles actually are notable enough to have their own articles; just put it into a "locations of harry potter", which MAY have enough notability to stay. Besides, the examples you cited are dubious; the locations in lord of the rings are far more notable that Rowlings, since Tolkien probably wrote whole books on his locations and their influences, and then there are many reactions to the books and movies. These locations do not seem to have near that notability. Judgesurreal777 23:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whenever someone argues other stuff exists I get a sudden urge to nominate for deletion the articles the person is using to make their argument. Many of the articles you listed are indeed not notable outside the work in which they appear, however, the mere existence of articles about places in other works of fiction do not excuse these. All articles on Wikipedia must meet policy, the order it is enforced in does not matter. --Phirazo 03:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Happy-melon. Well said. Flyer22 21:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Happy-melon. How can one argue fictional places are non-notable? We can add the plethora of comic book characters, obscure to the point of idiocy, except "in universe". We could carry the the non-notable argument to the thousands of cricket players included on Wikipedia. How could any sports player, other than Jackie Robinson, have a place in Wikipedia? Either way, clean up or merge as needed. No reason to delete.--Knulclunk 02:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I came to this page through Diagon Alley, a quite thorough and informative article, if you are looking for information on Diagon Alley.--Knulclunk 02:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that many thousands of sports players other than Jackie Robinson have been the subject of multiple secondary sources. I'm not 100% sure that your arguement is serious, given that many have multiple books written solely about them and are mentioned in newspapers and magazines on an almost daily basis. Additionally the fact that probably around 90% of articles on fiction probably fail WP:NN doesn't mean that it is right that they exist. If the notability guideline is so wrong on so many artcles it should be rewritten. [[Guest9999 03:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

If a guideline is rewritten to satisfy a recent trend or consensus, then there will still be many articles that need to comply. Of course many articles won't meet the guideline (yet), but it's not a solid reason to change it; otherwise, we'd have no change on Wikipedia. — Deckill er 13:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be quite hard to rewrite the notability criteria to allow pages on subjects which have not been mentioned by any secondary sources. In fact I would say it is impossible as it would allow pretty much anything to have a page in Wikipedia which would go against "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", one of the fundamental principles (five pillars) of Wikipedia. Additionally the notability criteria for Fiction has recently been changed (by consensus) in order to ensure that it goes along with the primary notability criteria (as well as other guidelines) of which it is meant to be a logical conclusion of. [[Guest9999 13:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

I'm confused. I was arguing in favor of the new WP:FICT (I wrote and presented it for discussion). Since it's difficult to rewrite the notability criterion, then wouldn't it be up to the articles to comply? — Deckill er 14:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I think that I may have got my wires crossed, basicly my opinion isWP:FICT now matches WP:NN (which it should have always doen as it was meant to be derived from it)thousands of articles like these do not meet WP:NN (and so by definiton do not meet WP:FICT). Altering or discarding WP:NN to include such articles would likely be completely unmanagable and to the detrement of Wikipedia (apart from the fact that there is no consensus to do such) hence all of these articles should be deleted as per policy. I think maybe we agree? [[Guest9999 16:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Actually, I think it's my fault; I was responding to the wrong person above. We do agree. I think the only area we disagree is that I prefer testing merging and transwiki before deletion; if this can be transwikied to a Wikia, then all the better. — Deckill er 18:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I won't try to separate these into ones that might belong in a "List of Harry Potter locations" or somesuch. If you want a serious discussion, don't nominate more than 2 or 3 at a time. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - The articles nominated are of vastly different notability. Azkaban, for example, is an obvious keep. However, I think there should be no prejudice for the nominator renominating these articles individually. Savidan 15:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question? Why is Azkaban an obvious keep - it has no secondary sources - none have been mentioned in this debate and some of the current article such as the section entitled "Inspiration" is pure speculation and origional research. The rest of it is probably covered within the plot descriptions of the books in which it is involved - if it is truly an important part of the books which seems to be most people's rational for allowing it to go against WP:NN - so the article should be redundant anyway. [[Guest9999 16:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep and relist separately. Some of these should probably be merged into a list of Harry Potter places, others should be kept (and notability established using secondary sources like this, this, this, this and so forth). The only way to get a coherent consensus on which ones merit keeping and which ones should be merged is to list them separately. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Cyclone49 13:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to divide the question (sorry, it's the parliamentarian in me - for simplicity's sake, let's call it a weak procedural keep). As much as I would like to see all of these largely unnecessary articles deleted in one fell swoop, these articles should be considered separately and on their own merits, rather than as a large group that does not take into account all of their differences. I would be willing to concede keeping Azkaban or something like that, but I can't really work that into a !vote here, so they really should be individually listed. bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 04:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would, however, like to say that I completely agree with the nominator and would like to commend him for his excellent policy-based arguemnt. bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 14:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As i have said before, the "importance" or "notability", of locations such as Hogs head, hogsmeade, grimmauld place, weasleys wizard wheezes, etc... as I listed ...

Keep only keep Weasleys Wizard Wheezes, Diagon alley, hogs head, hogsmeade, grimmauld place, due to the fact that they have been moderately important if not majorly important. The others havent.Ko2007 18:20, 15 August 2007 (USCMT)

and delete or merge the rest respectively. Ko2007 03:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emphatic keep. - Gilgamesh 08:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Without a doubt.
Keep. I think that a lot of the suggestions for mergers are good, as a lot of these don't deserve their own article. However, the original nom to delete all is unreasonable. Somebody Else's Problem^{(aka Alethiophile)Ask me why} 19:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not one policy has been proffered for a keep; all comments can amount to "I like it". The articles are WP:OR and there are no reputable sources provided. The nomination does a good job of identifying the other areas where policy is ignored for the sake of fans liking their cruft. I would suggest getting a personal blog and focus these efforts there; none of these articles are appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator used 257 words to present essentially two arguments: failure of WP:OR and failure of notability under WP:FICT. I can blow away half of that in one 'word': WP:DEL#REASON - presence of original research is not justification to delete. It is justification to edit the articles as severely as may be necessary to remove it. If all that's left at the end is a redirect, so be it!! The nominator's argument under WP:FICT is the only one with credence. I would like to think that my argument displays use of policy as well as common sense, even if the fundamental argument is that I disagree with WP:FICT almost in its entirety. You may disagree again - that is, of course, your prerogative. Happy-melon 22:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - saying you disagree with WP:FICT is saying that you don't believe that WP:NN should be applied to fiction. Isn't that a bit of a slippery slope - what happens when other people decide it shouldn't apply to biographies or places or bands. Personally I do disagree with you, I think that the information contained in these articles and articles like these does not belong in an encyclopaedia - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia WP:5P - it would be entirely appropriate for a Harry Potter Wiki. Wikipedia is not meant to be a single unified source for all human knowledge WP:NOT#INFO. Also I felt it would make my case stronger if I explained my reasoning rather than juts giving a couple of links to policies. [[Guest9999 22:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep per Happy-melon. Btw, I am tired of "arguments" like "phonebook". --Dezidor 23:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a follow-up trim and merge for some per Adam and others. I recommend merging into other articles where notability has been established, so that the information is not lost but is instead placed in a different article. I am not going to elaborate on which I believe should be merged and where and which should be kept; AfD does not govern merges. However, I agree that most of these articles do not merit their own individual article, and, as one of the current goals of the WP:WPHP is trying to cut down on the number of articles we have without necessarily trying to eradicate the information found in those articles, I think a merge is the best option. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 00:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Here's my point-by-point rebuttal for the nomination:

Nominator says: “WP:N – no secondary sources given.” I say: Hello! In case nobody’s noticed, there are thousands of books about Harry Potter. I’m not talking about the hundreds of thousands of blogs, fansites and other non-acceptable sources, I’m referring to published books available in bookstores around the globe. These books analyze every aspect of the Harry Potter story including the significance of locations. It is true that these nominated articles are lacking sources, but sources could be added – deletion is not necessary. Here’s a few of the books that discuss fictional locations in Harry Potter. These are available from Amazon, which has thousands of other books about Harry Potter: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] I could go on and on.
Nominator says: “WP:NOR and WP:NOT#OR” I say: The subjects of these articles can be easily verified as not being original research, so the nominator’s concern must be with the content. In that case, delete the content that is original research, not the whole article.
Nominator says: “WP:NOT#INFO” I say: These locations are all essential to the plot of the most successful series of fiction ever. Hardly “indiscriminate information.” Not one of them could be left out – at the very least, merge a few of them together instead of deleting them. Their notability stands on its own and is not inherited as suggested. If it was inherited, we’d only have one Harry-Potter-related article on Wikipedia.
Nominator says: “WP:FAN” I say: That’s an essay, not Wikipedia policy or even a guideline. Although the presence of these articles is certainly influenced by a few million worldwide Harry Potter fans, the articles need to be cleaned up and properly sourced to avoid this label.

Happy-melon I think put it best. (Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, that's a Wikipedia policy.) The rebuttal to Happy-melon's arguments says “Look at WP:FICT”, but that guideline states that deletion should be the last resort, after all other options are unavailable, not the firstline response. Besides, as I've said, the Harry Potter universe (including locations therein) has been the subject of numerous works of secondary information and therefore passes notability requirements, even if the individual articles need improvement and sources. Jaksmata 20:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Jaksmata. How much longer is this debate going to stay open?? It looks like keep to snowball keep to me - only one delete against 17 keeps in the last 4 days, or 28 keeps against 17 deletes, merges, redirects and transwikis (all lumped together) overall. Although, of course, WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, we do seem to have built something of a consensus over the last few days!! Happy-melon 21:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until someone gets around to putting up templates on thirty-some articles to announce the result... Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of these (Azkaban) are certainly more deserving of an article than others (Spinner's End). But none of these deserve to be deleted. If it is decided that they definitely should not have their own articles (and some shouldn't), they should be merged somewhere relevant. It would be a disservice to just outright delete them without salvaging the good bits. Faithlessthewonderboy 11:09, 22 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. Ma x im 00:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Northgate Mall (Tullahoma)[edit]

Very small stub on a non-notable mall in Tennessee. The mall only has has thirteen stores in it, so it can't possibly be all that big. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced, apparently non-notable. Jakew 20:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Deleted in January, then recreated as an unsourced stub. I could not find sources to say much of anything about it. Edison 20:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Not verified, and the subject the article covers is not encyclopedia. LOZ: OOT 23:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After the AFD was started, the article was Speedy deleted[37] by Maxim at 23:43, 15 August 2007. Edison 00:15, 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. KrakatoaKatie 17:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham Square[edit]

Non-notable strip mall in Maryland. (Strip malls are generally even less notable than enclosed malls in my opinion.) This is mainly just a directory listing. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without sources, how could we even verify any claims to be notable? Jakew 20:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~The Baltimore Sun described it as a strip mall, and [38] says it has 186,000 sq ft of retail space, if this is "The Shoppes at Nottingham Square." Average little strip mall~~ Nothing to make it notable.(edited to add) Could not find definitive sources showing it was notable, or stating its GLA. There has never been any consensus that Wikipedia should be a directory of neighborhood or local shopping attractions. Edison 21:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ for Wikipedia:WikiProject Shopping Centers, I found the addresses of the sources I used to create the article (verifying my first hand knowledge) and cited them, however the site doesn't seem to be up right now but it may be temporary. I don't care how un-notable TenPoundHammer thinks strip malls are, notability judgments should be objective, and nowhere in the article does it even say it's a strip mall. It is a "large retail stores and restaurant franchises" with a mall stub because there are no more specific stubs. Edison's figures are taken out of context, "The Shoppes at Nottingham Square" is just the collection of food stores and other services which has only recently been developed, and is only a fraction of Nottingham Square. MDSL2005 21:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - There was certainly no intent to misrepresent it. People creating mall articles frequently use the popular name rather than the official name. If you have a source for the gross leasable area of the mall which is the subject of the article, then please add it, because it is an important factor in the ISCA classification. Edison 19:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I retract my vote from consideration, I cannot find any secondary information pertaining to this property and realize that there is no element of community involvement other than spending money, which is why there is no local news stories about it. MDSL2005 01:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to White Marsh, Maryland, should be enough for just that page.--JForget 00:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article is nothing more than a list of stores and there are no obvious sources to establish notability. Nuttah68 10:26, 20 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 00:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newington Mall[edit]

Non-notable (dead) mall, consists mainly of a list of stores with some OR thrown in. Far too small to be super regional, fails WP:RS too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, there is no information to suggest that this mall is in any way notable. Lacks sourcing, too. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A "deadmall" site claims [39] 480,000 sq ft, so regional. Went belly up in about 20 years, then demolished and redeveloped into a power center. Nothing special about it, non-blog sources seem lacking. Edison 21:20, 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 Redirected to Computer animation. ELIMINATORJR 20:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animation software[edit]

Just a large, poorly written, POV list.

Delete: Per nom. While I don't oppose to lists in general, this one is just trash. I looked at the history and there is no version of the article that is worthwhile. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 18:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Computer animation. The subject of animation done by software is sufficiently covered there. As it stands, the article is absolutely terrible, being a sloppy, ill-compiled arbitrary list of programs. It is not unreasonable for Wikipedia to cover the actual subject of animation software, but as I see it, that is best done withing the main article for computer animation. Calgary 19:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with having a list of free software under a heading that many 'surfers' might well use. There are many other sections which are far more badly written. As a retired teacher, I would have liked to read a brief critique in support of that POV. People use Wikipedia to find out information and to find links which can help them further their researches. This seems to be a standard approach.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.218.95 (talk • contribs)
- Comment: it is not the standard approach of Wikipedia to provide lists of various sorts with POV reviews. We do have several lists, but this isn't one that we need to improve the quality of the 'pedia. It's long, poorly written and completely POV, something that is discouraged in any encyclopedia, Wikipedia included. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Computer animation. This is nothing more than a POV opinion on software and a list of external links, for which Wikipedia is not the place. Nuttah68 10:33, 20 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 00:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

College Square[edit]

Non-notable mall, fails WP:RS. Falls way short of super regional at only 459,705 square feet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing unique about this mall. It does not distinguish itself from other malls amd appears non-notable.--Stormbay 21:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It is notable. It is the only regional shopping mall located outside a major metropolitan area in North eastern TN. From the beginning since its opening, it has had lots of traffic. Even thought it competes with Knoxville Center mall, with the easy access off US25E, people from KY, VA, and TN have fast access to Major mall shops. This is not an advertisement. It is adding an important piece of information on the malls of Tennessee. It represents a piece of culture and a way America shopped. Being built in the 1980's it was at the end of the biggest period of mall building in TN. Having many of the services of Knoxville Center just being local for a 15 county area, it is important. Thats why its notable.Etittle1978 23:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't just tell me that it's notable -- show me its notability (specifically in the means of reliable sources). Being the only mall serving its area isn't (usually) enough. Alpena Mall got deleted recently because, even though it's the only mall in northeastern Michigan, it totally failed WP:RS and got deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every mall is the most notable in its region, if you pick small enough regions. Something more is needed than just that. DGG (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply does not assert any notability. Vegaswikian 02:40, 19 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 - non admin closure, tagged with {{db-afd}} Giggy ^Talk 07:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Hollow Mall[edit]

Non-notable shopping mall, fails WP:RS. 937,048 square feet is pretty big for a mall, but I don't believe that size alone makes for notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apart from its current shortage of tenants, this mall appears non-notable. --Stormbay 21:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Toward Delete - Typically, as a rule of thumb, I've been trying to only keep the malls that are over a million square feet. This mall is under that, but just barely. Nevertheless, this mall doesn't seem to have anything special and is thus quite boring and needs no article... that is unless I'm wrong and this mall is special in some way. --Triadian 21:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a super regional mall it gets a break. Could use work fo WP:V and WP:RS. Vegaswikian 02:42, 19 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 00:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial Mall[edit]

Short, sub-stub-class article on a non-notable mall. Tagged for importance since April with no improvement. At only 367,147 square feet of GLA, it's definitely not a super regional mall either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has had a chance to expand and seems stalled. It is non-notable. --Stormbay 21:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as empty. Vegaswikian 02:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is my local mall, and I was thinking of taking it to AfD sometime soon. It's only 50% occupied and in serious decline beyond the big stores in it. Frankly at this point, the new Wal-Mart supercenter down the road is more notable than this mall, unfortunately. Nate 05:08, 19 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 00:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Angel Pearl[edit]

Very little context, Seems not to be very notable and could possibly even be merged to other related articles, Google search renders no viable sources. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources are found to attribute notability. --Dhartung | Talk 19:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though there is an Auguste Caillot who wrote a book about Polynesian legends. I haven't been able to track down a copy to see if this subject is substantially mentioned.--Sethacus 21:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced. It's plausible: Caillot and Rollin check out as writers in this area [40]. I tried Googling in French - perle, croix - but no luck: without a specific citation, it goes. Gordonofcartoon 23:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is confirmed as accurate by my information. Leungsikwah -unsigned edit by new editor Leungsikwah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I find this article to be accurate and informative. Hendrylee - unsigned edit by new editor Hendrylee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
1928 issue of People and Pearls confirms accuracy of article. Sarahtrental - unsigned edit by new editor Sarahtrental (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Remarkable how a 1928 article could predict it to be currently owned by a private collector on Grand Cayman Island. Gordonofcartoon 02:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I have this right. We have 1.original research 2.WP:ILIKEIT and 3. a supposed article in an 80-year-old magazine with no references that, per Google, doesn't even seem to exist. Excuse me if I'm not convinced.--Sethacus 15:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources offered in article. Gsearch does not turn up this legend, but it does turn up a lot of references to a similarly named company. Gsearch en français only gives a half dozen links to the company, and no other hits.
Delete unless some sources establishing notability are added. Nuttah68 10:51, 20 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 00:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Ashcroft[edit]

No notability, no sources available, except the company web site, which isn't a third-party source. Besides, I'm not even sure as to what his company does, or why it and he are notable. Delete this article. Panoptical 17:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. The only source I found was this which isn't much (and a press release summary to boot). Red Fox itself (a software and services company that is sorta known) could be notable, but it's not even clear from sources what Ashcroft's role is. Owner? Founder? Employee No. 1? --Dhartung | Talk 19:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There has been no activity since I tagged the article with {{notability}}. Also, appears to be an autobiography, and not a very thorough one.-- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 03:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete asa failing WP:BIO. Nuttah68 10:53, 20 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 05:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Hogan (accused murderer)[edit]

Unnotable and serious BLP concerns (this is a tragic case of a man considered unfit to stand trial for killing his son), the name is POV and the article contains almost nothing (had a notability tag since January), SqueakBox 17:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real notability, especially if he hasn't even been charged with anything. Crazysuit 17:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP problems right down to the title: it seems to me that for BLP purposes, "accused" should mean formally charged and put on trial. Otherwise we leave the door open to all sorts of wacky "accused..." articles. Besides, doesn't seem to have been a particularly notable case by encyclopedic standards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (although he has been formally charged, he is under psychiatric observation and awaiting trial) this is not a significant case per WP:BLP1E. --Dhartung | Talk 19:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, POV title etc. Violation of WP:BLP.--PrestonH 19:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above - WP:BLP issues galore. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per most above.--JForget 00:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I don't see the article as worth keeping, I'd like to point out that the case itself is notable, having been featured on several newspaper's front pages on multiple occasions, and therefore meeting the requirements of WP:N. I don't think, however, there should be an article about this person. JulesH 10:50, 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 - fails WP:BIO, no sources. - KrakatoaKatie 17:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tito power 106[edit]

Biography of a minor radio Disc Jockey in California that does not appear to meet the criteria set out in WP:BIO. Given the absence of his real name, looking for sources online is next to impossible. CIreland 17:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject of the article is non-notable. The article itself is unsourced. I presume the author of the page (djfromwhittier) is likely the article subject. Sasha Callahan 17:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete This man does not want his name to be known for the same reason "Big Boy" doesn't. Everything in this article is true. Sources include the power 106 website and of course, the radio. I've been listening to Tito for 10 years. He is well-known in the L.A. area and has an interesting story, one that I believe is very notable. This link leads you to his profile on the power 106 website http://www.power106.com/airstaff/tito.aspx This is a video of Tito's Top 4@4 which happens to be the top rated show on air in Los Angeles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upp6Vqykkmg

This comment was left by Djfromwhittier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) See [41] and this one too [42] Sasha Callahan 04:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per very narrow scope of notability, ie only known (if that) in LA area Corpx 04:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italic textWhat the hell is this guy talking about...What an idiot. It's the same reason a local newsreporter in arkansas is on this site... they're well known in their region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.121.152 (talk • contribs)

That should be deleted too then. Corpx 04:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, if you're not from L.A then who are you to say whether this guy's a somebody or a nobody. You don't know who you're even talking about. Believe it or not, his story is pretty popular in this neighborhood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.121.152 (talk • contribs)

That's my point...nobody outside of LA knows about this guy Corpx 04:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless or until a source asserting notability is found. SolidPlaid 17:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Tito (radio host), then merge and redirect to KPWR. You'd think being the afternoon drive DJ on a top-10 radio station in the second largest radio market would be enough to establish notability, but reliable sources are difficult to find; the only mentions I was able to find online were from when he was part of the former afternoon drive show "tha' Goodfellas and Tito Show", e.g. "2 St. Louis men are a hit with their Los Angeles radio show" in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and "Radio Show of the Week" in the Los Angeles Daily News. The Goodfellas themselves moved to KDAY, and Tito was left with the timeslot on Power 106 (KPWR). Given the relatively high profile of this DJ, it seems prudent to believe that it is only a matter of time before more independent reliable sources will be found. Until then, merging rather than deleting seems the better course of action. Advice to User:Djfromwhittier: if you are aware of any independent press coverage (e.g. newspapers or magazines) of Tito or the radio show after the Goodfellas left the timeslot, it would be a good idea to cite it. DHowell 02:04, 19 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 05:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MP3Artists[edit]

I'm not quite sure what to make of this article. A google search reveals pretty much only that this was a group over several forums, and that it wasn't a particularly notable one. The claims of starting out as a record label cannot be easily verified, and in any case, given the parsity of references, it was probably a non-notable label. The Evil Spartan 15:29, 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, Caknuck 17:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources, and with 26 Google hits (and a number of them unrelated), I wouldn't hold my breath for any reliable sources coming anytime soon. Article is not even primarily about its title. Fails both WP:MUSIC and WP:WEB in any case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is either a gentle hoax or non notable since there are no reliable sources Obina 17:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable at all. Man It's So Loud In Here 00:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per User:Starblind ----Hu12 03:55, 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. Singu larity 05:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Force[edit]

This appears to be a minor band, signed to an independent label, with few releases. Asserts notability, but fails WP:MUSIC, and also WP:V, as it lacks sources entirely. Xoloz 16:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the page this appears to have been copied from, here, states "almost made it famous." I'd say I have to agree; there's nothing to back up any of the claims made, so we're lacking in verifiability; two singles on a small indie doesn't seem to help them make WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:15, 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, Caknuck 17:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and per above. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like a footnote to me. Likely their best shot at passing notability would be if they'd received decent press coverage but since there isn't even a single reference, I guess that's a no. Precious Roy 14:50, 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. Singu larity 05:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TR Griffin[edit]

Assertions of notability, but this article has no external sources: fails WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:LIVING. As for notability, this person is a singer in the Sacramento area and has won his singing awards in a prior a-capella group in that city; there's no notability asserted outside of that town. Seems to have been contributed to mostly by WP:SPAs and IP accounts. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:41, 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 no sources showing how the subject meets WP:MUSIC. Nuttah68 14:54, 12 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 17:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article does make a claim to notability, albeit one so silly it's barely worth considering: claims to be "one of the first to pioneer" hard disk recording. Uh-huh. Anyway, delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:46, 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. KrakatoaKatie 17:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DemandTec[edit]

Contested G11 speedy deletion. I've fleshed out the most ad-like content but the question still remains about the notability of the company per WP:CORP. Procedural nomination, I abstain. Pascal.Tesson 19:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Quite a few multinationals use their products, AP article about company picked up by Forbes. Needs some fleshing out regarding the exact nature of their products, and some more sourcing wouldn't hurt either. Cap'n Walker 20:20, 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, Caknuck 17:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An actively traded company on a major US stock exchange demonstrates clear notability. Alone, the major media articles on DemandTec generated from the NASDAQ listing should be sufficient and, of course, there is no problem finding reliable sources on the subject. Michael Devore 20:26, 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. Kurykh 00:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of the World[edit]

Minor beauty pageant. Google searches turn up some mentions of it, but it is not really covered in any reliable sources. I had no luck with "Königin der Welt" either. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC) ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only on Wikipedia... there's one person who has devoted their time to adding articles to Wikipedia about the world's beauty pageants, and another who is working just as feverishly to remove such articles from Wikipedia. Good luck to both of you. Mandsford 21:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, she wasn't involved in writing most of the articles I nominated. Plus, I'm done. It was ust one day that I decided to clean out Category:Beauty pageants. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 13:40, 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 23:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Moonriddengirl 14:13, 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, Caknuck 17:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no 3rd party WP:RSes for the notability of this minor beauty pageant. Fails WP:N. Carlossuarez46 19:04, 20 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 05:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trigger (band)[edit]

Fails WP:BAND: no reliable sources that establish notability, released two albums, both "unsigned". Prod was removed without a comment. Mel sa ran 17:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I notified the author of possible deletion [43] after he had added a non-working link to a disambiguation page, but before he created this article. I already checked whether this band had a wiki entry in the Greek WP, but this didn't seem to be the case (having a different alphabet makes researching such things really hard though.) Since the author ignored well-meant advice, I have to assume no reliable references establishing notability exist, therefore my delete vote. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the band is unsigned. clearly fails notability standards. Sasha Callahan 17:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is unsourced and includes spam link.--NAHID 12:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Signed or not, there are no claims of notability in the article. Precious Roy 16:16, 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. Kurykh 00:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lacey Duvalle[edit]

Biography of a pornographic actress that I believe fails to satisfy the guidelines in WP:PORNBIO. Appearances on a couple of TV shows are her best claim to notablility. Furthermore, the two sources provided are not independent of the subject. CIreland 17:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 22:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless material to pass WP:PORNBIO is found Corpx 04:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think her appearances on The Tera Patrick Show and The Howard Stern Show fulfil WP:PORNBIO's mainstream coverage criteria due to the high number of pornstars appearancing on those shows. Epbr123 09:50, 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 merge into Amalgam#Mining. - KrakatoaKatie 17:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amalgam table[edit]

I cannot find a single source for the existence of an "amalgam table" on Google. (The results are "...amalgam (Table 1)." and similar.) If references cannot be found, the article cannot stay. Shalom ^Hello 16:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Seems to be real mining technology. I haven't checked the 'recommended reading' in the article, but Google Books returns some other results that appear to verify that references can be found. Examples: [44] [45] [46] [47] The claim that it was the "main way to collect fine particles of gold during the 1800's" suggests notability, but would require verification. Jakew 20:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source&merge per Gordonofcartoon. Jakew 21:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source and merge with Amalgam#Mining. This is a just a description of one particular setup - the amalgamation table - for the "amalgamation" process for gold recovery. See [48], [49], [50] Gordonofcartoon 23:35, 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. Carlossuarez46 19:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Q-ships[edit]

Uncited trivia collection that is riddled with OR examples of similarity. Violates WP:NOT#IINFO (and WP:NOT#TRIVIA?) Eyrian 16:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete - directory of loosely associated items stitched together through original research. Good catch. Otto4711 17:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Case for keeping==

First of all, this is my first proper attempt at making a case for keeping an article so even if I make a bad job for the defense this should be taken as a failure on my part and not be taken as reflecting on the merits of this article.

Second this article is new, as of this moment less than a day old, although it consists almost in its entirety of material contributed by other editors and now deleted from the original Q-ship article, I don't believe any of these contributers know of its existence. So for now it is friendless and beset upon by an editor who cannot abide its existence. Said editor having deleted this material from the original Q-ships article. It is apparent therefore that the two editors who have so far shown an interest in this article, myself and its nominator for deletion stand opposite each other, one in enmity for this article and I presume others articles like it, and myself as its unwitting champion in amity. Under such circumstance both I and User:Eyrian cannot be said to be neutral in this argument and at most our voices will counteract the others. I therefore ask that neither I nor Eyrian should act until a consensus of other editors without a vested interest in the survival or deletion of this article have had a chance to consider its survival; and that any possible execution should be stayed until such a time as the article has had a time to mature.

Because yes I concede that this article as it stands is flawed. However how many articles arrive fully fledged and flawless. Those flaws in format, in detail and in writing can be fixed with time. But will it be given this time?

I come now to the crux of the matter, does such an article have a place on Wikipedia? It was deleted by Eyrian as trivia and I suppose others who denigrate popular culture as trivia would agree with this. Indeed I would agree with Eyrian that this material has at best a tenuous right to existence in the Q-ship article proper, but I contest that it does have a place in a Fictional Q-ships article. If this article is deleted than it can only be on the grounds that all popular culture references should be deleted, and only reality and real things should be the subject of articles in Wikipedia. If only Q-ships as they existed in reality has a place in Wikipedia, than I suggest that articles such as HMS Thunder Child be deleted, as the logical extension of the no trivia school would mean that only steam rams as they existed in reality have a place in Wikipedia and this famous but fictional example is irrelevant, and while you're at it how about Space battleships and battlecruisers, the fiction section of HMS Surprise (1794), every ship that appears in Star Trek and List of Star Wars capital ships and every fictional person, object, ship and organisation in Wikipedia. (Okay I better stop there, I guess there are some editors out there who would want to do just that).

Even if it is conceded that fictional subjects have a place on Wikipedia, which I hope the majority of editors will do so, does that mean that this particular fictional subject has a right to survive? Q-ships as they existed in reality were remarkably unsuccessful for the amount of effort expended on them, and like the ironclad steam ram, they have been much more successful in fiction than they were in reality. That they have captured the imagination of writers and readers, means that for many what they know and understand of Q-ships will have stemmed from an exposure to Fictional Q-ships rather than to the reality. It can be hoped that an article on Fictional Q-ships (and it has been linked to do so) can serve as a bridge to those interested in fictional Q-ships to Q-ships in reality.

I've spent longer in this defense than seems to be the norm here, and I'll stand aside now to allow other voices their chance.KTo288 19:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)KTo288 20:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but your arguments here do not address the substantive policy issues raised by the nomination. The existence of other articles has no bearing on this article. If there are examples of actual fictional Q-ships that have been identified as such by reliable sources then that might demonstrate a basis for this article. But the things on this list have apparently not been identified in reliable sources or within the fiction from which they have been drawn as Q-ships. Gul Ducat never referred to his purloined vessel as a "Q-ship" for example. Thus, the list is nothing but the assumption by some editor or another, in the absence of sourcing, that a particualar fictional ship is, or worse, simply resembles, a Q-ship. This is original research and it has no place on Wikipedia. Otto4711 21:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does little more than point out where they occur in fiction, and let's face it, fictional Q-ships are not all that different from real ones. Down this road, we'd end up with Fictional battleships, Fictional torpedo boats, Fictional left-handed redheads... (P.S. That's Dukat, not Ducat.) Clarityfiend 00:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd say this is over-categorization of fiction and is a list of loosely associated topics Corpx 04:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to content, as I have said I concede that this article as it is is flawed, and I'm not going to defend this article on the basis of what it is, but on the principle of what it may become, inline with Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Editing and Wikipedia:Fancruft#Approach.

On the discussion page of the article (my apologies, but this is the first time I've participated in a Afd debate in such a way, and find myself in the deep end with regards the etiquette of this procedure) I received the replies that "...yes, there are interesting aspects of the cultural impact, they are not illuminated by a list of trivial references" and "...it's not a matter of growth;it's a matter of replacement" from the editor who originally nominated this article for deletion. From this I surmise that he or she would be interested in seeing a well written and sourced "Fictional Q-ships" but not the article as it stands. In this I guess we have a difference in approach.

Is it reasonable to expect articles to emerge from the foam full grown and perfect? I suggest that the opposite is true, I've participated on more than one article in which a scrawny summary and mass of conflicting views have grown into an article one can be proud of. Something happens along the way, an article attracts a critical mass of interested and knowledgeable editors and the article blooms. In this even badly written and incorrect content has its uses, as it will provoke said editors into action. However what is required is the seed crystal around which this progress can be made. Well I guess that one line about Fictional Q-ships on the Q-ship article proper may act as a grain of sand, but without time, space and the tolerance of editors intent on preserving Wikipedia's purity no critical mass or take off is possible.

There will of course be editors for whom such a take off is anathema. For such editors the sooner this article be nipped in the bud the better; and to these editors my answer is...okay you've got me, there is no possible argument that I can make that will convince you otherwise. We're not supposed to mention that articles and categories such as List of fictional medicines and drugs,List of fictional ships,Spacecraft in the Honorverse,and the Category Fictional towns and cities in the United States] that exist, are tolerated and nurtured.

So get out your knives and be done with it, delete the article. Because there is only way that the consensus this Afd is going and that is "delete". This article just hasn't had the time for any but those who wish its termination to take an interest in it, no chance to gain supporters to rally; these debates seemingly to be the prowling grounds of those whose only instinct is to delete.KTo288 19:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve--like all WP articles. The use of these cultural references indicates the relevance of the real-world equivalent. KTp288's detailed arguments are clearer than anything I could do in this rather unfamiliar territory, so I just refer to them. As he says, it's a difference in approach--I feel that anything that can potentially be written about encyclopedically is encyclopedic,. and that's how I understand the pillars of N and V. Any other interpretation leads to a specialized encyclopedia, and at the base of all the pillars is the purpose of WP: to produce a contemporary general encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really ought to know better than this by now. If a fictional ship is not identified as a Q-ship in reliable sources then including it on a list of fictional Q-ships is original research. These are not examples of fictional Q-ships. All of your high-falutin' talk about what an encyclopedia might be means nothing in the face of the concrete policy objections. Address those. Otto4711 01:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any entries you think wrong, you are welcome to discuss on the article talk page. I don't consider "inclusive" a particularly high-falutin' term or concept. If anyone is interested in building an encyclopedia containing only what a few people want it to contain, GFDL will let you do it as a subset of WP. Really-important-pedia. DGG (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh, and so leaving aside all of this "what an encyclopedia should be" chit-chat, do you have any sources at all that indicate that even a single item included in this article is a "Q-ship"? Whatever meta-discussions you may want to have, as far as this article goes do you have any fact-based answer at all to the policy problems? Otto4711 04:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Directory of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR Jay32183 02:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR unless reliable sources can be found describing these fictional spaceships (or ships like them) as "Q-ships". If any of the sources use the "Q-ship" terminology, that would help considerably. If some encyclopedia of science fiction compares them to Q-ships, that would be a conclusive argument for keeping. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. The majority of the entries are not described Q-Ships i the original media, let alone by reliable sources. Nuttah68 11:04, 20 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 18:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Bergmann[edit]

Biographical article with little assertion of notability; the only thing that I see is that she supposedly performed at various places nationwide. No proof that she fulfills ~~WP:B~~ WP:BIO Nyttend 16:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She's a bot??!!?? Maybe you think she doesn't satisfy WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Yeah. That makes more sense. -- Ben 18:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. Thanks :-) Nyttend 18:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Good times. -- Ben 19:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominating for Speedy. No claim of notability. -- Ben 19:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably would not pass WP:MUSIC as a locally active folk musician with some national name recognition. We'd need more than a Pete Seeger quote, though (that may be enough to belay speedy). --Dhartung | Talk 19:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of any sources to establish notability. Nuttah68 11:15, 20 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. John254 00:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Zaharias[edit]

This article does not establish notability. He seems to be nothing more than the husband of a professional golfer, which does not make him notable. Nikki311 16:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. Nikki311 16:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not inherited by marriage, but I am satisfied by the citation to a New York Times obituary. Shalom ^Hello 16:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, did you read the obituary? All it says is that the husband of a professional golfer died. There is almost no information about him other than his death and marriage. Nikki311 17:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it also mentions that he was a professional wrestler, and the Google news results below suggest that he was a rather famous one. Zagalejo 18:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 402 Google News hits from 1931-1934 – before he met Babe Didrikson. Zagalejo 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although he is now BEST known as a husband/manager, he was well known before his marriage. Needs more about his pro career, though. --Dhartung | Talk 19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I AfD'd the article because it, in its current condition, does not establish notability. If someone is willing to expand the article and add sources, I have no problem changing my vote to keep. Nikki311 20:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added material about his 1932 match against Jim Londos, the best attendance of any that year, which seems to demonstrate that he was one of the top wrestlers of his era. --Dhartung | Talk 20:15, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. A number of good arguments were raised on both sides, but I don't see how this discussion can be closed as anything other than "no consensus". As an editor, I would urge moving the article to Race relations in the LGBT community and would strongly urge more of a focus on what reliable secondary sources (e.g. sociologists) have to say about race relations in this community, rather than a focus on individual incidents of racism which, sadly, are common across all strata of society. But that's beside the point; for the purposes of AfD, this is a no consensus, defaulting to keep. MastCell ^Talk 22:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in the LGBT community[edit]

Let me first explain that I think it is very unfair in that it singles out a community, allow me to ask, is there an "Anti-Semitism in the Black community" article? Or more on topic, "homophobia in the Black community"? No. Should there be? No. Because homophobia, like racism, appears in all groups, no matter how much you can document and find incidents to talk about, this is the truth. --Revolución hablar ver 16:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nominator is obviously a troll. Did not place the AFD notice on the article page - attempting to get this article deleted by stealth. Delete this AFD and ban nominator permanently. 91.108.205.229 17:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Excuse me, but I had forgotten how to put the AFD notice. So please stop assuming. --Revolución hablar ver 06:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You'd "forgotten" how the put the AFD notice on the article, but conveniently "remembered" how to list it here? Riiiiight, of course, how silly of me not to think of that. 91.108.229.63 10:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Civility and No personal attacks applies in AfD debates, too, please. --Ace of Swords 19:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep too many sources for it to be deleted. I hate to be speculative, but I think the nominator is a member of this community, and wants to keep potential criticism down. Sasha Callahan 17:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am a member of this community, if it matters. The article is terrible. It is not a discussion of racism in the LGBT community. It is a catalog of a few incidents of racial bias or perceived racial bias within the American LGBT community. However, the topic of the prejudice of one minority group toward another minority group is clearly encyclopedic. I look forward to someone's taking this article in hand and improving it. Otto4711 17:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as topic is unencyclopedic, while Otto's comments on state of article makes me more firm in my decisionSqueakBox 18:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While there are sources, this phenomenon does not seem particularly notable. So there's racism in the LGBT community... there's racism in all communities. But what makes this special? I don't see any reason to have this article. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 18:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is quite a bit of information that counters that idea.Racism Issues in Predominantly White Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Communities; North America - Europe - Australia (with quite a few sources and articles.)[51]

Delete. Two seemingly unrelated topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J-stan (talk • contribs)
Delete. The article does not assert the significance of its subject, simply saying that it exists and that it is not a surprise that it exists! It is not clear to me that racism in the LGBT community is so significantly different from racism in society as a whole that it warrants a article, consequently I go for delete. --Malcolmxl5 19:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There seems to be enough sources to establish the notability of this topic, but the referencing needs a lot of work - it seems to be largely attributed to blogs and the like. Come to think of it the article in general needs work - a lot of work - but I disagree with the idea that it ought to be deleted. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because something is sourced doesn't mean that it's something that should be kept. This is one of those instances - why is racism in the LGBT community so special that it needs to be set apart? To call this notable, in my eyes, is some sort of assumption that the LGBT community is perceived to be without bias towards other groups. Why else would racism in that particular group need special attention? fuzzy510 20:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a question of whether this particular sort of racism is "special." It is a question of whether the topic meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. Clearly it does. Otto4711 20:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Otto4711. Racism is everywhere so it should be ignored... that's a argument for willful ignorance. Ideally, the page should be transformed into something more like Race in the LGBT community, where it talks about the role race plays in the community and not solely just on racism, the way Ethnic issues in Japan does. In my college days, I've read papers by African American LGBTs who complain how race ignorant the community was in general, and such screeds should make plenty of good material for such an article. Also, see Shirley Q. Liquor—there's plenty of material there to get started with. hateless 22:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's important to remember here that LGBT is not an arbitrary method of classification. LGBT isn't a just a category that a person can fall into, but, as the article states, it is an actual community. If racism is indeed a prominent and notable issue within the community, then there is no good reason that we shouldn't include it, as it would relate directly to the subject of the LGBT community. Calgary 22:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as significant subject although, article would use some expansion with additionnal sources to make the topic more solid.--JForget 00:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to have any particular merit. Is there really a case for saying that racism in that community is different from racism outside it? Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. Just to be clear, we're talking about racism within the community, not racism from the community. While racism may be very similar wherever it appears, the idea is that racism is of enough significance within the community to merit it's own article. In summary, the article is primarily an article about the LGBT community that specifically discusses racism, not an article about racism that specifically discusses the LGBT community. Calgary 03:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge too much WP:SYNTH to keep a topic like this. Corpx 04:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm failing to see any WP:OR in the topic that suggests that subject isn't valid. Indeed many of the comments are clear that racism does exist within the LGBT community so where is the WP:SYNTH? Benjiboi 11:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For this history in the US section, the article examines a "gay bar named Badlands" and allegations of racism there. Then it moves on to some alleged verbal assaults that occurred in the Castro. Then it moves on to Chuck Knipp. The article is tying all these incidents under the big umbrella of racism in the GLBT community - which, to me, is WP:OR Corpx 08:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Granted the article could do a much better job at presenting the material. That gay bar Badlands was brought up before the SF Human Rights Commission for dozens of complaints of racial profiling and discrimination, because of the race-based incidents a group And Castro For All was created and still exists to address racism issues in the LGBT communities. It should be noted that the Castro is probably the best known (and I believe still largest) gay neighborhood in the world.
Chuck Knipp's character Shirley Q Liquor is a prime example of racism insensitivity and made headlines for blackface stereotyped stand-up comedy - the character was disinvited to perform in several venues after protests. Both these incidents were covered in the GLBT national press so no WP:OR needed there. I can see how it could be interpreted that way. Benjiboi 17:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's well-sourced, and valid. I see no reason to delete it, and frankly, deleting the article won't make the issue go away. spazure (contribs) 04:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as asserting notability, being notable, and being sourced, but also having a really bad/WP:SYNTH intro. Ante lan ^talk 04:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is certainly a fascinating phenomenon - seems to be well sourced, but could use some fleshing out - I'm a lesbian and it baffles me how a few people who will almost inevitably at some point be a victim of discrimination can then go about perpetuating discrimination themselves... Xmoogle 14:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic is important and I agree with User:Calgary above, racism or discrimination within a community differs from external racism or discrimination. I think the article could be improved, but let's put it out there and folks can edit and alter it.Kootenayvolcano 17:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important subject in the LGBT community garnering headlines in many of the publications. The article is off to a good start and can easily expand in many directions including LGBT groups like Black and White Men Together and Castro For All that have formed to combat racism within the LGBT community. Benjiboi 17:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rationale seems to boil down to 'other stuff does not exist, which is not a reason for deletion. Yes, racism is present in every community, but it also manifests differently in every community. There have been various publications on this matter. Sourceable, notable. No reason not to keep. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 21:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CaveatLector.Biophys 02:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. The WP:SYNTH issues seem the most pressing. Bulldog123 05:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto4711. Wow. Bearian 18:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this article were to stay, then an article disscusing racism in every community would have to have its own article (from latinos, blacks, whites, and asians, to nudists, goths, and punks..). Wouldn't that be alot of fun writing many articles about racism in many communites.. The history section is like a textbook example of racism, or in other words, what people already know about racism. The first sentance implies that somehow, someone would not know that racism in the LGBT community exists...and the "Racial bias in the gay media" section....I can think of many communites that have the same issues...systemic bias annoys me badly. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 07:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If enough sources were to support those articles then they certainly could be written. There are numerous sources writting about racism within the LGBT communities as well as books and taught as a part of LGBT and black studies in colleges. Double-minority status is not exclusive to these communities but this article is. You are free to start an article on other subjects as you wish and they will be held to the same standards. Benjiboi 07:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for WP:SYN issues. The concepts "racism" and "LGBT community" are quite vague; trying to create a coherent article dealing with both at the same time is bound to be an exercise in POV-pushing. However, I wouldn't object to merging any useful content into an existing article on one or both of those topics. Biruitorul 18:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really? Racism and the LGBT community concepts are vague? Really? See Flat Earth. Benjiboi 19:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what relevance the "flat earth" link has, but yes, those terms are rather subjective ("racist" being used by the new McCarthyists of the Left to silence large swathes of dissenting opinion they may not like; "LGBT" an obfuscatory umbrella term that seeks to couch its members' behaviour behind the banality of an acronym) and in any case, the only ones likely to be writing about either topic, let alone both in tandem, are radical leftist grievance-industry types, whose screeds need not befoul an encyclopedia that strives for objectivity. As an aside, this article seems highly likely to remain focused on attacks by white American (male) homosexuals against their black and Hispanic counterparts. As it will be some time before (if ever) before it starts to address racism by Afrikaaner bisexuals against Zulu bisexuals in South Africa, or by Fijian transsexuals against Indo-Fijian transsexuals, perhaps it could be given a more specific title. Indeed, the title is vague in another respect: does the article seek to address racism within the "community" (seemingly yes), or in the "community" but directed at society as a whole (this is how the title reads)? The questions proliferate, and with these, the keep rationale diminishes ever further. Biruitorul 21:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with this topic having a broad scope - the beauty of Wikipedia is that perceived or actual biases will be continually challenged as articles develop. So, I say, lets trust the collaborative process that is Wikipedia. If contributors want to address the Afrikanner/Zulu question you mentioned, they will. Kootenayvolcano 22:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but on the other hand, that raises a further question: is there a single worldwide "LGBT community"? Maybe in a loose sense, but the term "racism" can have very different meanings in different cultures, and of course homosexuality itself is perceived quite differently around the world. So while a broad focus could cover everyone, let's keep WP:SYN in mind and try to avoid mixing apples and oranges when discussing the issue in (eg) advanced industrial ethnically heterogeneous societies (say the US) vs. developing, more homogeneous ones (like Somalia). Broad-focus articles are good because combining lots of little articles makes for more comprehensive coverage; at the same time, lots of little articles may be necessary if the topics in question are different enough. Biruitorul 22:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprisingly the research and published writing on the subject that are up to WP standards have mainly been in the more developed regions of the world and the article (as, I think with almost all WP articles) will reflect that. As the article develops it would be interesting to note geopolitical differences and the responses and affects of same. Jamaica with its recent Murder Music attention to its LGBT community is an example that people who are LGBT in developing countries might have fighting racism as an interest but staying alive is a priority. Benjiboi 00:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Administrator: The poster objects to both the terms "LGBT" and "Racism". Perhaps we should delete those as well? How's this for Wikipedia "consensus"? --George100 09:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on above note What is that even supposed to mean? Biruitorul's personal and political opinions are not the topic of discussion here. He raises valid points in his comments, whether or not you agree with everything he says; and in any event, opinions and comments in an AfD cannot be dismissed simply because you don't like the commenter's political opinions. K. Lásztocska 19:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What a weird topic. I'm always, as a general rule, against these types of splinter-articles. (I've never been a big fan of Balkanization in either the literal or figurative sense.) Perhaps some of the material would be worth merging into Racism; but this article is way too narrowly-defined for my liking. K. Lásztocska 23:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Racism article is quite large and although a summary section might be appropriate I think it would quickly be nominated for it's own article anyway. There is more than enough material to turn this into a good article, "weird" or otherwise.

Keep — topic is obviously encyclopedic, and article already has sources establishing notability. Future expansion could include discussion of African-American lesbians and the womanist movement; I know that at some points there has been friction between the African-American lesbian community and the white-dominated lesbian mainstream. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move. This is a horribly written article with many problems. Mainly, per title, it lacks neutrality. Second, it isn't well sourced. Third, it is U.S. centric. I think the best solution is to merge it into something like LGBT culture in the United States or Racism in the United States.--Sefringle^Talk 06:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No one seems to dispute the article needs improving. NPOV, Globalism and Sourcing are all easily fixed through regular editing. Possible renaming may be appropriate once AfD has been resolved. Benjiboi 13:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Is well documented issue with social significance. Furthermore, I believe that the deletion of this article will be tantamount to censorship. It is an attempt to cover up and condone a very real phenomenon. --George100 01:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Ace of Swords 19:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyclopedic topic, though article needs improvement. Needs improvement does not justify deletion. It does justify people working on it to improve it though. --Ace of Swords 19:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly encyclopedic. The LGBT community is not monolithic, even in one city (such as NYC), the LGBT community is not a category, and members are already oppressed by homophobia in many parts of the world, and in many states in America. To add racism is a double whammy for LGBT people who are also members of other minorities. Gay Asians and gay Jews haven't been touched on, for example, nor have most other racial, religious, or cultural groups. I believe notability has been established, as the issue is well documented. The article needs to be improved: expanded, made global, and re-written for readability. However those are not reasons for deletion. Other reasons to keep have been touched on. — Becksguy 04:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom vague and not written in neutral point of view . Harlowraman 20:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The topic is encyclopedic, it deserves a page. It has plenty of references. NPOV can later be corrected. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 22:04, 22 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 05:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft of Ace Combat[edit]

This seems to violate Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. RobJ1981 15:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 16:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs a tidyup however, to be like the many similar articles on wikipedia such as List of cars in the Ridge Racer series or List of Cars in Project Gotham Racing 3. --Oscarthecat 16:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and those "list of cars in X" articles need to be deleted too. Andre (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as well as similar articles. Also if possible transwiki to StrategyWiki, etc.--_ZXCVBNM 21:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Follows the precedent of the "cars in gran turismo4" articles like 8 months ago. DurinsBane87 01:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY as in not a directory of all the aircraft that appeared in a game Corpx 03:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of aircraft in Ace Combat series. Agree to User:Oscarthecat. -Yyy 10:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines state clearly that Wikipedia isn't a list or directory of indiscriminate information, especially about games (which are just about as notable as single movies). Keeping this article would be like keeping one that was titled "List of minor characters in Top Gun."--_ZXCVBNM 18:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd example to give, particularly as the Top Gun article includes a section listing the aircraft in said film. So should this information be merged into the Ace Combat article? --Oscarthecat 21:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep' in order to clean up the main article. The need for these will depend upon the people working on the relevant game. Not directory is irrelevant, as a description of whats in a game is not indiscriminate. DGG (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; those other articles are unnecessary as well. — Deckill er 02:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is like those silly "List of weapons in Foo" articles. Indiscriminate. Axem Titanium 05:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I have also nominated Aircraft of Ace Combat 3 which is directly related to this page. Miremare 16:55, 19 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 not kept. Singu larity 06:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uplayme[edit]

Queried speedy delete for notability. Anthony Appleyard 15:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per notability guidelines. Brusegadi 16:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no evidence of notability, qualifies per CSD bio standards as a group with no assertion of notability. --ForbiddenWord 16:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per WP:CSD#A7, WP:WEB, and WP:N. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 16:21, 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 redirect to PaRappa Rappa#Episodes Giggy ^Talk 07:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PaRappa Rappa Episodes[edit]

The article seems to be about a game (althought it says its about an anime series on the page...) Well, I think it does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. I would nominate for speedy deletion but I was not sure of this so I would like the opinion of the community. Thanks, Brusegadi 15:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to PaRappa Rappa#Episodes. There's no need to have this as it already exists, and there's nothing to merge. Crazysuit 18:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did my best to work with and fix up what was already on this page. I guess the information here could be transferred to the other episodes on the main page. It'd look more complete than having "untranslated" marked for the remaining episodes.CH 18:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Crazysuit. If there is any info on this page not on the target page I will move it. Thanks! Brusegadi 18:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. A redirect would be pointless. Precious Roy 14:52, 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. Kurykh 00:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anubis (Orbital frame)[edit]

Delete - there are no reliable sources that attest to the notability of this fictional item out of universe. Otto4711 15:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are two external links in the last section, but those affirm minor details and do not establish notability of the overall concept. Shalom ^Hello 16:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable secondary sources independent of the topic to establish notability or real world context. Jay32183 02:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless a source besides the creators' website can be found. I've got a more liberal definition of "independent of the subject" than some editors, so a magazine review discussing this would be sufficient to establish notability as far as I'm concerned. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:08, 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. Kurykh 00:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battles in Harry Potter[edit]

There have been so many afd deletes related to this article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hogwarts (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Wizarding War, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First War (Harry Potter), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second War (Harry Potter) (Endorsed) etc.). Basically, the consensus has been repeatedly established that the events at the end of books 5 and 6 cannot canonically be called "battles" and are never refered to as such by Rowling. There is a chapter in book 7 called the "Battle of Hogwarts", however, even that should not be treated on Wikipedia with the motif of the battle infobox etc. because that requires fan original research to determine who the commanders were, who "won", etc. The events at the end of book seven can more than adequately be covered in the plot section of that article, rather than treated alongside events for which it is original research to call them battles.

Even already on the talk page there is difficulty figuring out which side Snape fought for; I think that this illustrates the problem with trying to fit Rowling's story into these parameters. The present article also comprises much content which was deleted from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deaths in Harry Potter (Endorsed) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

In my view, those articles should be taken to deletion review, rather than having the content be recreated under increasingly distant titles. Savidan 15:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I say we should merge this article into the articles about the books that the "battles" took place in. Place the Battle of Hogwarts into the Deathly Hallows book and etc. The article may not be suited for Wikipedia, but the information is still important. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 15:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is already more than adequate plot summary in all those articles, and they are likely to remain high quality without any information from this article. There is also the Muggles Guide to Harry Potter and the Harry Potter Wiki, which both already cover the content in question. Savidan 16:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Savidan has it on the nose; this is excessive plot summary, written in an in-universe way, an original synthesis, and completely unreferenced and unreferenceable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frag for once at an AfD, nothing more I need to add. It's time to break out the cruft-hammer. David Fuchs^(talk) 20:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or transwiki or, if impossible, delete. Delete—merging or transwiki would be redundant. — Deckill er 20:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in-universe fancruft. The "Current Status" columns seem full-to-bursting with OR too. Miremare 20:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable secondary sourcing can be found that deals with these "battles". As-is, it is purely original research to label these fictional encounters as "Battle of X" and the extreme level of in-universe detail is in contradiction to WP:WAF. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR. Baring that, Transwiki to the Harry Potter Wiki. -- Jelly Soup 22:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Its not origional reserch at all its all facts and information on what the characters did in those fictional battles. NOT OR Ko2007 17:29, 15 August 2007 (USCMT)
  - - Only one of these 'battles' area actually referred to as battles in the original text. To suddenly label any scuffle involving more than three people a battle would be like labeling congress as a war. -- Jelly Soup 22:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a textbook case of a novel synthesis, as well as plot summary overload. — TKD::Talk 22:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing needing a second article, can be sufficiently described in the book articles. i ^said 22:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just full of in universe content, no real notability established, but this'd be perfect for a fan site or fan-wiki Corpx 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly Transwiki to Harry Potter wiki - unsourced, unnotable origional research. [[Guest9999 13:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

It's a Wikia wiki, so we don't really have any business dumping articles on them like we do with our sister projects...:) Savidan 13:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overwhelming consensus to get rid of it in the nominator's cited AFDs Will ^(talk) 14:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is a ridiculous collection of trivia presented in the stupidest way possible. Where are the sources? Where is the actual prose? Where is the relevance to the real world? ' 17:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The articles in the books are sufficient. There is no point including the same content twice. But the editing difficulties alone are not the reason. DGG (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is clear, with only the question about Snape a problem. This article has been a help to me in my edits, and it's worthy of an encyclopedia. We have articles of the battles in WWII, so why not about Harry Potter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weebiloobil (talk • contribs)
- Please back up your arguments by comparing it with the policies and guidelines. World War II was a real event, effecting billions of lives, documented by thousands of primary and secondary sources. Harry Potter is a fictional universe that has effected a few million fans at most. There is a big difference between the two. Since Wikipedia is a real-world encyclopedia incorporating some elements of specialty encyclopedias, we must have a threshold of notability as an extension of our policies. For fiction, that threshold is significant real-world content, whether it be from interivews, critical reception, merchandise, etc. WP:FICT is to prevent hundreds of articles on aspects of a fictional universe that can be summarized in a couple paragraphs by a decent writer. We must show a topic is worthy of a subarticle not by pages of retellings, but by establishing real-world perspective and real-world content to complement the plot summary. After all, if people want to basically read every aspect of the plot (or perhaps the interpretation and speculation that comes with some of these pages), they can purchase the book or go to a fansite. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia must be academic. That is the essense of writing about fiction on Wikipedia. If you or anyone feel that WP:FICT is too strict, please chime in at the bottom of WT:FICT and share your thoughts. — Deckill er 14:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article may help others in their edits as it has ^^^^^ note above edit. With a little clean up it could be great! Please dont delete!!! Ko2007 13:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, I have added references to this and will be doing more eidting hopefully this can be resolved with the best possible outcome! Ko2007 15:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: struck above !vote, as that this user has already voted once. Miremare 23:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the reference added, its to a Harry Potter fansite. Leaving that aside, JK only uses the phrase "final battle" to refer to the end of Book 7. She never calls it the "Battle of Hogwarts" or (ugh) the "Second Battle of Hogwarts" nor does she refer to anything else as a "Battle." Savidan 15:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment:The mere fact that the source is a fansite isn't really relevant; it's a transcript of a webchat with J. K. Rowling held on the Bloomsbury web site. I'd consider that a reliable source. However, the mentions of the battle in that webchat aren't enough to justify this article existing apart from the articles on the respective books. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, other delete comments, and previous AFDs. This is nothing more then a rehashed version of the already deleted articles. Much of the article is WP:TRIVIA and the rest fails WP:FICT and WP:NOTE. Just because Harry Potter fans wish to have the information on Wikipedia does not mean we should ignore our policies and guideline. --Farix (Talk) 22:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Harry Potter wiki, if possible. If not, delete, but with no prejudice against eventual recreation once reliable secondary and tertiary sources develop. Once sources like those used in Battle of the Pelennor Fields are published (as I have no doubt they will), Wikipedia can have an article on this subject. But until then, there's no justification for this. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being as the same content has been deleted more than once, I think a DRV would be in order. Savidan 22:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of them did go to DRV and their deletion was endorsed. --Farix (Talk) 23:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I was responding to Josiah Rowe's claim (mosty in his edit summary actually) that there should be no predjudice against recreation. I think there should be, inasmuch as it should have to go through DRV. Savidan 23:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I said there should be no prejudice against recreation once reliable secondary sources exist. The burden for providing those sources will be on an editor who recreates the content. Any recreation without such sources can and should be zapped with the Elder Wand. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being as the Wikipedia community has deleted this content almost ten times now through afd (and more through recreates being speedied), it's not unreasonable to ask that those sources be brought to DRV. Savidan 18:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, also, these articles seem to have been created just when Second Wizarding War etc were up for deletion - so it's spam — *H ¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 14:16, 20 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 04:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erik J. Dale[edit]

Notability not clear at all, no specific sources to verify facts presented in article. Citations point only to generic sites, not specifically to those referring to Dale, except for his own (very peculiar and very outdated) blog. The article appears to have been written by a member of the subject's family. Only one relevant Google hit for "Erik J. Dale" outside of WP itself. Appears to violate WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Contested prod. Realkyhick 15:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Sethacus 15:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, and WP:COI. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 16:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. Fails to meet WP:BIO. --Evb-wiki 17:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment there are some complications--a Research Professor at Stanford would normally be expected to be notable--this is a rank equivalent to Professor but without teaching duties. But see his blog he seems to have some remarkably unusual theories. I cannot find him at Stanford, at Oslo, or in Web of Science. DGG (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 03:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Searching Google scholar for "author:e-dale quantum" or for "author:e-dale geophysics" or for "author:erik-dale" or for "author:erik-j-dale" turned up absolutely nothing that matches. Hoax? As for the research prof at Stanford thing, I also can't find any record of that, but even if he were, I think that title means an untenured soft money position, not really equivalent to full professor. See e.g. the Stanford Faculty Handbook, page 26 of the pdf. —David Eppstein 03:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for future reference: soft money, yes, and therefore non-tenure, but Stanford like other US research universities makes a distinction between Research Assistant Prof, R. Associate Prof, and Research P. that parallels the distinctions in the regular lines. To what extent the standards are comparable is an interesting question, but normally (& at Stanford) Associate & Full are renewable for life if the money holds out (at Stanford for 6 yr terms). I doubt the Stanford depts. & administration let the values discredit the university. Of course, we don't know just what rank this guy had, if he ever actually had any, which I doubt. DGG (talk) 00:37, 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. Singu larity 06:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Babi boy[edit]

Contested prod. This is a dictionary definition for a foreign language slang term that has no evidence of notability. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NEO. Can't find anything relevant for Google searches of "babi boy" or "pork boy". Possibly created in relation to a now deleted attack article made by the same author. Darksun 14:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this article, It is also impossible to verify the contents of this article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no evidence of notability and is not suitable for Wikipedia per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. Camaron1 | Chris 15:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails many aspects of WP:NOT. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 16:17, 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 Contrary to Giggy's assertion below, a consensus discussion may apply guidelines like WP:MUSIC selectively, within reason (that's why they are guidelines, not policy.) Hereinbelow, consensus is to regard Amanda Rogers notability as suspect, and to delete despite her involvement in the group. Xoloz 15:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter Sunrise[edit]

Band fails WP:MUSIC. Their only substanstiable claim to notability is the album they released. PROD contested with comment: "1 album is enough". However, WP:MUSIC requires two albums. See also the article's talk page. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper nom. One album isn't enough.--Sethacus 15:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 16:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs a good rewrite, but I'm wavering on notability. WP:MUSIC calls for multiple, non-trivial reliable sources; unfortunately, a lot of the ones I've turned up are subscription- or pay-per-view pieces (which sucks). However, I did turn up this transcript from NPR (view the sample) that starts as a reference to this band; another ref that indicates they were indeed on the Warped Tour - fulfilling the "national touring" guideline (which is also indicated by gig lists and reviews from all over the States), the lead singer being quoted on CNN Money, and probably others out there. However... their record label doesn't appear to be notable, with minimal info turning up on Google, and if they broke up, that criteria isn't going to be met. Weak delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete If there were WP:V coverage (from a WP:RS) of their stint on the Warped tour, that would pass WP:MUSIC, without that, they're nn. Precious Roy 16:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, my prod removal was incorrect, but this article meets criteria 6 of Wikipedia:Notability (music) - it contains Amanda Rogers (musician) (not a band, but a notable independent musician). According to the article, they have also been on national tours, so they may also satisfy criteria 4. In any case, I believe they are notable. Giggy ^Talk 01:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, that article appears to be ripe for deletion as well. Precious Roy 01:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it exists, it asserts notability over this article. Delete that one, and this one can go. Giggy ^Talk 02:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. Precious Roy 13:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless independant, reliable sources establishing notability are provided. Nuttah68 11:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article reads almost exactly like an ad, blog page, or myspace page: it carries a tone that make one think it must have been written by one of the band members, which may tread into WP:COI. And if it was not written by a band member or "roadie" (hah!) then it constitutes original research with no references or verifiability other than the band's own web site, myspace page, and fan-blog page. The band does not really assert significant notability or interests outside of the band members themselves and their girlfriends (or boyfriends), fan-roadies, clubbers where they played, and perhaps old classmates and neighbors if they were not outcasts and nuisance noise offenders in their 'hood. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 15:01, 22 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 00:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Doxer[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. While a number of sources are given, they do not contain substantial coverage; the most detailed seems to be this one, which is from the local chamber of commerce (not very impressive). The article also contains some copyvio from there. The book cited is not a biography of the person, but about an organization which she sponsored; it mentions her briefly (as far as I could see from Google Books preview). PROD contested with request to list the article on AfD. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 13:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, most news articles (Boston Globe, Washington Post) mention her in the context of the store, which closed 4 years ago.--Sethacus 16:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Apparently, the store re-opened a few months later, but there hasn't been much press since.--Sethacus 16:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not only fails WP:BIO but WP:N in general. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 16:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as it appears the chain is notable but she personally fails primary sourcing criteria. Article about the chain looks like it would pass WP:CORP and she could be mentioned there. --Dhartung | Talk 20:24, 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. DS 12:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titanium alloy mind shielding[edit]

At first glance this article appears to be about genuine scientific research into the ideas the tin-foil hat brigade espouse, but there is a distinct whiff of hoaxery about it; while the people mentioned (Samuel Goldfarb, Eduardo Miranda) are genuine names of research scientists, there are a few glaringly odd points. Firstly, the Executive Order 1949/117b supposedly authorized by Truman - Executive Orders do not use a date-slash-number format, just numbers, and it's not listed on any EO list I've checked. Second, I can find no evidence of any of the cited references existing - no book or paper titles match anything. The "First Annual Conference on Titanium Alloy Mind Shielding", supposedly having taken place in 2005, sounds fishy in the extreme. This is more elaborate than most Wikipedia hoaxes, but unless I'm very much mistaken it's a hoax nonetheless. ~Matticus ^T_C 13:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS and WP:HOAX - no verifiable sources. —Travis ^talk 13:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title was a give-away, but it's a cleverly-written hoax. There actually have been people who wear aluminum foil inside a hat out of a paranoid belief that it shields them from having their thoughts read (or controlled) by "the government", and I think that this is the inspiration for the hoax. Titanium would, of course, be more expensive, but NO LESS EFFECTIVE than aluminum foil in shielding the human mind from such intrusion. No price is too high for peace of mind. Plus, if you call within the next 10 minutes, you'll get a second titanium alloy mind shield absolutely free, a $99.95 value. Mandsford 14:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and it's a shame we won't have a WP:BJAODN for much longer is this is a great hoax - per this site the cited professor has never worked in Brazil, and the one lie unravels the rest of the article. Good one though. Pedro | Chat 15:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:V. Besides that, everyone knows that Mu-metal is a better metal for mind control shielding. Edison 15:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Big time WP:BALLS, conspiracy theory fodder. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fools! You have been taken in by the global conspiracy to suppress the TRUTH! Only titanium can protect us! ... um, that is, delete. -- Hongooi 07:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Take a look at the "Dr. Miranda" link; somebody's making a little joke. Acroterion _(talk) 15:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are well known ways of shielding from EMF, and none of them involve titanium. The link, as Acroterion saw, is indeed the give-away for the joke. not bad, as jokes go. DGG (talk) 06:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a rather obvious (but admittedly clever) hoax. Why would anyone use expensive titanium for this purpose, when a double-layer of aluminum foil wrapped around one's head provides perfectly adequate protection of my unconscious from external electromagnetic surveillance and control. And I did not vote to delete just because I have been ordered to do so by those voices being transmitted into my head. Alansohn 08:40, 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. Kurykh 00:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayne Innes[edit]

Delete Yet another parliamentary candidate, one of thousands. Wikipedia is not a listing of parliamentary candidate biographies. Timrollpickering 13:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we let this one stay then we'll have tens of thousands of articles on people who's only claim to fame is that they have been candidates for this and that. Minimum standard should to be actually getting elected. Galloglass 14:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd think that a parliamentary candidate representing the Labour Party would meet the old-fashioned professor test. The article is well-sourced, with sources establishing notability (as I judge it). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: This was mistakenly categorized in "Fiction and the arts". I've recategorized it under Biography. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: Josiah, please see my assessment below of the sources. The sources support hardly any of the article, and relate only tangentially to her. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well we have several thousand candidates each election, none of which we consider notable if they do not get elected. Even standing for one of the three main parties does not seem to justify any notability. As TRP has said above, Wiki is not a candidates biography website. Galloglass 14:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. In general, we don't regard being a parliamentary candidate as notable: she'll be notable if she wins the seat, but since it looks a bit marginal, that's by no means certain. The article suggests is a glimmer of evidence that she may be a little more significant than other candidates, having been a member of the Labour Party's policy forum. The National Policy Forum isn't all that powerful, so I wouldn't rate it as particularly significant, but it just might be an indication of a wider role in the party; if she turned out to have had a truly significant role within the party, I could reconsider my !vote, but so far I don't see any evidence of that.
The references provided look impressive until studied: the first is a report about her predecessor, which doesn't even mention Innes; the second is about the man who beat her in Birmingham, and doesn't mention her my name; the third is a National Policy Forum document which lists her at the end as one of the hundred-plus members of the forum; the fourth is about her husband, and again doesn't mention her by name.
WP:N requires non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources, but all we have here is one lone instance of her name in a list of over a hundred people at the end of a very long document. Since she clearly fails both WP:BIO and WP:N, this looks to me like a strong delete, even without considering our general wariness of article on election candiates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, standing for office is not notable and there is nothing else here that makes a claim to notability. If Jayne is ever successful the article can be recreated. Nuttah68 11:30, 20 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 sources cited seem to not be about the club, rather being just trivial mentions. No real evidence it passes WP:RS. 08:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

ConFusion (All My Children)[edit]

Delete - prod disputed with the addition of the "cultural impact" section. There do not appear to be reliable sources that attest to the real-world notability of this fictional nightclub. The notability of the show does not impart notability to every aspect of it. The "cultural impact" section, besides being dubiously sourced by trivial mentions in what appear to be gossip columns, does not establish that the fictional club is notable. Otto4711 12:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The article is well-written and has multiple sources to verify the claims presented in the article. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 16:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the writing is not at issue here. Neither is the factual accuracy. What is under discussion here is whether the subject of the article passes notability guidelines, which require independent reliable sources that are substantially about the subject. The items serving as references here do not qualify as reliable sources and are not substantially about the subject. Otto4711 18:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Wikipedia is more so about notability. And the fact remains that the references in this article prove this fictional nightclub's notability. Plain and simple. Stating substantial coverage doesn't always factor in, yes, even if an editor does cite that policy. When an article proves notability from multiple reliable sources, that is just as noteworthy notability as having the references be completely about the title of that article. And I don't have a problem with pointing out that most of the other fictional bars in Category:Fictional bars and inns don't even provide notability or attempt to provide notability, while this article does. Citing that I shouldn't bring up "but other stuff similar to this exists on Wikipedia" in a deletion debate doesn't keep from stating that either, especially since this article does provide notability. Furthermore, it's a fictional business. While we cite that all articles on Wikipedia should provide notability, most articles on fictional characters or fictional objects from a show don't, or don't seem to need to (as witnessed from most editors here at Wikipedia not nominating those articles for deletion), since they are from a notable show. We have mutiple fictional character articles on Wikipedia, with most not stating that character's cultural impact on the world, their notability, so while we shouldn't state that something is notable due to its relation to its un-disputed notable topic, fictional character articles are mostly all like that on Wikipedia, thought of as notable because they come from a notable show. I don't see any difference with this article on that front, accept that the topic of this article is notable. The references in this article, regardless, cite that this fictional nightclub was able to acquire several notable celebrities. If that's not notable for a fictional nightclub, then it's difficult to name what else is, other than having that fictional nightclub reported on CNN. Flyer22 19:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references in the article consist of: a four-sentence blurb about Rihanna's appearance that does not discuss any significance of the club; a biography for Emily Frances that notes her AMC appearance in a single sentence and does not mention the club; a gossipy column that includes only a single sentence that even mentions the club; and another gossipy column that mentions the club in a single sentence. I am sorry, but these simply do not, in any possible way, constitute significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The fact that some celebrities did cameos on the show does not establish the notability of the club, as the notability of the celebrities cannot be inherited by the club. WP:FICT, under which articles on fictional characters falls, states that a separate article for a fictional topic within a work of fiction is warranted "[i]f these concepts are by themselves notable (meaning they include substantial real-world information...) and an encyclopedic treatment causes the article on the work itself to become long...." Since the club is not notable, WP:FICT does not support the existence of this article. Otto4711 21:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those columns state the truth, not some gossip columns spreading around rumors or speculation. The references within this article are all from independent reliable sources. And one is even from The Associated Press, which is certainly reliable, and, yes, it mentions Rihanna's musical performance -- her musical performance at this fictional nightclub. I'm sorry (actually, I'm not), but having seen most other fictional club or inn articles on Wikipedia, this one is certainly one of the most notable out of all of them. Several celebrities at this fictional nightclub does make this fictional nightclub notable. Citing Wikipedia policy to me that I know by heart, even if you feel that I don't know it by heart, doesn't make me feel any less strongly on this matter. Emily Frances' mention on this show can easily be exchanged with one that mentions this club, though I don't feel that it needs to be exchanged. It's obvious that her appearance on this show was for the opening of this fictional nightclub, unless someone figures that she guest starred on All My Children more than once. Rihanna singing at the opening of this nightclub, plus several celebrities at this nightclub, yes, that's notable for a fictional nightclub. Flyer22 21:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain what part of the phrase substantially about the subject is giving you so much trouble? Notability requires sources that are substantially about the subject of the article. One-sentence mentions in longer articles are not substantially about the subject.
The existence of other articles has no bearing on whether or not this article should exist. This article, like every article, needs to meet relevant policies and guidelines. In the absence of reliable sources that are substantially about the subject this article does not meet the guideline of notability. Otto4711 21:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't start this insulting-mess with me again, Otto. Can you please explain what part of my comment above where I state, "Citing that I shouldn't bring up 'but other stuff similar to this exists on Wikipedia' in a deletion debate doesn't keep from stating that either, especially since this article does provide notability" doesn't point out that I already know of the policy called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here at Wikipedia? I know what substantial coverage means, as several well-respected Wikipedians can attest to with an article I created here at Wikipedia. I stand by my statements that this fictional nightclub is notable and that it being mentioned in multiple independent reliable sources as having acquired the celebrities in which it has acquired proves its notability for a fictional nightclub. Flyer22 22:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I honestly can't make heads or tails out of your sentence that begins "Can you please explain..." so no, I really can't explain because I have no idea what you're asking. If you know what "substantially about the subject" means then I have to wonder why you continue to insist that these passing references in any way establish the notability of the club. Otto4711 22:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't explain what you don't get about notability either. These "passing" references are are multiple, and they prove the notability of this fictional nightclub. Citing that it should be substantial, well, that doesn't make me feel that this fictional nightclub is any less notable. Flyer22 22:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, see, there we have the crux of your failure of understanding. Quoting again from WP:N: Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive. A passing reference is not more than trivial. A handful of passing references do not add up to notability. I'm sorry that you don't think that substantial coverage should be required to establish notability, but fortunately the strong consensus on WIkipedia is that substantiality is required. Otto4711 22:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there we have the crux of your condescending attitude in most AfD debates. And there you go again in this AfD debate putting words into my mouth. Nowhere did I state that I feel that substantial coverage should not be a requirement of inclusion for an article on Wikipedia. I was more so pointing out that this is not always the case in deletion debates on Wikipedia. I know what WP:N is, and you can point it out to me as much as you want to, but it will not change my view that a fictional nightclub being mentioned in several reliable independent sources as having acquired several celebrities within its setting proves its notability. And one editor above already seems to feel this article is suited for Wikipedia inclusion as well. We agree on that matter. You don't agree with us; it's been noted. Now we'll see how this deletion debate goes. Flyer22 23:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<bangs head against desk> A simple mention is not substantial. Several simple mentions are not substantial. Otto4711 23:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- <bangs head against desk as well> Don't put words into my mouth. We clearly disagree on matters of this deletion debate. Time to move on. Flyer22 23:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per lack of significant coverage from real world sources Corpx 03:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 02:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my opinion, the sources in the "Cultural impact" section are sufficient to establish notability. Otto's reading of WP:N seems too restrictive to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is it too restrictive to read "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject...'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail..." as meaning that a source that does not mention the article's subject by name does not establish the subject's notability? How is it too restrictive to think that a passing mention in a single sentence of a much longer piece does not constitute significant coverage? I don't think it's really that much to ask that there be a source that's about ConFusion before there be an article about ConFusion. Otto4711 13:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the sources are at best tangential to this fictional nightclub. Most of them are primarily about celebrities doing cameos in All My Children, and not about the nightclub or how it is important in the real world. --Phirazo 01:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources providing coverage of the club are given. Nuttah68 11:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would argue, Phirazo, that the sources within this article are about this fictional nightclub. They are not basically about celebrities doing cameos on the show All My Children, but are rather about celebrities coming to the fictional town of Pine Valley of the show All My Children just to be at the opening of this fictional nightclub; that's the reason that they showed up there. Regardless, this article is not an article that I'm all too concerned with. I have other matters to attend to, of course, as we all do. I was more so about "voicing" my thoughts on this subject than truly being passionate about this article. Flyer22 15:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, most of this information can go into Kendall Hart Slater's article. I'll do that, if this article is deleted, and that way, this information will still exist on Wikipedia, but in a location just as good. Flyer22 23:59, 20 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 06:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games published by Nintendo A - Z[edit]

Delete new list that is redundant to already existing and better organized Nintendo list articles: Franchises established on Nintendo systems, *List of Wii games, List of NES games, List of Nintendo 64 games, List of SNES games, List of Nintendo DS games, List of GameCube games, List of Game Boy Color games --Dr.Who 11:30, 15 August 2007

Delete. This list is grossly incomplete; when it is complete, it will be gargantuan. As long as the other lists mentioned (which are gargantuan themselves) are in a Nintendo-list category, there is no need for this giant list. Several smaller lists are far more useful and readable than one gigantic list. --Birdman1 ^{talk/contribs} 14:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant and would be far too large and nearly impossible to accurately maintain. Realkyhick 15:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to redundancy. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 16:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete info already on other lists. Sasha Callahan 17:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list is redundant with those mentioned above, along with List of video games published by Nintendo in particular. We don't need more copies of this list. Useight 17:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is reduntant and is better presented in the individual forms described above by Dr. Who. --129.64.8.207 18:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is both incomplete and redundant. We have other more organized list about Nintendo Games.--PrestonH 19:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. --Bongwarrior 05:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete This is helpful because it has many links and is in alphabetical order. At least I'll try to maintain that. This may be incomplete, if we work together we can get it done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redd Baron1 (talk • contribs) Sasha Callahan 16:20, 19 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 sources. - KrakatoaKatie 17:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Willen Hospice[edit]

Nothing to distinguish this hospice from hundreds of others. -- RHaworth 11:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but it is notable in Milton Keynes. It is certainly a lot more notable than the 27th episode of Friends (or similar). The article could do with being more wikified, but it's not advertising - it doesn't need to. Keep. --John Maynard Friedman 12:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument to keep (sigh). Realkyhick 15:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources other than official web site, nothing to verify, looks very copy-and-paste from some official corporate history. Realkyhick 15:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N due to the fact that the only source mentioned is the organisiation's own website. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 16:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local businesses are really not meant for an encyclopedia like WP Corpx 03:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The entry provides a good source of information and history so would be informative for anyone wanting to know about the hospice, which is not a business and provides a free service to the communityMel fletcher 10:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, worthy I'm sure, but in the absence of sources comes nowhere near meeting WP:ORG. Nuttah68 11:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative option is to summarise and merge into Willen article. --John Maynard Friedman 12:28, 20 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 04:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ardeshir Sepahsalar[edit]

This page seems to be an autobiography of a non-notable person, who also seems to have created a page about his particular philosophical views, Relational Philosophy Anarchia 11:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion or citation of notability. The only links are to the subject's site. If this individual can demonstrate that he has been the subject of multiple secondary sources, I'd be happy to change my vote. -Markeer 15:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to show notability. Seems to be a bit of a coat rack. Realkyhick 15:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 16:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless I can have an article about me, too. Banno 20:39, 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. Singu larity 04:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relational Philosophy[edit]

I am 90% sure that this article was created by Ardeshir Sepahsalar, the person who is cited as coming up with the theory discussed. In any case, a google search of 'relational philosophy' + this man's name only yields his pages and wikipedia related pages, so the theory does not satisfy the notability criteria. And, the only references for the theory are on Ardeshir Sepahsalar's web pages. Anarchia 11:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for no assertion or citation of notability, just as with the other AfD about the author. If for some reason the Ardeshir Sepahsalar article is kept, this article should still be merged into the main article (with a redirect on this page). The ideas appear to be those of one individual who is himself of uncertain notability. Wikipedia is not a place for things made up in school one day. -Markeer 15:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional, violates WP:NPOV, to a lesser extent WP:SPAM, and likely WP:COI. Personally, I think WP:BOLLOCKS might apply, too. Realkyhick 15:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing really to add to the nomination and to Realkyhick's comment. The only thing that appears to be new here is the jargon. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. See also Ardeshir Sepahsalar. Deletion proposals noted on User:Scriptoria's talk page. See his contributions [52]. Banno 20:46, 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. Singu larity 04:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchy funk[edit]

A musical style practiced by one person. Non-notable, Wikipedia is not for things made up at band camp one day. Weregerbil 11:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing all the acronyms you could possibly think of including, but by no means limited to, WP:NOR, WP:V and, as above, WP:MADEUP. There isn't a policy for articles containing the term "goth acid disco" but by god there should be. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 12:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Should also note that an earlier version of the article stated it was invented in summer 2007 for the band Sex Ant Toys (the article on which has been deleted no less than ten times from Wikipedia, including an AfD). ~Matticus ^T_C 13:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, unable to verify. (Made up at band camp, eh? In my day, the only things we made at band camp were babies. But I digress.) Realkyhick 15:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and fails: WP:MADEUP, WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOT --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 16:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who to the what now? Delete - lacking in notability and unverifiable. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MADEUP and WP:V, and then some. If this is somehow kept, I'm creating my article on techno acid polka that same day. fuzzy510 20:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The article provides virtually no context, and makes no attempt at an assertion of notability. Calgary 22:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a single outside reference exists (that's not spam) containing the string "anarchy funk". Zchris87v 07:08, 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. DS 04:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Lebowski Urban Achievers[edit]

Aparent hoax Od Mishehu 11:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Load of crap. "Comedy" article. Irishjp 12:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS and WP:HOAX —Travis ^talk 13:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. What in the wide wide world of sports are they talking about? It's a hoax. Wikipedia is not for things made up in the locker room one day. Realkyhick 15:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-This is an actual Waco YMCA summer league team. I live in Waco Texas and I've seen them play (badly). Most of the nonsense in the article is based on actual events familiar to the people involved. It would therefore be inacurate to consider the article a hoax.--Nacnud298 15:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not registering for the NY Times, so I can't check the link for it, but the CNN and all of the ESPN links are bogus. Also, searching the Central Texas YMCA site yields exactly zero results. In any case, I seriously doubt that the YMCA would be associated with anything as dubious as this so-called team. —Travis ^talk 18:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Whether or not there is a team, the article is rubbish, the references don't pan out, and the team wouldn't be notable internationally. --Ckatz^chat _spy 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, joke, nonsense, attack page... whatever you want to call it, it doesn't belong here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recreational-league teams, even if they exist, simply do not belong in WP unless they have done something really noteworthy. Deor 18:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Oddly enough, this is an actual team, I even played on it, going by the moniker "The Daddy" and while the team was dubious, it was affiliated with the YMCA. Also, we lacked the facilities needed to get a locker room, so this was most certainly not thought up in a locker room. As improbable as it sounds, the YMCA was associated with this team, although the relationship was marked with strife and mutual hostility. Martin Scorsese stopped returning calls about a possible documentary, but we are still hopeful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.135.213 (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2007
Delete Regardless of whether there actually is a sports team going by this name is irrelevant. If said team exists, this article does not show notability. I don't know wiki policy that well, so I can't cite the rule that applies here, but that this article is someone's idea of a joke is without question. Man It's So Loud In Here 22:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I certainly appreciate the name of the team (c.f. my userboxes), the article as written is clearly a joke. And, that issue aside, it seems rather dubious that the team could establish notability. Side question: does notability for sports teams fall under notability for organizations? ␄ –Iknowyourider (t c) 22:59, 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. Kurykh 00:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ActiTIME[edit]

procedural - PROD removed - NN web-software - the only mentions of this seem to the usual "this exists" listings and user-generated content that is the hallmark of lower-rung (if that's the right term - in terms of notability not quality) product. Fredrick day 10:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Just found one real source, but it's kinda borderline and doesn't really give strong case for note. Will switch to keep if stronger sources can be found and the article expanded, but as it stands now, it lacks adequate context, lacks any attempt to demonstrate a case for note, and lacks more than the one third party source. MrZaius^talk 13:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. The Dawn article helps, but not enough. Realkyhick 15:31, 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. Singu larity 04:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Time Lords (Doctor Who)[edit]

This new article duplicates information in the article Time Lord. Since the latter article can comfortably contain such a list, there is insufficient reason for this content fork. Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 10:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --OZ OO (What?) 10:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is already covered by Template:Doctornav for navigation reasons and can live in the main article per nom. Pedro | Chat 10:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pe nom. It duplicates information in the article Time Lord per MHW (but is not redundant to the template despite what Pedro thinks; the Doctor is (or various Doctors are) absolutely not the only Time Lord). Dr.Who 11:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no reason why the above template could not be expanded to include other timelords for reasons of navigation. I only mentioned the template as a common argument for lists is that they serve as navigation, when often a template or use of catergorisation is better. Pedro | Chat 12:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: There is plenty of reason not to expland that template. Most of the Time Lord names are simply trivia compared to the template as it stands. The template is about the Doctor himself. Dr.Who 17:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Keep I've informed the WikiProject Doctor Who that this list is up for AfD here on their Project's Talk page. Zidel333 13:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would you want to keep an article with no redeeming quality, notability or out-of-universe context?~Zythe^{Talk to me!}
Delete per what I said above.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since the author hasn't gone beyond the trial balloon stage so far. In truth, the title of the article currently called Time Lord should be moved and renamed "Time Lord (Doctor Who)" and the author should expand upon that article. Mandsford 14:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as that article is not in this AFD, please take this suggestion to Talk:Time Lord. --Dhartung | Talk 20:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Dhartung is, of course, correct that this isn't the place for this discussion, but I can't resist pointing out that the Doctor Who meaning of "Time Lord" is clearly the primary topic for that phrase. None of the meanings at Time Lord (disambiguation) are anywhere near as noteworthy as the Doctor Who meaning. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but oppose suggestion of renaming Time Lord to "Time Lord (Doctor Who)". Percy Snoodle 14:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this is a rather small list, it can just go into the main Time Lord article. DonQuixote 15:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other comments, with a redirect to Time Lord#Partial list of Time Lords appearing in Doctor Who. The information is best suited to that article. --Ckatz^chat _spy 17:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, and oppose renaming to "Time Lord (Doctor Who)", which is only required for disambiguation of similairly-titled articles, of which there are none. — Edokter • Talk • 17:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't speediable? There's nothing here!! -- Ben 18:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe it quite satisfies any of the criteria for speedy deletion. I would've proposed deletion, were it not likely the editor who started the article would object. Hence, nomination. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 18:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Thanks. -- Ben 19:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already covered in other articles(Black Dalek 18:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete mainly because the list in Time Lord is longer, and partly referenced. If that article deems the material worthy of a subarticle, no opposition to a breakout.--Dhartung | Talk 20:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this information (and more) is already included in Time Lord, and doesn't yet warrant its own article. --Brian Olsen 04:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a category disguised as a list; in any event, remove "Ace[1]" as non-canon; in any event, if kept, would require renaming to something like [[Partial list of Time Lords who have been identified as such -- Simon Cursitor 06:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Time Lord#Partial list of Time Lords appearing in Doctor Who. Simple. I like lists, but this is an incomplete version of the lists on the Time Lord page. Wolf of Fenric 13:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page is just on the time lords that have appeared in Doctor Who and I have never seen any pages on wikipedia with the exact information like this so in other words, this page is of something new. Victory93 17/8/2007
Delete per above. — Deckill er 03:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Victory93 - follow this link to find this information already listed elsewhere. Wolf of Fenric 16:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It can be covered in other articles, and the list is not really big enough to warrant it's own page. StuartDD 20:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — redundant with Time Lord, which can comfortably contain such a list. If the list at Time Lord becomes unweildy, then it can be broken out in accordance with WP:SS — after discussion on the article's talk page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:32, 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 keep. Singu larity 03:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long hair[edit]

Contested prod. I found this article via its {{unencyclopedic}} tag; I pretty much fail to see why we should have articles on long hair, short hair, average-lengthy hair and hair that falls down to your ankles, when the concept is covered quite well at the article on hair in general. This would seem to be a somewhat arbitrary fork. >Radiant< 09:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Although I love long hair! I would also consider to Merge it inside hair. Zouavman Le Zouave 09:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep After having taken a look at the article Hairstyle, noticing the large number of "haircut" articles, and reading some interesting points, I decide to change my vote. Zouavman Le Zouave 17:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Merge parts of it into hair) per nom and as above. The mind boggles. This is very detailed and fairly well written, but... I don't really think this is anything more than an essay on a supremely arb subject. But I'm probably not in the best position to discuss this sort of topic. :-D OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 10:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to be WP:ENC - although there is nothing wrong with the prose - as per nom. There maybe something salvegable to go into hair. Per OBM I confess a WP:COI due to male pattern baldness :-) Pedro | Chat 11:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that there are or may someday be several other silly articles about hair is unimportant (none of those examples exist, anyway). As I pointed out on this article's talk page, this topic is very notable and has been studied by not just hippies and druggies, but is a legitimate, scholarly subject discussed by scientists, psychoanalysts, theists, and anthropologists all over the world. Please look over the article's several peer-reviewed scholarly sources for examples, as well as several more about to be added on the article's sandbox. Merging may be legitimate, but only for a new article like Hair length. Hair is too long to support this subarticle in the length that it will achieve soon. This article clearly has enough sources to justify it already, and will only get more. Wrad 11:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; OR magnet! --Orange Mike 13:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. That something might be a magnet for OR or other such undesirable editing practices is not and has never been a valid reason to delete it. As comments above acknowledge implicitly, this is a subject about which an acceptable encyclopedic article can be and is in the process of being written. Long hair has all sorts of myriad anthropological and sociological dimensions which the article seems to be going into. I doubt its existence would give rise to other such articles as suggested in the nomination. Daniel Case 14:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Social views of the appropriate length of hair have been a strong part of our cultural heritage, and there would be plenty of sources for this to draw upon. As hard to believe as it may seem now, it wasn't that long ago that many American schools had a dress code ban against boys wearing long hair, until finally changing with the times in the early 1970s. Indeed, with reference to searchable of news banks, one would now be able not only to verify, but to actually pinpoint when the media first noticed changes in the social acceptability of long hair for men. Hell, you could figure it out from the old "Readers Guide" books that gather dust on library shelves. From the original research bag (please, no O.R. in the article itself), here are some clues as to where to look for cites: post 1964 Beatlemania to early 1980s return of short hair; followed by early 2000s return of long hair, will point one in the right direction for searching for cites. Mandsford 14:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - But that's very Euro/Americo-centric! This fuss did not affect matters in, say, China, in the same way. A genuinely worldwide long hair article would discuss, for example, the politics of the queue in Chinese culture. --Orange Mike 14:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you could add this if you wished. They call this the encylopedia that anyone can edit.. different cultures view long hair in different wasy. I am compelled to say "Thank queue" Mandsford 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much for the citation ideas and the support. It has been frustrating to see the research I did brushed off in this way. I'll see what I can do (and no OR, of course :)) Wrad 21:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article is very nicely written, contains a lot of time consuming research, and has a lot of scope to unfold view points of different societies on the subject.Jeroje 17:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)jeorje[reply]
Very Strong Keep I am 53, and I well remember the times when long hair was a powerful symbol of rebellion; when small-town cops around the world would actually arrest a man for having long hair. I suspect this nom was, at least in part, frivolous. 90.2.178.150 17:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)ie Rhinoracer 17:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was frivolous. We are asked to assume that an nomination is made in good faith, and I can see the nom's point about Wikipedia becoming kind of "hairy" if we had lots of articles about how hair is worn. Long hair, as us old timers remember, used to be controversial. It's comparable to how different generations feel about, say, earrings on young men. Mandsford 18:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, there's a lot of silly bland OR in the lead of the sort that comes when editors are just talking about everyday things instead of using sources, but there's good research in the body on the history of social implications and such. That belongs in an article with wider scope, such as hairstyle. Hairstyle is severely lacking in decent content, which this would make a great addition to. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you point out the OR for me. I'd be happy to remedy whatever it is you see... Wrad 21:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but clean up. Gives a pretty broad explanation of long hair - but I think that the etymology is glaringly unnecessary. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Haha, yeah, the etymology section has been a struggle of mine. There actually are legitimate and interesting definitions, but the way it is now is pretty pathetic, I'll admit. I have immediate plans to bring this to GA status. Thanks for the input. 70.179.156.29 21:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is notable. LOZ: OOT 22:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is notable. Article might need clean up. Title might not be perfect. -Yyy 10:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the actual contents are encyclopedic. Just as human clothing is encyclopedic, so are hair styles. The Merovingian reference is in fact not a joke, and the literature is immense (cf. The long-haired kings, and other studies in Frankish history. by J M Wallace-Hadrill ISBN 1102824 -- a standard work.) DGG (talk) 06:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lots of encyclopedic content possible here. An editorial decision to (partly) merge this with Hair style is better done without the looming deadline of AFD, and a redirect is the least that should be here (I just arrived at the page trying to find information about typical human hair length, so I can testify that people do search for "long hair"). Kusma (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. This is definitely a notable topic. The article is well-referenced and contains much information on the history and cultural significance of long hair. --musicpvm 02:57, 20 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, default to keep. Review if you wish. Non admin closure. Giggy ^Talk 07:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RauteMusik.FM[edit]

Non notable internet radio. References in the article are only the stations own website and their press release. The talkpage (and the company website) have a press coverage links which in all cases are trivial coverage of RauteMusik.FM as part of wider reporting - mainly the change of legislation regarding license fees and how operators (including RM) were affected. Agathoclea 09:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so it is not relevanced? RauteMusik.FM is in Germany/Europe like DI.FM in the USA/World. One of the biggest internetradios stations. There are also a few internetradio stations on the wikipedia, so why not RauteMusik.FM? Keep it!--Chuckeh 10:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability presented. --Fredrick day 10:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Agathoclea 17:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RauteMusik.FM does exist in Germany and Europe. A local company notable in its own country and not worldwide doesn't mean it lacks the notibility. Rather than referring it to lack of notabilty, help to improve the article as a stub. Cocoma 13:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Existence is not notability. Needs references in English. Vegaswikian 02:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the discussion's page. You can find RauteMusik.FM in all the big media players like iTunes, Windows Media Player and so on! And NO, not every radio station is listed there, especially on iTunes there is no other german radio station!--Chuckeh 12:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep referenced and contrary to popular opinion, there is no requirement for English language references. Nuttah68 12:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes but there is a requirement that sources say more than "this exists". --Fredrick day 12:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You never read the discussions page correctly or said anything to it? There are a lot of references and you can see on the streamstats a lot of listeners, more than on 80 % of other webradios of the world. So?!--Chuckeh 17:46, 20 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 content then delete. The content has already been merged into Manchester United F.C. statistics. The title is not a likely search term worth keeping as a redirect. TerriersFan 18:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Manchester United's Squad Numbers[edit]

The content of the article is unencyclopaedic and, IMO, is not notable outside of a very narrow field. The same information and more can be found at http://www.footballsquads.co.uk - PeeJay 09:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - there is a section like this on the Liverpool F.C. statistics page. This belongs on a similar page. ArtVandelay13 09:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into Manchester United 1999-present or something similar, and expand. Some prose needs to be added to explain what this list actually is. I don't think the rationale for deletion is sound - most articles are only of interest to a limited number of people, and the fact that the information is available elsewhere is a reason for inclusion, not deletion, per WP:V. Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 09:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In that case, I will create a page similar to Liverpool F.C. statistics for Manchester United and put the table in there. = PeeJay 09:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete far too narrow! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattbroon (talk • contribs)
Merge per Gasheadsteve. Number 5 7 09:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to new stats article. Realkyhick 15:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what squad number a player currently wears is barely notable - a list like this is definitely not. Information of the most specialised kind, and best held on a specialist Manchester United fansite. - fchd 19:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have now copied the information into a new article at Manchester United F.C. statistics. I have also edited the table to make it as complete as possible. I still don't think it's at all relevant, but now we have a new article for Man Utd statistics, which can't be bad. - PeeJay 19:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now that the information has been moved elsewhere. --Malcolmxl5 19:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - somewhat interesting but doesn't need its own article, obviously. --Steve Farrell 15:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what a waste of server space... seriously pointless. It has no value --Childzy ₪ Talk 23:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there is a Wiki for Manchester United, it is a good research, but seem not allowed in wikipedia policy. Matthew_hk t c 18:16, 21 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 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aggie Moffat[edit]

Subject was a tea-lady who made one comment to Graeme Souness which was picked up by the media. Ms Moffat is not individually notable - not close to WP:BIO - and all relevant information is already in the Souness article. Redirected, contested. Deiz talk 09:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One very minor argument with a celebrity does not make someone notable. Number 5 7 09:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow. This is one of the most non-notable people I've ever read about--assuming there are degrees of not meriting an article, this subject really really really doesn't merit one. We should archive this somewhere as an example of an article that has no significance whatsoever. Maybe we can start a So What? Award and give this article the 2007 prize hands-down. Even the guy she had the extremely tame "argument" with nearly 20 years ago is a barely notable person. Are sports fans so obliviously obsessed that these footnotes to footnotes read like the stone-chiseled word of God to them? Qworty 10:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that 20 years playing professional sport at the highest level possible and another 20 years coaching professional sport at the highest level possible qualify Graeme Souness as a tad more than "barely notable"..... ChrisTheDude 10:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, you've nearly convinced me. Has he had any other cleaning ladies we should write articles about? Qworty 10:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is a place to offer opinions about articles which have been nominated for deletion. "Delete, completely non-notable" would cover it, so maybe chill out on the diatribes, possible awards for uselessness and sweeping generalisations about sports fans? You could read the Graeme Souness article if you have some time on your hands. Deiz talk 11:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I did read it. It failed to establish notability for his cleaning lady. I think you'll have to agree that this is one of the very thinnest articles to dome down the VfD pike in quite some time. And the highly assiduous manner in which it is cited makes it read almost like a spoof. But in all fairness, I'm sure that the article's author(s) had no intention of satirizing the limitless obsessiveness of (some) sports fans. Qworty 11:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you'll nail her profession the next time you read it. Hurry now; it looks like it might not have long left. - Dudesleeper · Talk 14:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If she's not a cleaning woman, why does she care if a soccer coach is a slob? Oh, I see, she's a tea lady. What, she pushes a tea cart through a Scottish locker room? And objects because the place is messy? And European soccer hooligans are consequently enraged over this local "sports" incident? Am I getting close to why she is "notable"? We are truly separated by a common language, my friends, as well as caffeine-delivery systems--a tea cart? Perhaps she'll become notable when she is the last survivor of her dying profession. In any event, I hope not too many people were injured in any riots that might have followed this grave incident. Qworty 18:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I "feel" like I'm in an endless "Jay" Leno "monologue". There must be a door around here somewhere... - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don;t know I liked reading this article, and felt like I would like to meet her and shake her hand afterwards. I guess she isn't really notable, but she did make the Independent. Jihad Shaar down below got two newspaper mentions and has people arguing that he is notable because of that. Aggie Moffat got more newspaper mentions, but is not notable because of her profession? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchia (talk • contribs)

Delete The person that the article is about is not notable. The event is notable and therefore belongs in the article about Graeme Souness. Pedro | Chat 12:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not at all convinced the event is notable, though I'm willing to admit that I need my cultural awareness raised a bit in this area. Americans drink beer and watch football; Brits, apparently, drink tea and watch soccer. A man who coaches soccer is a great cultural figure in the British isles and the British aisles. No less significant is the woman who rolls the cart up the aisles to serve him his vitally important national beverage, tea. When these two great cultural icons have a disagreement of any sort, it's like Bush and Putin going at it, and the British media is transfixed. Well, I'm sorry, but the United States is not a democracy on anything near that kind of level. Over here, a football player has to murder two people with a knife and then get away with it before he (and the incident in question) become truly notable. Being admonished on personal cleanliness by the guy who sells the hot dogs just isn't going to, uh, "cut it." Qworty 18:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice bit of generalisation there. ;) But I agree the event is not notable. Dave101→talk 19:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Graeme Souness as she's mentioned in that article and it's (barely) a plausible search term. Not notable in her own right per WP:BLP1E. Iain99 13:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Graeme Souness. GiantSnowman 16:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at all. --Malcolmxl5 19:12, 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 Speedy close - Nom withdrawn. (non-admin close) —Travis ^talk 13:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pure Pwnage episodes[edit]

Notability of Pure Pwnage notwithstanding (although it's probably fine), I see no rationale for a separate article to serve as nothing more than a collection of episode trivia and summaries. This is my first AfD in a while, so if I've nominated this in error, please feel free to correct me.. spazure (contribs) 09:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Nom withdrawn, sleep-deprived, non-researched nom. Was already nommed before and kept. Please speedy close. spazure (contribs) 10:02, 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. Kurykh 00:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Impossible Return[edit]

Full of OR and NPOV, and most fatally, not notable. The 2001 Seattle Mariners missed setting a new MLB record for the most wins in a season by a team by one game, and this game—a regular season game—was one of them. That is the only claim to notability this game has. Granted, for Mariners fans, this was the most heartbreaking, but this was merely one in 54 games they lost that they could have won, and it's quite arguable this game was not any more notable than those games, or any regular season MLB game. It's not the greatest comeback in major league history either (see this), and that game doesn't have an article. Even the title given for the game is unsourced and non-existant on Google except for Wikipedia and some blogs. Full disclosure: I'm a Mariners fan, but I don't think my bias is an issue here. hateless 08:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article brings back fond memories. As a Red Sox fan, just listening to the Sunday night radio broadcast on ESPN, I turned off the game in the 8th inning, assuming the Mariners would hold on to win. I found out the truth when browsing the Tuesday New York Times sports page, where there was a front-page column about the comeback two days earlier, and I was left to wonder - you mean the Mariners lost?

I guess this is the other famous sliver of baseball history for one Mike Bacsik.

The nominator rightly points out that the lead section is highly pro-Indians, and the article must have been written by Indians fans. (History is written by the winners.) However, it is not notable as a regular-season game, since there have been two other comebacks from 12 runs down in the early 20th century. Should we have an article about the game where Mark Whiten hit 4 home runs and had 12 RBI? What about the game last year when the Dodgers hit four straight homers off the Padres in the bottom of the ninth, then came from behind in extra innings to win? All these are nice games, but trivial in the larger context of baseball history. Shalom ^Hello 17:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete while a great comeback, I do not think this has enough historic notability (outside Indian fans) per WP:NOT#NEWS Corpx 03:53, 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. Kurykh 00:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lewisham-Indo Chinese[edit]

Non notable series of workshops with no indication of their outcome. And then there is a bit about a school tacked on Malcolma 08:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sign of significance. Deiz talk 09:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in lacking sources Corpx 03:52, 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. Kurykh 00:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad Shaar[edit]

Another attempt to turn WP into a WP:NOT#MEMORIAL of someone non-notable. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable outside of the circumstances of death, and per nom on not a memorial. Pedro | Chat 08:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least two newspaper articles written so it pass Wikipedia:Notability (people) as he has been "the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". // Liftarn

Comment But the sources just cover his death. Why was he notable other than dying ? Article asserts he was a "would be student" who "hadn't decided what he was studying" - just being killed, even in these distressing circumstances, is not on it's own a criteria for notability. Pedro | Chat 09:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see anything in the guidline requiring a specific reason for fame. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL doesn't apply since the requirement "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." is fullfilled. // Liftarn

Reply Please see WP:N#Notability_is_not_temporary. This guy was not notable when he was alive. Nothing in the sources indicates he will be notable in the future. Just because the subject has been covered in the news does not mean we need an encyclopedia article. I respect you are not personally involved but just because the article meets the criteria of coverage does not initself make the subject notable. To clarify the notability thing: I have reports of a gas main being dug up on my local road from two independent verifiable resources (e.g. the BBC and a local paper); neverthless the gas main and roadworks are not notable although they are verifiable.Pedro | Chat 10:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but my divinations skills is a bit low so I find it hard to tell if he will keep being notable of not. But considering the events it's likley the issue will consider to generate interest even in the future. The gas main is unlikley to do so. // Liftarn

Yep, I know but WP:CRYSTAL and per my above link. If the guy becomes notable at a later date the article can always be re-created. The point is that his notability at this time does not fit with the guidelines, IMHO. Pedro | Chat 11:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He currently is notable (no dubt about that). Nobody knows if he will remain notable or not. So it boils down to if you are a deletionist or an inclusionist. Anyway, I moved the article over to Wikinews so it is available there. This Rodney King incident mey remain notable or not. // Liftarn

Good choice on the move to wikinews. Pedro | Chat 12:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that on Wikinews it was deleted on sight. Sigh! // Liftarn

Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. Zouavman Le Zouave 10:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am neither friend nor family and as per above WP:NOT#MEMORIAL does not apply. Post-mortem fame is not the same thing as a memorial. Take Patrick Stewart (soldier) as an example. // Liftarn

DeleteWhatever the circumstances may be, whose version is the truth, and even if the victim is Jewish or Palestinian, Jihad is just another pointless and NN death in the current Oslo war. The move to wikinews is sufficient. --Shuki 11:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know But check out Aggie Moffatabove - she has two newspaper mentions and a website created by fans, but the guys above don't think that makes her notable.Anarchia 12:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and that article is also currently at AFD.Pedro | Chat 12:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just as not everyone killed by suicide bombers deserves an article, neither do all people killed by the IDF. At most include a line about the event in one of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles. Number 5 7 14:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duh! Category:Suicide bombing in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict... // Liftarn

Duh? Very WP:CIVIL. Anyway, what is your point? There are no victims of bombings in that category, just four suicide bombers. Number 5 7 08:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An entire category of events that aren't current news. // Liftarn 10:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And? I didn't say delete the article because it isn't current news. I said delete because not every victim of the conflict is notable. Number 5 7 11:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having a separate article about every detonated bomb seems to me like a bit of an overkill as well if we should use your logic. // Liftarn

There is a big difference between a suicide bombing or an IDF operation and a seemingly random knife attack. Number 5 7 11:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clubs and rifle butts, not knifes. Compare it with articles like Rodney King and Reginald Oliver Denny that also only became known for things done to them. And for that matter the entire category Category:Crime victims. The guidlines does not support deletion based on Humus sapiens' claims. // Liftarn

Perhaps if this guy's death had started something like the 1992 LA Riots (I'm not American, but I've heard of Rodney King) he might be notable, but obviously it hasn't. Number 5 7 12:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's just US centrism. OK, I've also heared about Rodney King, but what about Reginald Oliver Denny? How many have heared about Allen Benn or Helen Brach? // Liftarn

So nominate them for deletion too then. Benn in particular seems non-notable, though the Brach issue at least has some connection to a well-known company. Number 5 7 13:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS I have prodded Allen Benn if it makes you feel any better. Number 5 7 13:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carefull to avoid WP:POINT. // Liftarn

Delete What next, every mugging victim in South Philly? Avi 15:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it would comply with Wikipedia:Notability (people). // Liftarn

Just because somebody has been covered in the press does not automatically make them notable, Liftarn. If both the Daily News and the NYT lists the name of someone shot in the Bronx, they get their own article? The policies need to be applied WITH common sense; having an article for this person lacks common sense. -- Avi 13:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it of general interest? Then yes (but then I'm an inclusionist). However they are just local newspapers. Did the hypothetical shooting became international news? // Liftarn

Delete I just do not see any historic notability for this person who died during conflict Corpx 03:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't seem to be a memorial. There are in-depth reliable source articles that are solely about the person and the way he died, so it appears to satisfy WP:N. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, as he is dead. I don't see anything wrong with this article. JulesH 16:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:NOT#NEWS DOES apply. What is this person notable for? Including the fact that he is dead? There are many, many dead pepple whose obituaries appear in multiple newspapers. Do we start adding each and every one? ABsurd, in my opinion. -- Avi 17:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable for being beaten to death when he was handcuffed and on the ground. Obituaries may be used as a source (note that the article in question does not use a obituary as source, but newspaper articles) and death notices aren't usable since they are esenssialy advertisments. // Liftarn

Delete per our notability guidelines, which this individual fails. We need multiple, non-trivial mentions. If such mentions accrue in the future due to any sort of building controversy, then the entry can be recreated. Tewfik^Talk 21:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: We have multiple (count them) non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. // Liftarn
Delete as non notable. Nothing here convinces me that there is lasting interest rather than being summed up in 'In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability'. Nuttah68 12:17, 20 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. Not one valid reason given for keeping. Neil ム 08:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vkontakte.ru[edit]

Just another clone of Facebook, already mentioned in the main article. Violates WP:WEB. No reason to keep a separate article. Ash063 08:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it has a nice interwiki Russian-language article - it seems notable over there. Shalom ^Hello 17:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of arguments is absolutely no good. There is a clear logical fallacy. Ru-wiki and En-wiki have different rules, but anyway existence or quality of interwiki isn't and never was an argument in discussion. Moreover, you said "ru-interwiki is nice" and it's nothing but your POV. "I like it" is an argument to avoid, see WP:AADD. Interwiki existence can't be a reason to overcome Wikipedia rules for sure. Once again, it seems not notable, it violates WP:WEB. There are many clones, they are already mentioned in the main article. Still, there is no reason to keep this article. — Ash063 19:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument seems a WP:JNN. - K.O.T. 20:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it seems so, I can be explain it in details. Look at WP:WEB criteria:

1.The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
2.The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
3.The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators.

I haven't found anything about it so it seems that this site fails WP:WEB. — Ash063 21:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also as per WP:COI, it's just another self-promotion and promotion of author. There are no proofs of notability as required per WP:WEB. — Ash063 19:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think Vkontakte.ru article has been written by the website team? I've asked them, and they claim otherwise. They say that the appearance of a separate Vkontakte.ru article here is a surprise for them... K.O.T. 20:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It pleases to hear this. I hope that possible deletion of this separate article from English Wikipedia would not hurt these guys. — Ash063 21:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what about Google hits? Google hits count simply for vkontakte.ru is big, but all of them are in Russian language. Google hits count for vkontakte.ru only within English-speaking pages [53] is only 632 and still most of them are in Russian or simply from spamsites. This clearly shows that this site is notable only within Russian-speaking segment of internet and isn't notable within English-speaking segment of internet. Therefore there is absolutely no need of nothing but a mention in Facebook article. So that article should be deleted. — Ash063 20:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources giving significant coverage are found Corpx 03:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not satisfied with [54], you can find absolute numbers of unique visitors per day at [55]. Then the only remaining question is whether half a million visitors a day is significant or not. K.O.T. 20:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visitors count has nothing to do with "reliable sources giving significant coverage" =). — Ash063 21:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because vkontakte is the biggest and the main Facebook clone; it is the 4th biggest web site in Russia (Alexa). German and Chinese clones are smaller, less technologically advanced and less successful than this one. Besides, it is not exactly a clone. Some features (e.g. ajax wall posts or video in groups) were introduced by Vkontakte, then adopted by Facebook. 17:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.131.163.100 (talk • contribs)

Being "4th biggest web site in Russia" is a good reason to have an article about vkontakte in Russian wiki, that's one of the reasons why Russian wiki exists. As well as being not notable for English-speaking world is a good reason to delete this article from English wiki. — Ash063 17:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there are already several Wikipedia articles on other Facebook clones, such as StudiVZ. If the German clone is not claimed to violate any Wikipedia rules, why a Russian one is? 09:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by K.O.T. (talk • contribs).

Oh, please, your argument is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Who said that "German clone is not claimed to violate any Wikipedia rules"? — Ash063 16:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in any case your original claim "No reason to keep a separate article" is simply an unmotivated POV. As to violation of WP:WEB, this would be indeed a serious argument for deletion, provided you could elaborate your claim. Saying that something just violates WP:WEB isn't sufficient. K.O.T. 20:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unmotivated POV? I wonder why you think so. This site is a successful clone of facebook, facebook use some features that were introduced by vkontakte? Enough for having a mention in facebook article, but not enough for having a separate article because vkontakte fails WP:WEB criteria. — Ash063 22:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A startup isn't yet worth an article. Moikrug.ru (recently bought out by Yandex) fits better, but doesn't have one (I would vote 'keep' for it in case of AfD) --ssr 12:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a POV. Vkontakte.ru has much more individual visitors and page views per day than Moikrug.ru. So it's not that clear which site merits an article more. That's not too relevant for this discussion anyway. 14:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by K.O.T. (talk • contribs).

Moikrug is on market since 2005 and is very popular (Yandex acquiring endorses) and numerously mentioned by general press (see [56]) unlike Vkontakte started recently (and article about it seems therefore to be obvious PR, also large number of hits may be a result of a viral campaign). --ssr 19:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one project is two years old, the other is just one year old, but somewhat more successful: [57] Notice that Vkontakte has a large "hits per user" ratio, so all those visits cannot be casual. In any case, this is indeed WP:OTHERSTUFF - we don't discuss here whether Moikrug.ru merits an article or not. More importantly, popularity of vkontakte has been confirmed in Russian press several times, but I'm unable to point out any English-language publications for a very obvious reason. -- K.O.T. 20:29, 21 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 to Malaysian name (assuming all keep arguments are cool with the article in either location. Stefan's seems to be - it cites articles linked to, and related to, Malaysian name). Non admin closure. Giggy ^Talk 07:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malay name[edit]

This is just a list, not suited with Wikipedia article's policy Zack2007 07:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am sure that other readers are wondering this, what is this list about? - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Malaysian name I'm assumingthis article is a list of names of the Malay language, along with their pronunciation and definition. Yet it's a dictionary-type article, or rather, supplementary information. There is no actual information in the article, just a list of names and their definitions/translations. The names themselves don't even seem notable, most of the names that are not red-links link to similarly named yet unrelated pages. Calgary 09:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Its just generic list of Malay names (as in people's names). I strongly believe that this article be deleted as soon as possible. --Zack2007 09:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Much as I enjoy the baby-name articles, there's not a provision that I know of for keeping that in Wikipedia. Even books listing meanings of names are generally suspect and not verified by cites. Baby name books are generally not written for the reference shelf). Thus, one can probably find something saying that "Mandsford" is from Anglo-Saxon for "loudmouth". It's interesting that Delami and Melita are the Malay equivalent of "Ruby" and "Jasmine", but I can't bring myself to vote keep. As with the case of "funny laws", etymology of first names is generally approached in the spirit of fun rather than scholarship. Mandsford 14:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and redirect or rework -- Since we have so many other pages for simmilar content this should not be deleted just because it has wrong content now (see Akan name, Arabic name, Bulgarian name, Chinese name, Dutch name, Fijian name, French names, German name, Hawaiian name, Hebrew name, Hungarian name, Icelandic name, Indian name, Indonesian names, Irish name, Japanese name, Javanese name, Korean name, Malaysian name, Jewish names, Philippine names, Polish name, Portuguese names and Vietnamese name ). That list is a mix between pages for countries/regions and cultures, the page for AfD now is about names for a culture, the content that should be on that page is now on Malaysian name (for the country) which have a sub section for malay names, I suggest either a redirect or to remove all current content and copy from the Malaysian name page and let this page live from there, redirect is OK, but I really think we should have pages about names from different cultures, not regions but that means removing the info from Malaysian name about indian and chinese names, not sure if we have any standard about that? --Stefan ^talk 14:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly, per Stefan. As he notes, this is part of a series. Some of them are much better than the others. The list of frequently given names would be acceptable if pared down to the more common examples, and had a paragraph of explanation given. Weak keep because I note the existence of Indonesian names and Malaysian name cited above, which would seem to cover the entire Malay speaking world except Singapore. Suggest that an edited version of this might profitably be merged with one or the other of those, but that's a judgment I'd leave to experts, i.e. to somebody other than myself. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is just a list of names. If anyone wants to expand later, they can recreate it, but as of now it is just a list of names and hence, a list of loosely associated topics Corpx 03:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malaysian Name per Calgary. A simple list of names isn't an encyclopedia article, but the article on naming customs in Malaysia is a very good example of what people might be after if they searched for "Malay name". The series that Stefan cites is a collection of solid articles, in the main, but they're all more than just lists of names, as they actually look at cultural points, the way that the names are converted from culture to culture and so forth. I'm certain that people have Transwiki'd lists of names from different languages before, but I can't seem to find any conclusive proof that they have. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps it can be converted into a proper list then move to List of common Malay names. e.g: List of Irish surnames starting with A and List of common Chinese surnames.kawaputra^torque 09:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or a Total Rewrite, as the current article is not appropriate as in wikipedia's policy, WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a dictionary neither a directory. The article Malay name should consists of description of a typical names of Malay people, reasons of using, origin, etc,. As of now, Malay name section in Malaysian name is sufficient unless someone wants to total rewrite the article.--Zack2007 10:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malaysian name. End of story. — Indon (reply) — 16:59, 20 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 03:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singladies[edit]

Non-notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC, and a quick search turns up no independent coverage. fuzzy510 07:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I wish we could automate checks for new articles on bands/songs, it's a haven for self-promotion. As usual, nothing of note in article or on www and misses WP:MUSIC by a country mile Dick G 08:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blantant advertising. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:53, 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.. (and rename) CitiCat^♫ 20:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STI Colleges[edit]

No references in the article; Google search provides very few returns, with no apparent significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Very little article content, what little was there originally was advertisement material lifted directly from the website of the article's subject. Dreadstar † 06:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete. Something tells me there could be more to this article. An education institution purportedly established in over 100 locations for over 20 years should be notable. Unfortunately, without anything else to go on within the piece itself, the ghits are thin on the ground - mainly amounting to the STI website itself and references on a government news feed - and there's nothing else to hang the article on.Dick G 07:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As Dick G writes, education in 100 locations and over 20 years seems notable. Anarchia 11:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I guess..but what reliable sources back up that claim? That's the biggest problem, no sources besides the org's own site. They could say they have a billion locations and a thousand year-history..but what WP:V sources exist that back this up? ;) Dreadstar † 23:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep They seem to be a chain of vocational training institutes, calling themselves colleges. I suspect most of the locations are very small, but I think they're notable. Cf [58] where they have two honorable mentions. I think some more can be filtered out from [59] with enough patience. Is there a Wikproject to notify? DGG (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I also found this entry: STI College Angeles'. Dreadstar † 07:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had to revert to a very early revision of the article due to copyright issues. The current revision should be clean. --- RockMFR 02:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything in the last version of the article could be considered as copyright infringement. Removed all copyrighted content. Removed UNECESSARY external links. Please do not remove the revised and grammar-corrected version to the earlier revisions.
Keep. Should be rewritten though. This is a major line of schools all over the country along the lines of AMA Computer University. I'm not sure the article name is entirely appropriate though. Shrumster 10:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rename. Notable in the Philippines. Try googling STI college instead of STI colleges.--Lenticel ^(talk) 11:23, 22 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. Singu larity 02:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beekeeper Records[edit]

Non-notable record label. All of ONE album has been released on the label, and there's pretty much no independent coverage. One of the co-founders is apparently a writer at Pitchfork Media, but I think we'd agree that it's not enough to justify notability. fuzzy510 06:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've always thought we should have an article detailing how financial records are kept by beekeepers. But, uh, this ain't it. Qworty 10:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...f**k 'em, they're only bees. I mean it fails to establish any notability, so it should probably buzz off. Sorry, I'll behive myself. Lugnuts 17:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With all of the bee puns in there, I'm shocked that you didn't say that it lacked any nota-bee-lity.....--fuzzy510 18:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's always a sting in the tail! Thanks for pointing that out, Buzzybee510. Lugnuts 07:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marxy, their only signed band, per WP:MUSIC criterion 6. I know they're not an ensemble as such, but these guidelines can be adapted. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 23:10, 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. Singu larity 01:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disney's Beauty And The Beast (St. Theresa C.S.S. Version)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Disney's Beauty And The Beast (St. Theresa C.S.S. Version)

High school production of musical. Is it notable? (Disputed prod.) -- RHaworth 06:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the article currently stands there is no obvious notability to the production. If the performance was particularly unusual or innovative and attracted additional media coverage (other than local press reviews) then it should be referenced, without it, it's nearly impossible to justify as an article.Dick G 07:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability. A high school production.
Delete per Dick G. Thin Arthur 08:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete HIgh School productions are not suitable encyclopedia material.Anarchia 11:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, and utter non-notability.
Delete Just a run-of-the-mill version of the original show. Nothing here notable whatsoever. fuzzy510 20:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of high school musicals. Man It's So Loud In Here 22:43, 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. Singu larity 02:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actors who have played God in films[edit]

Previous prod; removed by administrator as not uncontroversial with rationale on talk page. As in the original prod reason and talk page follow-up, this article fails WP:NOT#INFO, since it meets a common definition of an indiscriminate list, failing the original talk page support by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also as noted, 'God' could legitimately mean Jesus, non-Christian deities, and other God-like supernatural entities, potentially running to thousands of entries. No apparent significance or notability in the article, nor is a rewrite or expansion likely to make the article significant or notable. Michael Devore 06:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Trivia reference point at best. Looks more like a candidate for a category page rather than an article Dick G 07:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and do not make a category. Thin Arthur 08:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Take note that at the moment, the article is biased, in favor of a Christian interpretation of God, as well as from a religious perspective "the Almighty Himself". And many. more actors have played God than have been listed. As for the deletion rationale, it's true, it would get confusing, as "God" is a term thrown around loosely, and could refer to any of the many interpretations of the God of the Abrahamic religions, could refer to Jesus, who is though of by some Christians as God, and then, of course, there are all of the little gods and dieties that we don't care to talk about. But let's nottalk about that, as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Let's just say that a list of actors who have played God is not notable, unless the actors themselves are notable for playing God. That being said, however, I think that it is a good idea for there to be a God in film article that discusses the subject of the portrayal of God in motion pictures rather than the actors who have done the portraying, but this is not the place to discuss such matters. Calgary 09:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - actors play a variety of roles in the course of a career. There's nothing particularly notable about happening to have played God. This seems to be something of a run-around of the consensus here. Otto4711 14:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the cinematic interpretation of the Almighty would be a worthwhile subject of study, this list is not it. I actually looked at WP:LISTCRUFT, thanks to a very persuasive editor, and I can see where this hits that checklist of don'ts and more don'ts. As the author concedes, very few people have had the temerity to portray God on film, and this is basically the list of blue links with little hope of becoming something of interest. Mandsford 14:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LOZ: OOT 22:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I came to this AFD thinking "Alanis and Morgan". Seeing as those two constitute half of the article, it's not comprehensive enough by a long shot Will ^(talk) 14:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a number of actors who have played deities of other religions, and the e is no reason not to have them either--we can adjust the title. I think a film role played by many people is not the least random or miscellaneous, and is a useful correlate to our listings of actors, and roles they have played. Intrinsically, I do not see how one is more notable than the other as an encyclopedic way or organising material. DGG (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You raise interesting points. In response, I offer further insight into why, I think, the article is best deleted. It is manifestly true that God is notable and significant. Further, the portrayal of God in movies is clearly notable and significant, if for no other reason (and there are many) than because the role reflects on fundamental beliefs and behaviors in society. So, in that respect, you are absolutely correct that the movie role is neither random nor miscellaneous. An article listing movies where God was the subject or played a nontrivial supporting role could be more difficult to argue against. But in this article, we address merely the mechanics of the role, the person whose body just happens to fill out the robes for the screening duration (my apologies to actors here). Those mechanics are not intrinsically part of God's role, but rather a human animation of the movie script's subject noun of the day. The "God" slot in the article is just as easily replaced by any other noun. Actors who have played kings, beggars, cauliflower, mothers, fathers, tables, chairs, rocks, centaurs, warriors, feminists, and so on all have equal claim to a valid Wikipedia listing, because they also "correlate to our listings of actors, and roles they have played". I don't want to get too silly here, but it reminds me of another movie which frequently points out that when everyone is special, no one is. Opening the door to actors who have played 'X' where 'X' is any noun invites the worst kind of listcruft. Here I see no special reason to have an article about actors who have played God in films. Its extremely low threshold for existence denies either notability or significance of the topic. Michael Devore 08:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and what Michael Devore said above. Ford MF 09:49, 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. While the article needs work, there are some sources, and the notability standard doesn't address virtual worlds like Second Life. Also, we could gain a lot of editors by attracting Second Life participants, so let's see where this goes. - KrakatoaKatie 18:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrage Wise[edit]

A "resident" of a virtual world who appears to have been noticed in the real world. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 06:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unnotable. Who said virtual network people can be on a encyclopedia? --H irohisat ^Talk 06:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Claim of WP:NN is clearly wrong, considering the sources quoted, especially the BW. Whether the article is a 'biography' or not is debatable as the 'person' involved is virtual, albeit with a real person fully controlling. However that is a separate debate and should not interfere at all with the article Arbitrage Wise, which has merit for inclusion per references given. --Javit 06:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Business Week editorials are the staring point for justifying this one but the article itself needs extensive pruning and wikification to help it along. Notability is still tenuous but, as mentioned above, raises interesting questions as to the documenting of the virtual world within Wikipedia Dick G 07:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article gives a one line mention of this subject, not qualifying as "significant coverage" Corpx 07:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The notability of this person (character?) borders on unexistence although its there, however if an article is to be made it should be about the real man not the character to avoid what might be a case of fancruft. - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am the article's primary author. I added "Arbitrage Wise" to Wikipedia because of notability in real-world media in recent months... and his 'celebrity' status among Second Life's 8,000,000 users. 'Fancruft' is not an issue here first because of number and secondly because of other notable circumstances. The interesting legal grounds on which Mr. Ho's businesses alone operate make the article worth listing. I note that another Second Life avatar is also listed in Wikipedia - "Anshe Chung." I strongly believe that the BusinessWeek and ABC references give credibility. Additional editing may be needed, but the article certainly should not be deleted. --Timdlocklear 14:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timdlocklear (talk • contribs) [reply]
Delete None of those sources in the article give "significant coverage" Corpx 03:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Must Keep - The one thing we have to keep in mind is that virtual worlds is probably the future, and as virtual world grows, so will characters such as Arbitrage Wise. Notability should not only be reserved for tangible figures, but should be seen more for their impact on things, and Arbitrage Wise will have a deep impact on Second Life, and possibly the overall economics of virtual world as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dis4timmy (talk • contribs) — Dis4timmy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep I think at this point the page personages in Second Life are as encyclopedia worthy as in any other game--and there are apparently sources here.DGG (talk) 07:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are there, but I dont think the coverage in them would qualify as "significant" Corpx 07:37, 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. Singu larity 06:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Elementary School (DeKalb County, Georgia)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Austin Elementary School (Dunwoody, Georgia)

Articles for deletion/Austin Elementary School (DeKalb County, Georgia) (2nd nomination)

Article was introduced into the WP:PROD workstream despite having been considered at AFD previously. The reasoning for the most recent deletion nomination was "Notability & Relevance", which is essentially the same as the initial AFD nomination that ended in 'no consensus'. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking any assertion or verification of notability VanTucky ^(talk) 17:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article does not assert the importance of its subject. It is non notable. --Stormbay 21:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article contains no assertion of notability of any kind. --ForbiddenWord 16:40, 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 Withdrawn by nominator, no opinions to delete. Kevin 03:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mama Bhagne[edit]

~~I cannot easily verify the subject's existence; I'm suspecting a hoax, but I'm not sure.~~ --Spring Rubber 06:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the discussion here, I acknowledge that this nomination was in error, and I retract my nomination to delete this article. --Spring Rubber 05:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a hoax, its very real, if this AfD notice was put by a bot then the bot algo should take care of the time lag between edits (especially when creating a new page ). Its really annoying to see the article you just created with so much of effort is put with an ugly tag. Jeroje 06:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)jeroje[reply]

Keep Article definitely needs work but is evolving and appears to be relevant. AfD was seemingly premature, posted after first edit of a work in progress Dick G 07:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You're suspecting a hoax are you Spring Rubber? And how much in depth research did you do on the topic in the FOUR MINUTES between the initial creation of this article and your tagging it for AfD? Did you go through all the suggested steps on the AfD page before tagging in those four minutes as well? As Jeroje points out, it is incredibly annoying for new articles on perfectly legitimate topics to be tagged so zealously, especially when the nominator admits that he's 'not sure' about whether it should be tagged at all. It just creates more work for editors who'd be much happier actually writing articles and constructively contributing to wikipedia. This rock formation was featured prominently in the famous Indian film Abhijan directed by Satyajit Ray Nick mallory 07:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Okay, fine, if it's real, then I apologize. I just didn't know how else to proceed. I couldn't find any verification under the exact article title. Is it supposed to be written as-is or with a hyphen? I once made a bad AFD nomination a few years ago, and that one at least generated the attention required to make the proper improvements to the article. At the very least, I was hoping that would be the case here. --Spring Rubber 09:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - It's OK, I know you weren't being malicious, just keen. It's probably a good idea to give the writer of the article a chance to finish his initial work on the article though, or to contact him directly for more information, before rushing to AfD. If you're unsure about notability in a case like this there are other steps you can take. It's held that geographical features are usually notable here. My concern is that new writers to wikipedia can be frightened off by seeing their work immediately tagged and the project loses overall. Verifiability isn't determined by ghits. Nick mallory 09:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Alright, perhaps we should settle upon what the correct article title should be in relation to the first three words in the article text. In a Google search, including the third word with "Mama Bhagne" returns no results. Should the third word belong? --Spring Rubber 17:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a hoax. Thin Arthur 08:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I doubted from the beginning that this was any kind of hoax. There are some pretty desperate article writers around here, but I don't think for a minute that anybody would go to the senseless trouble to invent . . . a couple of granite rocks in West Bengal. Qworty 11:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be an authentic landmark of at least local importance. Here it's called "legendary", here it's called "reknowned", and here it's called "significant". None of the above are reliable sources IMHO, but it's definitely not a hoax and seems like it would be covered in travel guides and such. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we hyphenate the title since that seems to be how the name is displayed in the sources? --Spring Rubber 23:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it has been established that this is not a hoax. Yamaguchi先生 04:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed the notice, since the result was keep. Jeroje 09:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)jeroje[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta Cerebral Palsy Sports Association[edit]

nn organization, no nontrivial coverage, no sources. The prod ran its course, and the reviewing admin declined to delete the article despite it being tagged as unsourced for over a year and tagged for non-notability for nine months. MSJapan 05:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The company itself might have a degree of notability but the article as it stands fails to prove it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V and WP:RS VanTucky ^(talk) 17:00, 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. — TKD::Talk 06:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wertstahl[edit]

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. I checked but could not find sufficient sourcing. Crystallina 05:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely non-notable. First album limited to just 12 copies? Come on. fuzzy510 05:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wow that's pretty bad, they couldn't even make the crossover to CDs. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I see no assertation of notability in the text so no reason not to speedy - fails WP:MUSIC if not speedied anyhow. Pedro | Chat 08:36, 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.. CitiCat^♫ 14:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feed Me Bubbe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nomination. Was previously deleted for failing WP:WEB. It is now relisted based on new evidence of notability presented at DRV. IronGargoyle 05:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It may be that the prose is just badly written but nothing in this article suggests a wider reference point than a narrow podcast fanbase. It just doesn't assert notability strongly enough to warrant inclusion. A possible candidate for resurrection one day but right now it's niche at best.Dick G 06:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DRV cited an ABC News source for notability. Wl219 11:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per new sourcing provided in the DRV, although frankly I'd prefer to see stronger sourcing than a single article. This is in need of a lot of cleanup though. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ABC is just one source - We're gonna need more than that. Nothing in the article qualifies as a RS Corpx 03:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In June 2007, "Feed Me Bubbe" was featured in an "Art of Living" segment on Retirement Living TV, a TV channel carried by Comcast and DirectTV.
Keep, besides the ABC News item, there was a report at the Wall Street Journal which, unfortunately, requires a subscription. But if you go to http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117880450303898581.html you'll see the image which goes with the article if you go to page 5 of that link. Corvus cornix 17:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Feed Me Bubbe is #6 on the WSJ link, not #5. Wl219 18:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Sorry about that. Corvus cornix 20:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Add these up. They represent many more sources than discussed above:

In June 2007, "Feed Me Bubbe" was featured in an "Art of Living" segment on Retirement Living TV, a TV channel carried by Comcast and DirectTV.

"Feed Me Bubbe" was discussed in a June 5, 2007, article by Vikkie Ortiz in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. It stated, "The videos, which offer 'Yiddish Words of the Day,' were mentioned on the NBC late-night TV show Last Call With Carson Daly and have inspired hundreds of e-mails daily." The Journal Sentinel article was picked by (at least) the Miami Herald and published on page E4 of its June 9, 2007, issue.

Here is the link to Carson Daly, saying about Avrom, "That guy's awesome, actually. He's becoming a famous IYS'er."

Another print mention of the show appeared in the Canadian Jewish News, v. 37, issue 4 ("Kugel - tradition, recipes and lore," Jan. 18, 2007). The (KRT) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ("YouTube nation: Relating experiences," May 5, 2007); and the Spokane Spokesman Review, page 11A ("Video Bloggers Serve Offbeat Food TV," May 7, 2007) also published articles.

The Wall Street Journal's Jessica E. Vascellaro wrote an article, discussing "Feed Me Bubbe" that was distributed by The AP Datastream ("Using Youtube for posterity," May 10, 2007). Vascellaro's article was published in the Toronto Globe and Mail, page L7 ("Seniors leave their legacy - on YouTube," May 11, 2007); in the Charleston (WV) Sunday Gazette Mail ("Grandparents give YouTube a try," May 13, 2007); in The Cincinnati Post, page B3 ("Latest Stars of Youtube Belong to Elder Generation," May 17, 2007); and on page 1 of Business section in the Virginian-Pilot & Ledger Star (Norfolk) ("Hey! grandma has a story tell on youtube," May 21, 2007).

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

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

The result was keep. KrakatoaKatie 18:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Laesch[edit]

Not notable. Running for Congress does not automatically denote notability. Mikemill 05:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some real sources can be dug up. Ford MF 05:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with improved citations - 27,000 google hits to his name, and articles in Mother Jones, Chicago Tribune and several other newspapers about him. Debivort 20:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How many of those sources are just because he ran in the race? Mikemill 00:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Mother Jones piece is quite long and dedicated entirely to him, but in the context of his running. But ... it's not our place to question why reliable sources report what they do - the very fact that they do supports notability. Debivort 19:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is running for Congress next year! Tomas417 00:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How does that establish notability though? If he loses will he still be notable? Mikemill 00:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The most this guy has gotten is the primary, which is really not far in the US electoral system. ~~At least win the party's nomination~~ Corpx 03:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He won the primary in 2006. Propol 05:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that part, but he went up against a 10 term incumbent, and the speaker of the house. I dont think the Dems had much of a chance Corpx 05:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a current candidate in the Democratic primary. If he loses the 2008 primary, then I would support delete. In the mean time voters need resources. Propol 06:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per propol. — goethean ॐ 16:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Denny Hastert announced he is leaving politics - this enhances the importance of all declared Dem candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.152.239.216 (talk • contribs)
Keep per above comments, and see Dennis Hastert as of today. Bearian 18:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Topic may be notable, but doesn't meet WP:V with non affiliated sources. --Mmckee 03:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe there is significant coverage of a detailed, not trivial, nature surrouding this person. Thus, he meets the standard for notability. His second run for Congress will also get considerable coverage since he'll be fighting for an open seat. I'm not sure if every person who runs for Congress is automatically notable, but AfD isn't a place for larger discussions like that: the fact is, Laesch meets the notability standards with the sig coverage of his run for Congress and thus his article should stay. I'd hate to see us deleting an otherwise cited and notable article just to make a point. JasonCNJ 21:38, 20 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 (merge suggested) - in the mean time all were merged into Hos-Hostigos, except for Zarthani - Nabla 19:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great King Kaiphranos[edit]

Minor character in a science fiction series. Clarityfiend 05:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are non-notable fictional realms and peoples in the series:

Delete all as trivial and non-notable. Ford MF 05:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - Lack of notability for these characters Corpx 03:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete remaining articles - I have merged Princedom of Hostigos, Princedom of Nostor, and Princedom of Sask into Hos-Hostigos. I have also created Minor Characters in the Kalvan series and have merged Great King Kaiphranos and Grand Master Soton. I am working to improve Zarthani, and I'll probably merge Urgothi into Kalvan series. I might merge Zarthani into Kalvan series. Imperator3733 16:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Great King Kaiphranos has been merged with Minor Characters in the Kalvan series; Princedom of Hostigos, Princedom of Nostor, and Princedom of Sask have been merged into Hos-Hostigos; and Urgothi has been merged into Kalvan series. Hos-Hostigos is a much better article now and I will be adding more soon. This leaves just Zarthani, and I have added a bit more to it. What else does it need to be not deleted? Please let me know soon. (User talk:Imperator3733) Imperator3733 15:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the articles Imperator has worked on. Edward321 01:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep remaining articles, after Imperator's work. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moot / Close AfD. Merge recommendation appears complete, thus requested Afd is now moot. It appears the merger and redirect of the characters to Kalvan series and Minor Characters in the Kalvan series has at the very least cleaned up the clutter. Let the Minor Characters in the Kalvan series article be sent up for a new AfD and debated if it is believed it cannot stand. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 15:11, 22 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. At the least, it appears reasonable to argue that the game is notable within the context of a particular regional culture. Xoloz 15:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Fighter Online[edit]

This article has been around for over two years, but still has no apparent notability, and does not cite a single independent source. I would have tried an A7 on it, but as it's been around for so long this seems more appropriate. Miremare 22:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Miremare 22:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability through reliable, verifiable third party sources. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It would be geographical bias to delete. I know no Chinese, but it is obvious, after a quick Google on the Chinese name, that this is a big thing in countries using that language. It seems to have been professionally reviewed as well - in Chinese. Request someone who knows the language to look at this article, do not delete. --User:Krator (t c) 23:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Playing the race card in an AFD discussion? What happened to WP:AGF? --Aarktica 00:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm sure I don't have to point out that Google results do not equal notability - many online games have lots of Google hits but are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Whatever language the game is in is irrelevant; we can't go keeping every article about something in another language simply because we don't know the language and it might be notable. The burden of proof is on the article, and it simply does not assert, let alone prove, notability. Miremare 13:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - I think this is as good an argument as any in response to the occasional AfD contention that we shouldn't delete stuff if we don't know enough of a foreign language to determine whether or not it's actually notable. Ford MF 05:31, 15 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, TerriersFan 04:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of attribution of notability to independent sources, per Miremare. I'm sure that Krator was merely referring to systemic bias rather than "playing the race card", but that doesn't trump WP:V and WP:RS. --Dhartung | Talk 05:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Miremare. Ford MF 05:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's a review on the games section of TOM Online (news/portal site) [60] as well as a few others from Taiwan and mainland sites [61][62]. cab 06:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung. (Assuming good faith)--Aarktica 12:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - per the links provided by cab; I ran them through Babel Fish Translation and roughly speaking they seem to be genuine coverage (and not just directory listings, blogs or the like), I can give the benefit of the doubt. However, this coverage will need to be represented in the article somehow, so will need some help with translation. Marasmusine 13:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personally I wouldn't say that three pages is enough to prove notability, and that third page appears to me to be some kind of promotion for the game, though Babelfish isn't too brilliant here. But anyway, the fact is, we don't even know what these pages say. If the article is kept and these are the sources, how can it possibly be referenced? Surely for an English encyclopedia you need some sources in English, so that they can be checked by the reader? That's the whole point of providing sources. Miremare 16:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. Providing sources that none of the article contributors can actually read is somewhat dishonest and irresponsible on our part. Ford MF 17:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. its parent game: Little Fighter, was deleted before.SYSS Mouse 02:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. Dhartung said it best so far. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm with User:Krator. The game is only available in Chinese - so no websites or news sources for an English audience would ever review it. This means that only someone who understands Chinese can look for sources in Chinese web/news search engines - and it seems User:CaliforniaAliBaba could add the references he found to the article (maybe with one-line English summaries). If there's doubt about the accuracy of such references, always should be possible to find someone Chinese speaking to double-check. Also, e.g. [63] claims in English that the game won the Hong Kong Digital Entertainment Excellence Awards award as Best Computer / TV Entertainment Software in 2005 - would they really give this to a non notable game? --Allefant 13:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that would probably depend on whether or not it's a notable award. Also, the accuracy is not the only concern with the sources - the reliability of the sources, for an English-speaking audience, is also difficult, if not impossible, to gauge. I'm not really comfortable with providing references (not that it does!) to a Chinese site from an English article and expecting the reader to just trust us (or whoever added it) on what it says. I've come across enough references in articles that have little if anything to do with what they're supposed to be confirming, or have been misinterpreted by whoever added them, and these are in English! This would be an insurmountable problem if we were to use Chinese sources, IMO. Miremare 18:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yes, not sure how notable it is myself either - the event itself is mentioned in Entertainment Expo Hong Kong and seems to be rather big according to google, but I couldn't navigate to any mention of awarding this game on their official site - someone who understands Chinese would need to dig up info on the award and add it to the article, together with a proper (likely Chinese) reference. And I agree, it's bad if you can't yourself access a reference - but if someone can double check it, I think it is fine (really should be no problem on Wikipedia asking someone who understands Chinese). There's lots of other references in articles I regularly encounter and am not able to check easily (e.g. articles you need to pay for to view, or books I don't own) - so need to just trust they are ok, as not even automatic translators can be used in such cases. Should be no reason to delete in any case, especially if like here it's clearly no advertisement or original research or other such stuff. --Allefant 22:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- The game on which this is based, is chinese-based, but a search on download.com, reveals that Little Fighter 2, the parent of this game, is a top download. Somewhat popular with certain people in North America, this game is also a hit in Asian countries. Somewhat notable, but meets WP:NOT. Perfect Proposal ^{Speak out loud!} 21:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From what my googling turned up, Little Fighter 1 and 2 were two popular freeware games written by a student, and the games then spawned the commercial Little Fighter Online. Would of course be nice if someone could add all that info to the article (with sources). --Allefant 22:48, 21 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 01:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainers related to academics[edit]

"Related to academics" is a vague phrase. Also, the criteria for inclusion seems to be completely random. Some entertainers are included because they have relatives who are somehow related to "academics" ("Angelina Jolie, actress, is the niece of renowned volcanologist Barry Voight"). Others are included because they were in an academic field prior to or following their entertainment careers. musicpvm 04:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very vague and arbitrary. Are Isaac Asimov, Rob Buckman and Pamela Stephenson related to themselves? Graeme Garden and Graham Chapman also qualified and practised as doctors of medicine. And if Pamela Stephenson is listed, why isn't Billy Connolly (her husband)? Dbromage [Talk] 04:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a trivial intersection, and stands to encompass any person who is an entertainer and is related to academics (and how could they leave out Brian May?), although the two (the entertainment and academia) are not in any way connected, and their classification together does not serve any logical purpose. Calgary 04:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I should have thought of Brian May too! Especially now that he's going to complete his PhD in astrophysics. Maybe a list of entertainers with academic qualifications unrelated to their chosen profession would be notable? BTW, Pamela Stephenson is no longer an entertainer. She gave up that career to study psychology. Dbromage [Talk] 04:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia of questionable value and coherence. I defend many lists, but this is just a bad idea for one. --Dhartung | Talk 05:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless and entirely arbitrary cross-referencing. Ford MF 05:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A shining example of WP:LISTCRUFT. The topic is completely trivial, and the qualifications for being included are too incredibly broad and vague fuzzy510 05:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial, useless, pointless intersection based on ill-defined and undefinable criteria. Snalwibma 06:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pointless listcruft. Thin Arthur 08:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Sorry, I know the author meant well, but this is trivia at its worst. There is no significance to someone having a son, sister, aunt, father, etc. who was an "academic". When informed that Hugh Beaumont had a son who was a professor of psychology, most of us would politely say, "Hmmm. I didn't know that." but few could sincerely say, "That's interesting." To the author, you have the potential for writing interesting and informative articles for Wikipedia, so don't let our unanimous disdain deter you from future endeavors. I don't believe that this one was even much fun to write, let alone read. Mandsford 14:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the pain... where will it end. Utterly cruftatstic. The Rambling Man 09:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 14:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An arbitrary intersection of two classes does not make a meaningful list, quite apart from the oddness of including both those with an academic background themselves and those with academic relatives. This trivia can be mentioned in the individual articles, if deemed relevant there. Espresso Addict 16:04, 19 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^♫ 19:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result of a subsequent AfD was delete (see discussion). Rsduhamel (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Airways flight 358[edit]

Delete. Nominated for prod delete, but disputed. This article is completely unsourced, and describes an aviation incident wherein no lives were lost. Moreover, it is not listed in any of the more notable lists of aviation accidents and incidents, such as the Aviation Safety Network[64] or similar sites. Google searches show almost no hits to describe this incident, and in the course of editing, the article's claims (including flight numbers, number of injuries, and the seriousness of damage) have oscillated wildly. Based on this, it does not appear that this article is relevant enough to retain, or that sufficient resources could be found in order to make this article meet any standards for encyclopaedic, sourced content. Sacxpert 04:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ground incursions are unfortunately a daily occurrence in aviation. The lack of injury and quotidian circumstances argue against this being in any way a notable exception. --Dhartung | Talk 05:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that ground incursions between two large commercial jetliners are quite rare and certainly not daily. --Oakshade 22:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several hundred a year, says the NTSB, although the vast majority of these do not result in collisions or serious mishaps. Sacxpert 22:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking all general aviation (Cessnas and whatnot) or commercial jetliners? --Oakshade 22:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just relized the term "incursion" refers to when aircraft come within too close of one another while a "collision" is when aircrafts actually collide. There are not several hundred collisions a year according to the NTSB. --Oakshade 00:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I said. And, yes, I would tend to assume that several hundred annual ground incursions includes non-commercial aircraft, although I'm not sure. Sacxpert 09:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This commercial jetliner flight was involved in a collision which makes it notable, not a one of hundreds-per-year incursion. --Oakshade 16:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and my own comments on the article talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose 05:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ford MF 05:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was no more harrowing than the Southwest flight I endured last week. Qworty 10:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Did your Southwest flight happen to hit another plane? Wl219 11:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And did that Southwest flight catch fire and explode? Edward321 01:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough to have an entire episode of Mayday (TV series) produced about it (#12, season 4). Sourcing is a problem of Wikipedia:Cleanup not deletion - I am sure if you dig far back enough you'll find Thai-language sources that are no longer accessible by a cursory English Google search. Wl219 11:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A TV program doing an episode is not necessarily sufficient justification for a page. Disasters of the Century covers many incidents, most of which do not have discrete pages. For an incident of this type, non-notable and lacking in solid references ("cursory" searches aside, doesn't the fact that the Aviation Safety Network, a very thorough, well-referenced source makes no mention of this incident a good argument that it is non-notable?), it seems that the subject matter could be better left to the "accidents and incidents" section of the Thai Airways International and Don Mueang International Airport pages. Sacxpert 19:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Only if you believe ASN is (a) 100% complete and (b) infallible and (c) should be the dispositive benchmark of aviation incident notability on WP. Can you show that a, b, and c are all true? Also, a glance at the Disasters of the Century article shows that about half (~18/36) do have WP articles, so your comparison is flawed. Wl219 20:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: That is a straw man argument. I am not claiming infallibility for ASN; I do claim that it's a fairly complete source, and the lack of mention, not only there, but also at AirDisaster.com and Planecrashinfo.com, strongly suggests that there is little notability to this incident. Using your argument, can you prove that Mayday is both infallible and a perfect benchmark for notability? The wildly ranging claims on the Wikipedia article (between 0 and 400 injuries, between 0 and 2 planes destroyed) also point to the murkiness of this incident. Likewise, your assertion that you are "sure" of Thai-language sources is unproven. PS -- At the risk of being slightly pedantic, 21 of 37 incidents on the Disasters of the Century page have no discrete article. However, of those 21, eleven have discussions or sections within other articles, which seems, as I said previously, the most reasonable way to present the content of this incident. Sacxpert 21:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Then you are essentially making an argument about content disputes and merging rather than deletion. These are disputes to be handled in RfC on its talk page, not in AfD. Also, the Mayday episode satisfies notability regardless of whether I think it's infallible or not. The fact that ASN et al don't have it is the same as a WP:GHITS argument which should be avoided. Wl219 22:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: According to WP:NOTE, "significant" and "ongoing" coverage is a criterion for notability in determining the creation of articles. I think the premise that Mayday satisfies this standard alone is invalid. Again, since this content is duplicated, I'd refer to WP:NOTE#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content Sacxpert 22:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep That "no lives were lost" is a stronger argument for keeping than for deletion. We are used to a "bad news" media bias that seems to view that an aircraft accident is worth major coverage only if lots and lots of people get killed. Or if it's a near miss, let's face it, it has to be a USA near-miss, not something that happened in some third world place most CNN and Fox viewers can't find on a globe (if they know what a globe is). I mean, six hundred and twenty-four people (624) on two jet airplanes that have caught on fire and all 624 escape without a single fatality? Damn, that's pretty significant! So find some sources and beef it up. This is a keeper.Mandsford 15:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's because something almost happening isn't very interesting or newsworthy. Ford MF 17:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - How about 624 people being rescued (remember, a lot of them were injured) off of two planes that were destroyed by fire? If a successful rescue had "almost" happened, but failed, would it have been more interesting if 100 or so had burned to death? It's the culture we live in, as managed by the news media.... death is interesting (and even really cool if it's nobody you care about). Mandsford 18:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it can be sourced and verified. A collision and subsequent explosion involving commercial aircraft is sufficiently notable enough regardless of the death toll, or lack thereof. If there can be no consensus to delete an article about airplanes that almost crashed in San Francisco then I really can't imagine the community coming to a consensus to delete an article about an actual collision. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just a quick search and found an English language The Nation article describing how the incident has instigated further regulations [65]. Certainly notable in the aviation world. Deaths aren't the only aspect of a topic that can make it notable. --Oakshade 22:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This may be another fact/content point, but note that in the admittedly short article, the Deputy Transport Minister said "It caused minor damage but this incident should not have happened." Minor damage? Is that notable? Sacxpert 22:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. Minor damage that could've been worse and instigated safety regulations and government scrutiny. --Oakshade 22:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Every minor incident can lead to a review of regulations and gov't. scrutiny. I don't dispute that deaths are not the only criterion, but note that in the Windsor incident and British Airways Flight 9, or the Logan incident, are significant because they indicated significant problems with either aircraft design or operational procedures (Logan because it exposed continuing failure of ATC separation and the need for ground radar, and because it waqs so close to danger, BA 9 because it demonstrated the danger of aircraft operation near ash clouds. Parking in the wrong spot, contrary to procedures, might be notable if a disaster did happen, but absent that, it and a subsequent low-speed ground collision is not automatically notable, because all it demonstrates is that people make mistakes. By itself, that is not notable unless serious damage, injury, or industry-wide reforms occur. We don't document every incursion because they are not, individually, significant unless imminent danger was present. Sacxpert 22:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not every aviation topic must be the "Jakarta Incident". This was the primary subject of a secondary reliable source (in a country where English is not the primary language and likely much more sources are in foreign languages) and it does spark safety reforms. If you feel that there must be mass carnage or the effect must be "industry wide", then okay. Some editors disagree. --Oakshade 00:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        FWIW, incidents that affect/change regulations is one of the criteria in the draft notability guidelines that's been proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force. Comments and further debate over there is invited. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep usually, there are tons of articles when plane accidents occur, and I'd assume this is the case since this plane actually exploded. Corpx 03:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mansford, Oakshade. Edward321 01:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. John Smith's 18:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep runway incursions survive AfD, usually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runway incursion between US Airways flight 1170 and Aer Lingus flight 132 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 San Francisco International Airport runway incursion. While I apreciate both only actually got 'no consensus' results, this is more important than either. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete aircraft are always hitting each other on the ground, something not right with the article - the intro mentions an explosion but the official report does not - why would you want to change an aircraft that had exploded ! MilborneOne 19:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Exactly the problem! Nobody seems to know if none, one, or both of the aircraft involved exploded, and there don't seem to be sources from which to build a conclusion either way. The article mentioned above says nothing about anything except "minor damage," with no mention of any injuries. What a mess. Sacxpert 05:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ~~While the article doesn't meet the draft notability standards being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force~~, there is an "unusual" circumstance involved here that sets this incident apart, and that is the time of discovery...just before the aircraft was to take off. There's plenty of ramp rash incidents, but to have one happen to this magnitude and the crew of the offending aircraft not notice at the time (nor to have ground crews notice), bespeaks of systemic problems, and it is that factor which, IMHO, makes this one notable. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amended keep comment: after review of the one source, the article does meet the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force notability guidelines, in that it has contributed to a change in regulations. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's one more point of the story that seems unclear. Was it noticed at the time; if not, how soon after? Did the planes explode before or after someone noticed. It's so bloody contradictory. Sacxpert 16:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed...but that calls for a cleanup tag, not for deletion. This is one reason we have a task force...so that such articles can be brought to our attention and addressed. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:09, 22 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 notability was not asserted. But|seriously|folks 06:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Horse[edit]

Delete are all beers notable? I think not and this unsourced article is about a nn beer. In another form and under another title it was speedied as nn firm, but keeps coming back so let's figure it out here. Carlossuarez46 04:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ delete. It's just a catalogue/directory page. Non-notable without references Dick G 05:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and I think the point of AFD after speedy is to gain consensus so don't rush). It's basically G11 without any other encyclopedic content. --Dhartung | Talk 05:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, agreed 'speedy' was probably excessive in the context of a second nom Dick G 05:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as essentially empty and contextless entry unless someone can actually write an article here. Ford MF 05:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to assert notability, in fact this article is below a stub. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not assert any notability whatsoever to this beer. JIP | Talk 06:13, 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.. CitiCat^♫ 04:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fazed[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Contested speedy (never mind that articles about the band have been speedy-deleted more times than I can count). Band clearly fails WP:MUSIC with no label, no songs/albums released, or apparently even recorded. They may be notable someday, even someday soon, but for now they're not.

Addendum: Despite the box to the right, this is apparently the only AfD that is relevant to this band, despite numerous speedies. There's apparently a web site, which has nothing to do with the band, that was also speedied many times and then deleted via AfD. Realkyhick 03:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reviewing Wikipedia:Notability (music) they don't seem to meet any of the criteria. The article says "Fazed's achievements thus far are notable for having been made without the support of a record label or other representation", however it seems that not being signed to a record label does not satisfy the notability guideline. Indeed, they have recieved air time, arguably with a large audience, but still, I do not see this as grounds for a Wikipedia article. Calgary 04:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I would change my say to keep if sufficient third-party press coverage past the extensive air-time they've received was added to the article. TheLetterM 05:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep, if, of course, sources can be found. They seem to have received some decent exposure, so it doesn't seem as if it's insane to suppose such sources might be out there. Ford MF 05:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely lacks any sources besides the video of appearances on regional television. Heck, as this article stands, the band hasn't even released a single album. That's quite a ways away from notability. fuzzy510 05:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Fazed's achievements thus far are notable for having been made without the support of a record label or other representation - both of which they intend to seek in the near future." Oh well, at least those things aren't harder to get than a Wikipedia article. What a catch-22 for these guys--they can't get a record deal or representation without being notable, and they can't become notable without a record deal or representation. And now they're losing the strongest thing they had going for them--this article. Chin up, boys. You'll find that the recording industry's musical standards are a lot lower than Wikipedia's. Qworty 10:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, According to the bands official myspace, they will be releasing an EP in the Autumn/Fall of this year. I've added some references to 3rd party press coverage.Findlaybrown 18:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since the notability guidelines require two albums in the past rather than half an album in the future, they're still short at least one-and-a-half albums. Also, while the world isn't entirely convinced that The Guardian or the Times of London has the authority of myspace, can we wait for a print source on this one? Qworty 11:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's on the bands own myspace page so I think its reliable enough. Also, the guidelines state "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets ANY ONE of the following criteria:" - it does not state that it has to meet all of the criteria. The band meets a few so there is no reason why the article should be deleted.Findlaybrown 18:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A friend of mine, User:Helmsb, came up with a great shortcut: WP:YMINAR. I think it applies here. Realkyhick 16:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That doesn't apply here, the Fazed article hasn't got myspace as its ONLY reference, it also has the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation).Findlaybrown 18:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, self-referential Myspace pages don't really cut it for reliable sources; the BBC ref is a good one, but it's also one of the only ones I could see that are independent and verifiable, and not gig lists or other listings. Sounds like the band is moving towards where they may meet music guidelines, but they don't seem to be there yet. Delete - when they've got two albums on a substantial label and national touring under their belt, then an article would be appropriate. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Signed or not, there's no multiple non-trivial media coverage. The won a popularity contest and got to open a festival and that's about it. Precious Roy 15:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND. Nuttah68 12:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BAND says they are notable if they meet any one of the following, they don't have to meet all the criteria.

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

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

The result was unanimous snowballed delete. Acalamari 17:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War against Iran[edit]

Gaze into the crystal ball... This is a one sentence article that just serves to link to Opposition to war against Iran and Support for war against Iran. There is no reason to have this page. GhostPirate 03:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed. Nice idea maybe, but too vague to actually be an article. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and POV. "The country is divided on the issue" - which country? There are 192 member states of the United Nations. Dbromage [Talk] 03:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per deletion of Rush Hour 4 and The Grudge: Undone. No, I'm kidding. The real reason the article should be deleted is because the article contains virtually no information, as there is no actual war against Iran. The article is almost a disambiguation page, s it links to two articles which discuss the political concept of a war against Iran. Still, even as a disambiguation page, it's unnecessary. Calgary 03:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ford MF 05:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL our dear President doesn't have enought time to create a third war, I hope... - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too short and vague article. Information is already covered in the articles it links to. JIP | Talk 06:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal ball gazing and unnecessary disambiguation. Thin Arthur 08:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given the fact that the US lacks the military wherewithal to prosecute such a war, there's no reason to assume we can secure a successful Wikipedia article about it either. One of those is harder than the other, though I'm not sure which. Qworty 10:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:58, 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. Singu larity 01:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RCC College of Technology[edit]

Nominated for speedy deletion under G11, blatant advertising. I speedied it, but then had second thoughts and restored it. Nominated for prod (reason given was "Spam & Non-notable"), and I contested it for the same reason I wouldn't speedy it. I feel that as this is an educational institution, it needs some discussion to establish a consensus one way or the other about the keep-ness or delete-ness of the content. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising. There's nothing notable about this particular private college. GreenJoe 03:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as notable as any other school, and I don't think anyone's ever come to a consensus about whether schools are notable enough just by existing. The article does need a rewrite though, so make it sound like less of a press release. Ford MF 05:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable but could do with cleanup and secondary sources. Thin Arthur 08:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and prune. Verifiable that the school was established in 1928 and is now a division of Yorkville University.[66] Would also support merge with Yorkville University since that article is a stub. Wl219 11:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but de-spam it. Bucketsofg 20:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any institution that's accredited by the MCTU to grant bachelor's degrees is notable enough for Wikipedia. Give it a once-over for spam concerns, but keep. The problem with merging into Yorkville University is that RCC is in Ontario while Yorkville is otherwise in New Brunswick. Bearcat 23:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is MCTU? GreenJoe 23:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, the Ontario government ministry responsible for postsecondary institutions in the province. Bearcat 02:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat and Bucketsofg. nat^tang 03:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with requirement to clean up. Like many other colleges this one does appear to have some notability and can be sourced (I did a simple search and did find a few secondary ones) - it just needs to be made to be less of an advertisement. Camaron1 | Chris 10:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - tertiary education establishments, that award degrees, have always been taken to be inherently notable and this is no exception. It is the first and the only private educational institute in Ontario to be approved by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities to grant Bachelor degrees. I'll do some cleanup. TerriersFan 15:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OK, I have been through the article and removed the hype. It still needs sourcing but it is much better. TerriersFan 16:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TerriersFan - obviously notable as a real college, and per WP:HEY cleanup. Bearian 20:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an article which would benefit from a bit of cleaning up, not deletion. Yamaguchi先生 04:32, 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, with hopes that the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry can come up with a better name & more concrete criteria. — Caknuck 20:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of chemical compounds with unusual names[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}}.

AfDs for this article:

Talk:List of chemical compounds with unusual names/Votes for Deletion

Extreme case of Original Research with entirely subjective inclusion criterion. Deciding which names are "unusual" enough to be added to the list violates WP:NOR. Of course, this isn't a list of chemical compounds with unusual names, since most chemical compounds have unusual names; it's a List of chemical compounds with names that some people may find amusing, and as such it has no place on Wikipedia. This survived an AFD last year, but standards were lower then, and most of the "keeps" appeared to be based on WP:INTERESTING. Masaruemoto 03:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 03:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep provided it can be rewritten to meet Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. I dispute the claim of extreme OR as it does not violate WP:OR or WP:V. It does not introduce a new theory or method of solution, original ideas, define new terms, new definitions of pre-existing terms, etc and all the information is verifiable (all the molecules and their names can be confirmed to exist). The criterion of "unusual" is not OR/subjective if verifiable, reliable sources say the names are unusual. The Bristol University page is referenced.[67] Exactly which part of WP:OR do you claim it violates? It can be made encyclopedic by improving the etymology. Dbromage [Talk] 03:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So the article is largely based on a page called Molecules with Silly or Unusual Names where the author introduces it with; "People from all over the world have sent me so many contributions". I'm even more convinced this should be deleted now. Just because some people have emailed Paul May (who?) and said "I think this one sounds a bit silly, add it to your page" doesn't mean that this is suitable for an encyclopedia. This is no better than those stupid email lists that go around. Masaruemoto 04:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll ask again. Exactly which part of WP:OR do you claim it violates? It obviously passes WP:V and if the journal articles cited below consider it to be a reliable source, then it passes WP:RS too. Inline citations and etymologies can certainly be improved. Addendum: the above rationale "most chemical compounds have unusual names"is itself subjective. Most chemical/rock names are not unusual to chemists or geologists. Dbromage [Talk] 04:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - - It violates WP:V because something being "unusual" is in no way verifiable. You can verify that so and so thinks something sounds unusual, but "unusual" is one of those POV adjectives you generally cannot assert on Wikipedia. Ford MF 05:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Also, you can't claim that that's a reliable source (source for what, anyway?) merely because other sites remark it is amusing and link to it. Peer reviewed journals cannot prove to anyone here that this article is scientifically sound, because it's not based on anything scientific and is not a scientific article. Ford MF 05:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Would you also say that W. V. Metanomski, "Unusual Names Assigned to chemical substances", Chem. Int., 1987, 9, 211-215. is not a reliable source? Dbromage [Talk] 06:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - First, it fails WP:V if you are claiming those journal articles you cited prove Paul May's little page is a reliable source; most of them are mirrors of a clinchem.org page which states "If there is a resource that you think would be useful to other readers of this journal, please let us know". So Paul May's page only appears on one of their link pages because a readers has submitted it. That same links section explains it includes links "that may amuse", which is why this was added, to amuse. This is original research because it is based on the personal opinions of Paul May (?) and the "people from all over the world" who have sent him suggestions.
Delete that link is maintained by "Paul May" and I dont think it counts as a reliable source. I think the list is full of loosely associated trivial items Corpx 04:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. On what grounds do you say the School of Chemistry at the University of Bristol is not a reliable source? Dbromage [Talk] 04:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not published by the school of chemistry. It is just hosted on the school of chemistry domain by a professor. Anything with *.edu is not automatically notable Corpx 04:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul May's web site is considered by very many chemists to be a very valuable chemical education site. Yes, it does aim to get students interest by amusing them as well as teaching them. His "molecule of the month" competition is linked from hundreds of sites, to the extent that Paul May's web site is notable or close to being notable in its own right. I'm quite sure the Bristol Chemistry department is delighted that he spends time maintaining this site. He has written material from the site in journals such as "Education in Chemistry". "Just hosted ... by a professor" does not get close to describing the importance of this web site. --Bduke 04:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's great and all, but explaining why Paul May is notable doesn't actually have anything to do with whether or not this article is encyclopedic. Guy can write all the yay-chemistry bromides he wants on his site. In that context, yeah, this article is totally cool. However, we are talking about what belongs on Wikipedia. Ford MF 05:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely correcting what seems a glib dismissal of Peter May's site as a source. My opinion on this debate was given earlier and is below. --Bduke 05:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to me you were implying that the notability of May in some way supports the persistence of this material on Wikipedia, and was an extension of your 'keep' vote. Ford MF 05:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Comment. That's not the question I asked. The page is cited in articles published in refereed journals[68] so they apparently think it's a reliable source. Dbromage [Talk] 04:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - While it is given trivial mentions in google scholar, I do not think it is being "reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals." Corpx 05:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if cited Assuming that sufficient citations are added, I don't see the problem. It may seem at face to be a list of names which some people may find amusing, but indeed it is not. There is a striking similarity to List of unusual personal names (this article may be better), in that while the title classifies the names as "unusual", the criteria used within the article is far stricter. Indeed, the names are not "unusual" in that they "sound funny" (which applies to a lot more chemical compounds), but they are unusual because they strongly resemble something else, something that chemical compounds do not usually do. Calgary 04:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV. "Unusual name" is an opinion. --musicpvm 04:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "Unusual" is defined in Wiktionary as "differing in some way from the norm" and Calgary summed the perspective up very well. Chemical names do not usually resemble something else and therefore the names in the article are, by definition, unusual. Maybe the article needs to be renamed rather than deleted? The rationale that "most chemical compounds have unusual names" is itself a POV/opinion. Most chemical names are systematic. See also the Metanomski paper "Unusual Names Assigned to chemical substances" (op cit). Dbromage [Talk] 04:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to rename it to make it more specific we'd have to change it to something along the lines of List of chemical compounds whose names resemble something else, which to me seems overly pedantic. I think the title is good enough, as the names are unusual. If you want to get more specific, the article smply needs to explain why the names are unusual at the top of the page in addition to after each individual name. Which is a change I may make right now. Calgary 04:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, it's already there, just in prose rather than "this is a list of...". Calgary 04:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are other reliable and independent sources listing these ase chemical molecules with silly names, for instance [69] "Storyville: Molecular scientists have a word for it." The Independent on Sunday, Feb 1, 2004 by David Randall. He also finds amusing "Curious chloride" and"Moronic acid" from the Bristol University list. I liked the reference in the article which sought to answer the question "Is an Arsole aromatic?" In many cases, the names were selected to be amusing or whimsical. Most compounds do not have names selected to be whimsical or amusing. A ref specifically saying that "arsole" has an unfortunate silly name is [70] "Chemical Cock-ups: A Story of How Not to Name a Chemical Compound Created" BBC, 13th April 2006. Then they in turn cite the Bristol site. The Royal Society of Chemistry makes fun of the silly name of Moronic acid at [71] in their Autumn 2005 newsletter. Edison 04:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ weak keep possible merge. On the face of it this article looked like it was another facile list composed for the original author's amusement. However, it actually appears to have some merit (imho) and identifies a clear tendency for humour in the official naming conventions of chemical compounds. References could be expanded - I am sure I saw something once on the BBC about this kind of thing - and robust policing of the article could result in it being just what sets Wikipedia apart from other encyclopaedias.Dick G 05:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have revisited the article as this AfD seems to have taken hold. It would appear that most of the compounds have their own articles (I won't comment on their individual notability) and it might make more sense to put any reference to the unusual evolution of the compound's name into its own article. Lists such as this do tend to antagonise editors and are in the grey area of various WP guidelines. I still feel some of the content is worthwhile and interesting - not to mention externally referenced - but it could find better homes.Dick G 06:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG delete as subjective, inherently POV, and profoundly unencyclopedic. Lists of things with silly names? I can't believe we're even arguing about this. I don't care if other places have asserted that these chemical compounds indeed do have "funny" names, such articles are little more than scientific fluff pieces. This is humor, not information, and has no place in an encyclopedia. Ford MF 05:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article title is unusual names. Given that most chemical names are systematic and do not usually resemble something else, the names in the article are, by definition[72], unusual and this list is therefore not subjective. The List of unusual personal names is a good analogy. Dbromage [Talk] 05:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Ford MF 05:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not using WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, i.e. that the other article merely exists, as an argument. I'm using the same rationale for the word "unusual", i.e. "differing in some way from the norm". Any chemical compound name which does not follow the normal, systematic naming convention is by definition unusual. This is not a subjective criterion. Would you be happier with List of chemical compounds that do not follow IUPAC naming conventions? See also the Metanomski paper (op cit). Dbromage [Talk] 07:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dbromage [Talk] 06:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Namechange and rewrite? Okay. Honestly, yes, if List of chemical compounds that do not follow IUPAC naming conventions is what that list is (and if so, the article needs some textual rewrite to make this clear), I would be fine with that. As it stands, the list appears to make no attempt to assert any reason for its existence on Wikipedia, and seems rather heavily dependent on non-IUPAC names that are kind of interesting and funny. It's trying to be cute, not comprehensive, and as such is not an appropriate article. If it were to change to BE a List of chemical compounds that do not follow IUPAC naming conventions that strives towards completeness instead of whimsy, I think it'd be a fine article. Ford MF 17:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, that's a clear example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You're stating that, since a similar article exists, this one deserves to be kept. Perhaps List of unusual personal names deserves an AfD nom, too. --Birdman1 ^{talk/contribs} 15:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually it's not and however many times you say it doesn't make it true. I am stating that List of unusual personal names has a clearly definition of "unusual" for inclusion. I am also stating that the Metanomski paper also has clear, objective criteria in deciding what chemical names are "unusual" which can be applied to this article. That's called a precedent, not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you wish to nominate List of unusual personal names for deletion, that's up to you. Let the community decide on the merits of your nomination. Dbromage [Talk] 00:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually the one thing the list DOES NOT HAVE is an unambiguous criterion for inclusion, and you can keep on saying it does, yet it doesn't make THAT true. Is it compounds that aren't formed by IUPAC standards? Nope. Is it compounds that sound like something else? Er, no not that either. It's a jumble of things that some people have found amusing, and there is NO logic to the list other than that. If the list has, as you say, CLEAR and OBJECTIVE criteria for inclusion, please, like I'm a moron, explain to me what they are. Ford MF 03:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and POV. "Unusual" seems to mean "sounds dirty to high school boys". JIP | Talk 06:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Unusual means "differing in some way from the norm" and chemical naming conventions are usually systematic. Nobody has yet pointed out exactly which part of WP:OR the article violates. The article editors do not introduce a new theory or method of solution, original ideas, define new terms, etc. It does not violate WP:NOT#DIR(1) either as it is not a loosely associated topic. Chemical names do not usually resemble something else. Dbromage [Talk] 06:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Apparently it sounds dirty to scientists as well. Who knew? Calgary 06:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response. "Unusual" seems to be a specific issue relating chemical nomenclature, e.g. W. V. Metanomski, "Unusual Names Assigned to chemical substances", Chem. Int., 1987, 9, 211-215. Wikibooks also notes that there are "unusual names" in Organic Chemistry Nomenclature. Dbromage [Talk] 07:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider name change I also have a book called "The name game" on the same topic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. K Loening in the Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences (1989) and the American Chemical Society Committee on Nomenclature have both cited a paper called Unusual Names Assigned to chemical substances by W. V. Metanomski (Chem. Int. 1987, 9, 21 1-215). So there's two reliable sources that are not the Bristol web site (in fact both predate the WWW). Since the topic has been the subject of at least two scholarly works, this makes it notable and verifiable. The remaining concerns can be dealt with editorially. Maybe the "List of" part of the article name could be removed and just call it Chemical compounds with unusual names, discussing naming conventions and what makes them unusual. Does that sound encyclopedic? Dbromage [Talk] 06:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. I am a chemist and a long time reader of Wikipedia but never been a contributor. This may be a new account but I can assure you I am not an SPA. Dbromage is right in saying that "unusual name" has a specific non-subjective meaning in chemical nomenclature. It does not necessarily mean something that it sounds funny or dirty. There are occasional cases where an official name is intentionally funny. A notable example is that the C60H60 molecule was originally called Soccerane because it resembles a soccer ball, before being named Buckminsterfullerene. Cadaverine is another. Some unusual molecular names were covered in the Jan 17 2000 issue of New Scientist magazine. The article does need to be cleaned up and needs more citations but that is not a reason to delete it. JustAnotherChemist 07:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC) — JustAnotherChemist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. This is not OR because the selection was made by some of the sources that are referenced, not by the Wikipedia editors. Humorous or not, there are books and articles published about it by serious publishers and journals. Renaming it could help, but definitely not to something like "List of chemical compounds that do not follow IUPAC naming conventions". Some of these "funny" names, such as arsole, do follow systematic naming conventions. --Itub 08:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add that somebody has decided the article was worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia:Unusual articles which "are valuable contributions to the encyclopedia, but are somewhat odd, whimsical, or something you wouldn't expect to find in Encyclopdia Britannica". I agree this is not original research. JustAnotherChemist 08:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Itub. This is not common listcruft. Thin Arthur 08:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If all of these selections were united by some strictly defined quality, then this list would be legitimate. (Some of them don't violate standard naming procedures, such as titanic acid.) Whether something is "unusual", in the sense of "amusing", cannot be verified. In response to Itub: This is a case in which journal publication does not guarantee inclusion. The articles to which you refer were not verifiable themselves - they themselves were collections of names that their authors found humorous. If someone can come up with a definition of "unusual" against which names can be tested, fine. Until then, this list does not belong on Wikipedia. --Birdman1 ^{talk/contribs} 15:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That journal publication has been cited by the American Chemical Society Committee on Nomenclature. Are you saying they are also wrong? Dbromage [Talk] 23:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You keep saying these journal articles make the Wiki list "verifiable" and "not wrong". What you're not hearing from the dissenting editors here is that that is irrelevant, since opinions--and that's what we're dealing with here--cannot be "wrong". If you change the title of the list to what it really is, List of chemical compounds, the names of which some chemists have found amusing, you can see how absurd it's existence is. Ford MF 04:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not patently OR, but it is the very definition of trivial subject matter. No amount of cleanup would change the fact that it is a collection of bits of information disconnected from a larger, independent encyclopedic subject. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and send the nominator to the wikidungeon where he or she should have to copy out (by hand) WP:NOR until he or she actually understands what it means. This is standard, source-based concatenation. Personally, I would like to rename it to List of unexpected terminology in chemistry or something to that effect, just so that we can include the HUHAHA method and spin tickling. Such list deletions deny Wikipedia a useful opportunity to keep track onarticles outside of the category structure, and obvious deny our users of a tool which might interest them. Some editors who comment do not seem to wish to write an encyclopedia which anyone would actually want to read. Physchim62 (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've sent dozens of articles to their deletion because they were original research, AFDs which were supported by numerous editors and admins familiar with WP:NOR and deletion policy in general. Some of the chemists !voting "keep" may know more about chemicals than I do, but I know more about policy than they do. And that's what matters in AFD. Masaruemoto 22:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mindlessly adhering to policy is not the be all and end all of your (and our) purpose in life. Your comment reads very much like "I'm not an expert on the subject but I'm an expert on deletion so I'll nominate it for deletion because I can". See WP:FCNP. Thin Arthur 11:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wholly subjective. While we could certainly cite (perhaps even reliably) a List of ugly people, that doesn't mean we should have one. --Eyrian 17:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. As has already been explained, this is not subjective. Unusualness is an objective critereon as discussed in the two scholarly works cited. Dbromage [Talk] 23:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep my first instinct was to delete, but after seeing the sources listed I don't see how the nominator can say that it is an "extreme case of Original Research". As far as the concern that there are "subjective inclusion criterion" I don't see how that is a problem so long as the editor to the article only talk about chemical compounds that where cited as unusually named by a reputable source. Jon513 17:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have changed my opinion after I read what Ford MF said about actually looking up the references (that the sources he could find only say that the chemical exist not that it is unusually named). 11:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Definite keep: for a number of reasons:

the second nomination is a violation of the deletion policy which states that time should pass for a second nomination if the first nomination fails. See [73]. The closing admin for that nomination was very weak in that he was unable to offer any guidelines with respect to the future of the page. The result was simply: keep. therefore a new nomination is uncalled for.
the article is three years old with countless editors contributing in good faith to the article including at least 20 people with a degree in chemistry even at PhD level.
the article plays an important role in the area of chemical nomenclature. This is a junior level topic in chemistry and also a very difficult topic to master. See IUPAC nomenclature. While systematic naming of molecules is important and concise, it will come as a relief to readers of wikipedia that chemists have an alternative way of naming chemicals for everyday use. The list also gives an impression what chemists inspire in the naming game: if the molecule looks like a window call it fenestrane or like a barrel call it barrelene. This is not obvious to a lay person. In astronomy stars are given boring numbers and in biology species get somebodies latinized name. It is instructive to read that in chemistry the alternative rules are very lacks and often based on visual clues. In summary: the list is indispensable when it comes to explaining chemical nomenclature.
The Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines are very important in this discussion. The chemists frequenting the chemistry pages have a special duty trying to explain aspects of chemistry to the laymen. They are permitted to do so without the usual rigorous citation policies because in many cases concepts obvious to the initiated but not to the uninitiated are not easily sourced in the literature. Instead emphasis is put on controversiality: if something is considered controversial then additional citations are in order. In summary: WP:NOR does not apply
I see from the discussion above there are several additional citations that back up this article.Including them in the article will only strengthen it.
Regarding User:Masaruemoto who initiated the deletion proces. His claim that deletion standards were lower when the article was first nominated is unsubstantiated. While endorsing deletion of this list I see from his edit history that he actively contributes to such lists as list of cheerleaders and List of films about computers. Are these lists more important? (they are currently not nominated for deletion). personally I feel these lists are worthless but I feel no urge to nominate them simply because I do not want spoil other people's fun. More importantly I think I would not stand a chance having these lists deleted because whereas only students of chemistry care about chemistry pages like the one we are discussing most men would be interested in cheerleaders. And that is an issue not addressed in the current deletion policies: when it comes to specialised pages the voting power of a few specialists should outweigh the voting power a nominal majority
Warning: I used to take the quality of admin for granted but given the recent upheaval around List_of_people_known_as_father_or_mother_of_something See [74] I am no longer sure. The attention tag on top of this page possibly means that admins decide something irrespective of the prior discussion and then start arguing with other admins. Who is supervising admins these days? V8rik 17:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) That's not a policy. I'm not even sure it's a guideline. At any rate, it doesn't really matter, since subsequent AfD's give other editors who're not watching the AfDs ALL THE TIME, like me, to weigh in.

2) The variety of editors and length of existence are not really good indicators of an article's suitability for inclusion. The force and variety of debate on this page is proof of that.

3) While I don't doubt what you're saying is true, this article isn't that. Since, as several editors have pointed out, quite a few of the compounds listed DO adhere to convention. So it's not really "about" naming alternatives. And even if it was, it should be called that.

4 & 5) Again, citations are used to assert the truth of something. You cannot assert the truth of an opinion. Therefore, the citations here are meaningless.

6) If the article is indeed 3 years old, then yeah, deletion standards have changed since then. Also, frivolous as you think it might be, list of cheerleaders has a fairly unambiguous criterion for inclusion. Something that absolutely cannot be said for this list. This list's "importance" is not at issue here. Its subjectivity, and therefore unencyclopedic nature, are.

7) What, if anything, does this have to do with the argument at hand? Ford MF 04:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; That's got to be the funniest (unintentionlly), and most off-topic rant I've read on AFD in a while. Admin-conspiracies, and I'm only nominating articles to "spoil other people's fun"? Bizarre. We need more characters like you around here, if only for the amusement of the AFD regulars...

Comment. That's bordering on a personal attack. Dbromage [Talk] 23:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STOP THIS AFD! It's true, I added a category to List of cheerleaders. Oh, the foolishness of my actions, all my future AFD nominations should be held in contempt for such wrongdoing. Every time people see my name in an AFD, they will shout "That's the editor who added a category to List of cheerleaders, what a fool!", and "How dare Masaruemoto edit a people-related list and then AFD a science-related list in the same day! Let's !vote keep." What an arsole. Masaruemoto 22:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly just a collection of amusing names for schoolkids to chortle at over breakfast. Completely useless here. Delete doktorb _words^deeds 18:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WOW that's POV. schoolkids "chortling" indeed. Bulldog123 18:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to both. Did you note that the inherent unusualness of these names have been the subject of two scholarly works? This is not a list for schoolkids, not OR and selection has been done by people with qualifications in chemistry (predating the Bristol web site). Dbromage [Talk] 23:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So what if schoolkids do chortle over this? Considering all the dumb stuff in Wikipedia... geez, how many Scooby Doo articles are there that never get nominated?... I'd much rather that a schoolkid take an interest in chemistry. Better to have one article about chemical compounds with unusual names than 100 articles about the episode of "Charmed" someone watched this afternoon. I'm afraid that there's a faux sense of being intellectual that pervades AfD, with lots of articles nominated about things technical (chemistry, mathematics, mechanical engineering) and few nominated about things that can be found on a variety of websites, like episode guides. Mandsford 18:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as potentially useful for students of organic chemistry and nanotechnology. This should be a chemical education article. Regarding WP:V for usual/unusual, IUPAC must think that there are criteria since Unusual names assigned to chemical substances appeared in their journal. I would like to see more intentionally funny names (e.g. Barrelene, Bastardane) rather than the unintentionally funny ones (e.g. titanic acid) since it takes some synthetic talent to make a molecule look like something intersting. --Kkmurray 18:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That link doesn't seem to go anywhere. Not for me, at least. Ford MF 03:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because we can cite someone's opinion doesn't mean we should have an article on it. As another editor pointed out, we could find reliable sources to create a List of ugly people, but that doesn't mean it should exist. I'm seeing the usual intellectual snobbery that often appears in afd discussions, ie that we should keep articles about "serious" subjects, even when they are unencyclopedic, because we've got articles on "unimportant" articles like Pokemon. Articles should be judged on POLICY, not on how many academics will be interested in the article. Crazysuit 19:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In that case, would you care to name exactly which policy the article violates? The chemical substances named are known to exist and their inherent unusualness is backed up by at least one book, at least one peer-reviewed journal article and the American Chemical Society Committee on Nomenclature. It is not OR and passed WP:V and WP:RS. Remaining issued can be dealt with edtiorally. This is not a reason to delete. Dbromage [Talk] 23:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because these sorts of unique and interesting articles are what helps make Wikipedia special and different from paper encyclopedias. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry, but "it's interesting" or "it's unique" are not arguments for keeping grounded in policy or guideline. These are practically "I like it" arguments, and were debunked long ago. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In that case you may wish to nominate Wikipedia:Unusual articles and every article contained therein for deletion. Dbromage [Talk] 00:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As you have repeatedly failed to understand Dbromage, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - As you and others have repeatedly failed to understand, I am not using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument at all. The very fact that this article is included in Wikipedia:Unusual articles suggests that the Wikipedia community considers it to be a valuable contribution and meets at least one of the two criteria for inclusion (one of which is "something you would not expect to find in a standard encyclopedia"). Dbromage [Talk] 01:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I've already voted for deletion):

If we don't consider "Einsteinium" unusual, then why should we consider "Dickite", named after Dr. W. Thomas Dick, unusual? This article is not about naming conventions; it is about "whimsy", irony, and penis jokes. It even explicitly states that these names are legitimate: "Some compounds whose names derive legitimately from their chemical makeup or from the geographic region where they may be found include:..." (emphasis mine). Quoting from WP:LISTS: "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or who should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might 'seem obvious' what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit" (emphasis in original). Are "peculiar", "startling", and "whimsical" explicit criteria? No. Nor has "unusual" been defined - with some degree of specificity in this context or a similar one - by a reputable source.

I'm surprised that no one has brought up notability yet. Seeing as this article is not about naming conventions, as argued above, an article about "whimsical" chemical names is not a notable topic. Nor would it be notable if it were explicitly about certain chemists' senses of humor. --Birdman1 ^{talk/contribs} 20:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. This can be dealt with edtiorially. The information is verifiable and reliable sources are cited, and it is not original research. I suggested making it not a list and making it an article about naming conventions, and the compounds listed as examples of those with "unusual names" as described in the Metanomski paper. Dbromage [Talk] 00:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I can't seem to find the Metanomski paper. Could you provide us with Metanomski's definition of "unusual"? Furthermore, please address the specific points I have brought up, especially (but not exclusively, e.g. Dickite) my claim that the article has nothing to do with naming conventions in the first place. (If you make it an article about naming conventions, then it will be an article about a completely different subject.) --Birdman1 ^{talk/contribs} 03:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. These are unusual according to .. who exactly? Just because someone thinks the name sounds funny doesn't mean it is. Unless some strong sourcing can be found that says "here are some unusually named chemical compounds" then this is naught but OR. I am not fooled by the existence of the "sources" given, these are to source the existence of the names and do nothing to establish their "unusual-ness". ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Did you actually look at the paper "Unusual Names Assigned to chemical substances" (op cit) which was published in a peer-reviered chemistry journal? Dbromage [Talk] 23:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Dbromage. --Bduke 00:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are other "list of X with unusual names" -Yyy 10:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a valid argument. BUT there is a valid precedent: "Are some lists where what is to be included difficult to define valid? - Yes". I am not a chemist so I don't understand the minutae of the subject, but it looks like "unusual" is difficult to define. So what? That still makes the list valid. Thin Arthur 11:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can't actually state what should and should not be included in the list, and yet it's valid? What does validity even mean at that point? Ford MF 04:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, that precedent doesn't apply here. That archive note is about lists of things popularly conceived to exist but are difficult to lay hard definitions on. "Ethnic groups" are not subjective. Ethnic groups exist objectively, but have debated or controversial definitions. The "unusualness" of a chemical compound's name cannot be said to objectively exist. Ford MF 04:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. —Dbromage [Talk] 00:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unusual chemistry names are either names the chemists find unusual, or names that other people do, and there are plenty of sources for both of them. This visual nature of chemistry makes it inevitable that allusive and whimsical names will be used, and this is so striking a phenomenon that academic books have been written upon that very subject, and cited above. Those are enough to demonstrate that first, the subject is encyclopedic and notable and second, that the individual entries can be based upon valid secondary sources. This is the way the subject works, and those who do not understand this cn at least find out from the references--that is what they are for. DGG (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the references? Ah, okay, not to get totally tedious with this, but:

References 1-5 are not things I can look up from here. 6, for Arsole is an abstract that does not mention anything about the name, unusual or no. The joke here seems to be that "arsoles" are debateably "aromatic". 7 more stuff I can't check from here. 8 costs money to look at. 9, 10, More citations you can't check outside a university library. 11, for Cinnamaldehyde, which is the first complete, easily accessible reference, doesn't actually mention anything about the compound's name being unusual. It mentions that "Cinnamaldehyde" isn't the IUPAC name, which the article also lists. But that's about it.

12-15, more unreachable references. 16, for "Fartox" or "Earthcide" lists approximately fifty other apparently non-IUPAC names for the compound, some of which seem equally unusual (e.g. Fungiclor, Turfcide) but are not included in our article. Yet no unusualness of any of the names is remarked upon. 17, 18, 19, more inaccessible stuff. 20, shows a bunch of Hirsutane molecules, which I guess look like goats when they're upside down? It doesn't actually say that anywhere, but thanks. 21 appears to be the same reference as 20, but it's a broken link so it doesn't matter anyway. 22 only asserts that the Hantzsch-Widman nomenclature for a monocyclic, heterocyclic compound with three ring atoms is, in fact, "Irene". 23, 24, inaccessible. 25 is a textless About.com article that proves only that such a thing as Penguinone exists. There's a picture, and maybe it looks like a penguin, but who knows? The reference certainly doesn't say anything about it one way or the other.

26, inaccessible. 27 is an abstract and says nothing about "Rudolphomycin" being named for La Boheme (I am, of course, in all these cases, not disputing that this may be true, just asserting that these are shitty references). And finally we have two more references, 28 and 29 I'd have to take a day off work to go to the library to check out.

I am not arguing with the hypothetical idea that a good, encyclopedic article could be written on the subject of non-IUPAC chem names maybe. But this article ain't it. If an article doesn't clearly state what it is, or a list what exactly should be on it, then it is a bad article. And these references seem to assert only that these compounds exist (which no one is arguing about), nothing more. Ford MF 09:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that why WikiProject Chemistry exists, so people who do have access to these references can verify the information? Why not let some actual chemists peer review the article? That's how science in general works, too. Thin Arthur 10:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment agree there. 90% of the references presented in Wiki chemistry are not open access. I for one hope that more scientific literature will become freely accessible but this is not the case at present V8rik 19:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's not Wikipedia's problem or the problem of an individual reader who doesn't have access to those references. If a reference is inaccessible to you does that make it a bad reference? Of course not. You can rely on somebody who does have that reference and/or is an expert in the field. It's no different to a reference being in a language you don't speak. You can rely on somebody who does speak that language to confirm the reference backs up the claim.

Going by either vote count (even though this isn't a vote) and the strength of the arguments on both sides, I cannot see any clear consensus and I doubt there will be any. A lot of the concerns seem to be edtorial rather than policy. I'd be happy with a finding of no concensus and then let WikiProject Chemistry peer review the article.Thin Arthur 07:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a list of names that sound funny. How do you source that? DCEdwards1966 17:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is not a list of funny names: it is a list of unusual names by association outside systematic naming. V8rik 19:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except this is not a List of unsystemically named compounds. If someone wants to make that article, sure, go ahead. It'll be a million miles long and unmaintainable, incidentally, but at least it will have clear criterion for inclusion. Ford MF 20:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comment: How are "Diabolic acid", "Fluoboric Acid" or "Unununium" outside systematic naming conventions? "Cummingtonite", "Dickite" and "Thebacon" also follow standard naming conventions. Cummingtonite is named for the location if its discovery. Dickite is named for its discoverer. And, Thebacon is named for the compound it is derived from. The only reason they are on the list is because, as I said, they sound funny. DCEdwards1966 20:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. It already appears to be sourced. Thin Arthur 07:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inherently unsourcable & point of view, just by the article conception & title. "Unusual" itself is a fluffy little peacock term, & using it as the basis of an article is a bad idea. --mordicai. 19:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wouldn't be opposed to a List of chemical compounds that do not follow IUPAC naming conventions as proposed above. --mordicai. 19:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. How can you claim that it is inherently unsourcable, POV and "unusual" is a peacock term when one of the references is an article called "Unusual Names Assigned to chemical substances" published in the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry's own journal? That's like saying a list of unusual company names is unsourcable and POV even if there was an article in Forbes about that very subject. Thin Arthur 07:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate list with no criteria for inclusion. The source page seems to be a personal website that happens to be hosted on a university domain. 13:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep, several people here have shown that the area of "unusual names" in chemistry has been a topic for newspaper articles, the IUPAC and in scientific articles. Therefore the topic is notable and deserves an article. All entries should indeed be referenced, but not being able to read the references because you do not have access to a particular website or journal is not a valid criterium. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic, trivial. --Peta 02:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This compilation is definitely not original and is sourced to multiple satisfactory sources. Perhaps should move to Chemical compounds with unusual names or similar, and convert the list format to prose, with tables as necessary, because lists should exist for navigation purposes and navigation is not the purpose here. --SmokeyJoe 06:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced and interesting. Gandalf61 14:44, 22 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 01:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True metal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article, which used to cover an entirely different topic altogether, is rife with original research and unverified/unsourced claims. It seems to act as nothing more than a chance for various editors to list bands or subgenres that are "true metal" or not. The term itself, as the article states, is a subjective one coined by the metal band Manowar. So are we to consult Manowar to see what genres or bands should be listed here? And if not, then whose opinion carries enough weight to merit inclusion in this article? What's then to stop the creation of articles like True jazz or True rap? As I see it there are a few viable options here: delete altogether, redirect to Manowar, or simply restore the article to the state it was in circa August 17, 2005 and watchlist it. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 03:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Funny how it changed from an article about metals (elements) to an article about metal (music). Back on topic, because the term is subjective, to list an example, which is assumed to be absolute, would be to give an opinionated statement, which would violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. As for the term itself, it is generally accepted that one should avoid neologisms, especially when the term is not widely used (at least, I see nothing to suggest widespread usage), or alone does not carry a good deal of significance or importance. Calgary 04:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the article stands now, it's completely uncyclopedic and absolutely saturated with opinion. Even if you got the guys from Manowar to dish on this, I could still see this article as a battleground for disgruntled editors to revert-war- "No, this is True Metal!" "No, you've got it wrong, THIS is True Metal!" I don't see any kind of objective, source-backed consensus coming from this, ever. Blam it. TheLetterM 05:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV and because of WP:OR and also for generally being awful. Ford MF 05:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Completely unsourced POV article which, as TheLetterM mentioned, is just asking for an edit war if it's kept. fuzzy510 06:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced POV. JIP | Talk 06:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JIP. Thin Arthur 08:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article might as well be caled "Random MetalHead Diary". Unsourced and is one huge POV. 74.124.33.181 03:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They forgot to mention that boron, silicon, germanium, arsenic, antimony, and a couple others aren't really metal either. Oh, wait, that's covered in Metalloid. The periodic table of elements isn't based on personal opinions or original research, but this article is. Delete. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neologism that never got past that stage. Ante lan ^talk 04:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arghhhh! Delete! Per all of the above. Original research that is completely unsourced, POV material, relatively unknown neologism, poorly written and poorly structured... Seraphim ^Whipp 10:08, 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 delete a1 empty, a7 nonexistent, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Same user just got finished repeatedly reposting the similar Rush Hour 4. NawlinWiki 03:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Grudge: Undone[edit]

WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL - Unconfirmed sequal. Plus creator seems upset by the removal of Rush Hour 4 and this seems to be a page created out of protest. Eggy49er 03:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as bilge. I quote "As of now, it remains a possibility" enough said. Bigdaddy1981 03:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:16, 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. Singu larity 01:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Best[edit]

Delete. He's a racehorse trainer, that's all. No assertion of notability, nor evidence of it. Only source is his own website. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable at all. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 02:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Oyster guitarist 04:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Ford MF 05:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usually the authors of sub-marginal articles such as this one dredge up a bunch of "awards" in order to establish the subject's notability. But apparently this is one horse trainer who hasn't even won any of those little yellow trophies with the little horsy on top. Qworty 10:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BrownHairedGirl said it well in the nomination: the subject is not notable, and there is only one source; his website. Acalamari 18:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No apparent notability greater than the average horse trainer. --Dhartung | Talk 03:11, 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 deletion request by author. PeaceNT 15:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I eat pandas[edit]

Non-notable musical improv group. Only one third-party reference. Google returns only blogs, links back to their website or MySpace (remember, WP:YMINAR) . Realkyhick 02:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Just not notable. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 02:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. Also fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V Rackabello 02:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with •Malinaccier•, fails WP:MUSIC. jddphd (talk · contribs) 02:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, fails WP:MUSIC. Oyster guitarist 02:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Non notable music group. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody. Ford MF 06:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Thin Arthur 08:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In more careful reading of the guidelines, I'm embarrased that I even put this up. Please except my apologies.DCMara 15:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)DCMara[reply]
- Don't be too hard on yourself. We've seen articles that are much, much worse around here. You're fairly new, so now you know ho things work. Go and sin no more. :-) Realkyhick 16:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, worry not. When I was first starting out on Wikipedia, I wrote a bunch of articles that got deleted pretty quick. Just part of learning the ropes. Ford MF 17:19, 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. Singu larity 01:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunjammer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Previously discussed at AFD in Jan 2006 and improperly tagged for WP:PROD deletion Aug 2007; bringing here for proper treatment. Current concern is that the article fails to meet WP:MUSIC, while the first AFD was predicated on the article being a vanity page; satisfaction of notability was the basis for the 'keep' decision in Jan 2006. The article has not substantially expanded since the last AFD discussion User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Needs references for its accomplishes, if they can get refs for these, I will vote keep. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 02:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As an aside, couldn't find any mention of Sunjammer or Andreas Rønning on Nordik wikis either Dick G 02:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just don't see how this is notable and meets WP:MUSIC. Note that there's a cross reference here too that needs deleting if this nom succeeds. jddphd (talk · contribs) 02:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was once featured in national television in Puerto Rico, am I notable enought? - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without sources. Otherwise article is very guilty of WP:PEACOCK. Jdcooper 02:53, 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. The issue boils down to whether we can write a verifiable, neutral-point-of-view article on WetLeather. Both of these core content policies depend on the presence of reliable third-party sources, and, although a guideline, notability is meant to be a strong indicator of whether our core policies can be adhered to for a particular subject. The links provided generally fail at least one criterion for counting toward notability: they are either from unreliable sources (personal websites, blogs, or Usenet); or contain only a trivial, one- or two-sentence reference to WetLeather. Given this, I think that it hasn't been demonstrated that an article about WetLeather can conform to Wikipedia's core policies at this time. — TKD::Talk 07:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WetLeather[edit]

Non notable web/internet content. No secondary reliable sources cited or found in my search. Chunky Rice 18:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few references: http://www.motogrrl.com/WetLeather.html http://www.boincstats.com/stats/team_graph.php?pr=sah&id=30447 http://www.wildriders.org/photos/euro2.html http://www.harley.com/yp/categories/motorcycles/index.html http://www.motorcycle.com/events/beth-dixon-3904.html http://www.fos.ut.ac.ir/links/Wwwyp/trans.htm http://teamoregon.orst.edu/TO_Web/groupsandorgs.html http://www.soundrider.com/archive/tips/motorcycle_camping.htm

Cpaukstis 18:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The links provided above are marginal at best (some don't even mention the group), although they do establish that it exists. However, they don't even come close to meeting the "significant coverage" part of the WP:NOTE criteria apart from the first (and that looks like a blog in all but name). EyeSerene^TALK 19:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the updated article, which includes those links (all of which mention the name) and several more, including coverage in the book "Idiot's Guide to Motorcycles". Compare and contrast criteria used for inclusion of this small selection of articles from "motorcyclist organizations" category: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_Street_Motard_Riders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet_Law_Defense_League http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/59_Club Cpaukstis 05:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, pointing out that other stuff exists is not considered to be a very strong argument. Each case should be considered against the criteria on its own. Though, if you're asking my opinion, those three articles should also be deleted. -Chunky Rice 16:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem seems to me to be that the references given are mostly trivial mentions of the group. There is nothing that backs up the content of the article or demonstrates that WetLeather has had "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:NOTE. The main source of information seems to be the group's own web site... which brings us on to another matter. Large chunks of text in the article are taken directly from the website, which is a serious copyright violation and completely unacceptable on Wikipedia (in fact, this is a speedy deletion criteria). EyeSerene^TALK 17:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comments and guidance. I don't propose to argue further about "notability". Others may comment and make a judgment of that issue. However, I must address the remark about "serious copyright violation". This cannot be the case, since I am the author of the text in question, on both WetLeather's website and the Wikipedia article I wrote. While that may call into question the objectivity of the article, it completely settles the question of copyright violation. There is no conflict. Cpaukstis 17:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to sound strange, but even though you are the author of the website, that does not give Wikipedia the right to use your material... despite it being you who added it. By submitting that material to Wikipedia you are agreeing to release it under the GFDL, which WP cannot do when the material is reproduced from another source that is not under a similar 'free' license (I hope I have explained that properly!). If you wish to allow your work to be reused on Wikipedia, you must release it under the GFDL (or into the Public Domain or something similar). Take a look at the Donating copyrighted materials page for a more in-depth explanation. However, this would perhaps be best solved with a thorough rewrite (you must admit the article tone is not particularly encyclopedic...). You are also correct that there is a conflict of interest issue with you creating the article, but again this is a behavioural guideline, not a deletion issue. EyeSerene^TALK 18:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point. WetLeather is not notable for the web site, thought it is one of the more comprehensive motorcycling sites available, nor even for the mailing list. WetLeather is notable for being a unique virtual community. I have participated in many, but never one like this. Were I back in grad school, I would study why *this* community gells where few others do for any duration. To the casual observer, WetLeather looks like merely another online community, but somehow, perhaps due to the multiple annual events where we all gather together, it has become much more. For example, in my own life, the community of people I have gotten to know through WetLeather is responsible for my job, two of my motorcycles, my last and now my current boyfriend, and more than 90% of my friendships. Your immediate thought may be that this reflects on *me* more than on WetLeather, but I can think of many dozens of people in the community who would make a similar statement. When a member is injured or dies, the rest of us come together to help them, raise funds, and lend moral support. It is, in that manner, much more akin to a church group than a traditional online community.

WetLeather changes lives, whether it is in offering strategic support to a first time Iron-Butt rider on an old Silverwing, coming together to build a first bike --for free-- for a new member, or in the membership reaching out tendrils across the country to help a stranded rider get a broken bike home.

That said, I have mixed feeling about a Wikipedia entry. WetLeather does not appear more widely in part because there is a sense of privacy about the list. A concern that if too many join too quickly, the normal process of socialization that happens will get overwhelmed. For this reason, mentions of WetLeather have been carefully culled from many member's public records. For example, Jack Lewis (www.jaxworx.com) removed explicit mentions of WetLeather from two articles submitted and accepted by Motorcyclist magazine.

Codeamazon 17:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember how I discovered WetLeather. I don't care.

WetLeather is only peripherally an internet phenomenon. We are a tight-knit group of commonality, with many spectacularly generous and thoughtful members. We *use* the internet for communication and coordination, toward our purpose of people getting together for fun, food and frivolity.

"Notable" has too mild a definition for how WetLeather affects people: it has changed my life.

Alxndr13 17:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC) --[reply]

First, while I don't doubt your experiences, these testimonials don't really advance the case for notability at all. Second, whether it's a website/mailing list or an organization, notability is still something that needs to be assessed. Internet specific guidelines are here: WP:WEB, Organization specific guidelines are here: WP:CORP, and the general notability guideline is here: WP:N. If the subject of the article is notable as defined in these guidelines, then we should keep the article. If not, we should delete the article. This is not a comment on the quality of WetLeather or the service/community it provides, but merely the application of Wikipedia's guidelines. -Chunky Rice 17:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the guidelines and saw this: "Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." It is my opinion that the group that calls itself Wetleather has had a significant impact on the larger motorcycling community, those who are not part of the group itself, as well as on it's many participants. Many many riders (of all ages) have been offered lodging, meals, mechanical support, along with route suggestions, riding tips for new experiences, and so on. These aren't the people who would go out and shout "Let me sing the praises of wetleather!", these are people who are riding cross country for the first time, riding for the first time, moving somewhere new (all across the country, not just the Pacific Northwest), traveling to other countries whether it involves a motorcycle or not. These are the people who go back home and tell their parents, children, coworkers about how they knew someone who knew someone who somehow knew someone clear across their route and gave them all the support they needed while still understanding how to let them have their ride or adventure. Many times I'm not sure that these people ever realize that all of these people that supported them were part of the same group, wetleather. For the group participants, which include an age range from 20's to 70's, there is a much more obvious effect. The wetleather culture takes care of those who need help. There is the passing of the hat when needed for members/past members affected by large scale incidents such as hurricanes, earthquakes, floods and so on. There is a fund that can be donated to at any time, that is used for many many other needs, both small and large. There are specific funds that are created for specific events, such as scholarship funds for the children of members that have died, regardless of how they died. There are training classes, free and greatly reduced cost riding gear for those that need it, coaching for those that wish it, and more.

Many many many people across America have benefited by the actions of this one group with regard to education, society, and culture; perhaps only this small motorcycling community is aware of it so far.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 01:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be an advertisement. Not notable at all. Everything mentioned by the author for reasons why the company is notable, are not in the article. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 02:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with User:EyeSerene as to the basis of the nom. The worthiness of its aims and the apparent selflessness of the group notwithstanding, there are no reliable sources save for blogs or passing references back to the group's website. The bar is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject per WP:NOTE. Further, if the comments above are any indication, we have conflict of interest edit too. jddphd (talk · contribs) 02:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in lacking reliable sources giving significant coverage Corpx 04:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage. Maxa megalon 2000 05:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Kegill 21:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments Against Deletion

The entry has been significantly re-written since the comments above were made on 15 August.

From WP:NOT#IINFO:

Wikipedia articles should ... describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance...

Although the Wetleather website itself is not the organziation, it is a visual representation of the community.

Historical signifiance: this is one of the first e-mail mediated motorcycle communities on the Internet, circa 1992. Fifteen years later, the community still exists. This is an extremely RARE occurrance online. Moreover, this is a unique online community because it exists in both virtual and analog spaces. Combined, these two factors describe an organization with historical import in online culture.

There has not been a lot of research on specific online comunities, but Pew (2001] has this to say about them in general, reinforcing the fact that online communities are an important part of culture:

In some ways, online communities have become virtual third places for people because they are different places from home and work.

And a gentle reminder from WP:NOTE (emphasis added)
Notability guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception (with the later meaning throw out the rules).

From Guidelines Specific To Organizations

The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered.

WetLeather is not large in numbers, but as I have argued above, it is notable because both of its longetivity and its unique status as stradling the digital and "real" world. It is also not "local" -- it is international in membership.

The description of secondary works described here is biased towards print sources -- in fact, there is no mention in this section of online references. I think this is an oversight that is larger than this discussion and one that works against the inclusion of a virtual community. It also works against an organization that doesn't toot its own horn.

I understand that y'all don't think pointing out other Wikipedia entries is a valid argument for inclusion -- but I'm going to point to a few and tell you why I've included them, in the spirt of "common sense" and "exception" outlined in the notability guideline:

Biker_Dogs_Motorcycle_Club

It seems like a mention in a popular book on motorycling should be equivalent to a local TV show talking about a motorcycle club that has 80-some-odd dogs as members.

San_Francisco_Motorcycle_Club

This is a historic club because it's been around for more than a century, pretty much since motorcycles were on the road.
WetLeather is a historic organization because it's been around for 15 years, pretty much since the birth of the WWW.
However, the SF Club scope is MUCH smaller than WetLeather, which is international and has more members. Moreover, the SF Club has only one external reference. This suggests the reason for inclusion is stictly historical significance. Why isn't this argument sufficient for WetLeather?

Jewish_Motorcyclists_Alliance

Organization is two years old; material on the page - which is almost a year old - is copied & pasted from organization website. The only external references are local member clubs -- how do they argue that the umbrella organization exists any better than the external links for WetLeather? There is no indepednent "press." (WetLeather has the Idiots Guide to Motorcycling.) Why is this page OK but WetLeather's page is not?

--Kegill 22:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more argument against deletion

This WetLeather external source is from the State of Oregon's Motorcycle Safety Training website. This is a government website. How much more legitimate can you get? Note: the "edu" domain is for the training program; the training program is sanctioned by Oregon's DOT.

Unfortunately, Washington doesn't have a similar list, or WetLeather would be on it.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a1, no verifiable content beyond one joke that the director made, rest is just "this movie might be made." NawlinWiki 02:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rush Hour 4[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Proper third party references are required about upcoming releases. "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." I had PRODded the article, but a reply on the discussion page makes it obvious that the deletion is not uncontested, so I initiated this AfD. Moonriddengirl 01:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just like the nominator said: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 02:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must protest. There's no harm in keeping the article as a "possibility." There's no reason to take it down, whatsoever. Leave it up as a possibility, and it will only prove support for the possible sequel.. Malinaccier, what's your objection to leaving it as a possibility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zliljoemz (talk • contribs) 14 August 2007

Comment: •Malinaccier• is, as I am, referring to the section of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not called Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is official Wikipedia policy that upcoming releases must be verified with reputable third party sources and certain to take place to merit articles in the encyclopedia. --Moonriddengirl 02:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Malinaccier. I am sure neither I nor Malinaccier have any personal objection to keeping the article as a possibility, but Wikipedia policy dictates that this article must go. M1ss1ontomars2k4 02:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Oyster guitarist 02:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE DO NOT DELETE DO NOT DELETE Wikipedia has too many rules, what's the point? We're not talking about an article for WMD's, we're talking about RUSH HOUR 4 people. Take off your nerdy-outer coatings, and get real!! You all obviously have too much time on your hand to nit-pick articles like you do. Only reason I'm fighting for it, is because I, as many others, love RUSH HOUR. deal with it. this discussion is over If you're gonna' keep it, keep it, if you're gonna' delete it because of your up-tight rules, DO IT already. nobody's stopping you.

- Comment Wikipedia is operated on the basis of notable facts verified by reliable sources, not speculation as this article clearly is. When and if a formal announcement of RH4 is made, a cast is confirmed, and pre-production begins, then we can talk about creating an article for this. Rackabello 02:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No context, nonsense, and crystalballery. We seriously need {{db-crystal}} and {{db-hoax}} tags :-D . Rackabello 02:26, 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 both. Singu larity 01:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balcony band[edit]

This band isn't signed, isn't notable and the article was written by the band themselves. It looks like a poorly written ad for them. Eggy49er 01:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the article needs cleanup, following the references shows the band is signed (or used to be) and has put out two reviewed albums AllMusic Entry --NeilN 01:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I did a search and both labels that the band released albums on have zero ghits. In addition, the band themselves has zero ghits. There actually doesn't seem to be any sources that this band exists., except for the AMG link. Eggy49er 02:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In addition to Eggy49er's comments, I ran a Lexis-Nexis English-language media search of the band and "Steven Lester" (among other keywords mentioned in the article.) There appears to be no mention of the band in any third-party article, let alone reliable mainstream third-party sources. Based on this fact alone, the article should have been speedily deleted as blatant advertising. J Readings 02:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Blatant advertising. Questionable notability. No publicly verifiable third-party sources and citations for any of the assertions made, except the band itself. POV language. J Readings 02:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I would call it "American Band-spam," but they're from England. Realkyhick 02:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY delete. Total WP:COI creation. Agree 100% with J Readings. jddphd (talk · contribs) 02:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising. Oyster guitarist 02:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Complete advertising which sounds like it was copied-and-pasted from the band's website (if they, you know, had one). fuzzy510 06:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not even a claim of notability in the article. Precious Roy 16:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I'm a music journalist for The Villager and Downtown Express and have seen Balcony in concert and have heard the albums as well. It is vey good and if it weren't for major label neglect they would have a much higher profile. I have linked to my comments about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fladgyglitz (talk • contribs) — Fladgyglitz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment. It appears that Fladgyglitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted the above vote. The link provided appears to be to a individual blog entry that reads: If you'd like to hear a relatively unknown band that sounds like a cross between Bowie, Scott Walker with a little goth thrown in the mix then check out Balcony. My vote remains: Strong delete.J Readings 23:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:MUSIC. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 20:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant advertising and WP:COI violation. Note that Balconymusic (talk · contribs) has duplicated this article at Balcony the band. I've added that to the above AfD, I hope correctly. Hint, when duplicating an article, don't duplicate the AfD template, too. eaolson 20:51, 19 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. John254 00:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Tebb[edit]

Non notable medical fringe theorist, top hits are this article (poor sign for notability) and a crank website. His views may be notable; however, he isn't Bigdaddy1981 01:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's enough content here to suggest the makings of an article and possible satisfaction of WP:Note criteria. Just because something doesn't yield ghits, isn't to say there aren't valid sources around - the paper references may enlighten further (although I personally am not going to delve into them)Dick G 02:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment they appears to be pamphlets he wrote in the 1890s. Bigdaddy1981 03:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One is a large book actually, the Leprosy book, that exposes the way smallpox vax spread leprosy around the world. john

Delete/merge salvageable content - I agree with you RJBigg, but I think the real content in the article relates to the anti-vaccination movement. There are 2-3 sentences in this article that could probably be constructively merged with the larger article on Vaccine controversy. jddphd (talk · contribs) 03:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widely-published campaigner who clearly achieved significant recognition in his own time. More sources needed, but there should be no problem finding them in newspapers and other historical accounts of the era.
I am also concerned that the nomination sounds so POV; terms such as "fringe" and "crank" are not relevant to notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment anti-vaccination is a fringe medical theory; that's a statement of fact. The website is a site that has been blacklisted by wikipedia you may judge for yourself if it is crank or not. You will note that I do not seek a deletion based on the accuracy of this man's views; merely his notability. Bigdaddy1981 04:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: "Fringe medical theorist" is not fact, it's a POV statement. One person's superseded theory or minority view is another's "fringe crank", but in any case the anti-vaccination campaigners were not solely concerned with promoting a medical theory: they were also reacting to some of the casualties of the mass-vaccination programme. These folks were essentially political campaigners, who did eventually succeed in their political objective of securing a conscientious objection to compulsory vaccination ... and victories like that don't come without political notability. Even if people agree with your stance on vaccination, assessing these campaigners solely within a medical model is missing their political significance. (A bit like assessing Ronald Reagan: lousy actor, brilliantly successful politician).

You're right that the www.vaccination.org.uk site has been blacklisted because links to it have been spammed on wikipedia, but the misconduct of some link-spamming editors is not a comment on the value of a website. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mispoke I think. I meant fringe as marginal, not fringe as (necessarily) wrong. I think its safe to say that anti-vaccination is a marginal view on the matter. The website I meant (which was I believe second or third in the searches was something called "whale dot to" which is also blacklisted. Bigdaddy1981 16:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Ombudsman 18:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote, it will help others to know your rationale. Bigdaddy1981 19:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another attempt to silence a vaccine critic. Clue is use of term 'crank'. Tebb was THE most notable ley author/researcher to take apart smallpox vaccination, along with Creighton etc. Big daddy has form here with his deletion of Martin Walker, the most notable allopathic critic-writer in the UK today, as can be gleaned by his helping to defend Wakefield [75]. Pure POV. And you can see why they stopped links to whale by reading www.whale.to/a/smallpox_hoax.html john 20:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in the interest of transparancy, I note that "John" User:Whaleto, is a major contributor to this article. Its usually good form to reveal things like that. Bigdaddy1981 20:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"John" User:Whaleto is also, as you might guess, the webmaster of the banned whale dot to website. Bigdaddy1981 20:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I thought it was polite to inform the page creator to deletion attempts. Of course, this isn't the first time [76] Also Tebb was one of the main opponents to the compulsory vaccine law, as you can glean from the fact he was the editor of the journal of the National Anti-Vaccination League called the The Vaccination Inquirer, and if smallpox vax was so wonderful, how come they repealed the law? john

If you can add references to the effect that Tebb was a notable opponent of compulsory vaccination, I will withdraw my deletion. At the moment, there is little substance to the article. Bigdaddy1981 21:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How more notable can you be than to be the editor of the only anti-vaccine periodical? john

Keep but it needs more sourcing. The Bodily Matters book cited is partially online at Google Books [77], and internal search finds enough to establish Tebb's notability as head of a leading anti-vaccination group (p40), as well as the premature burial bit (p231). But it doesn't substantiate the bit about him being prosecuted. It's also a bit of a mono-topic biography: this book mentions Tebb, prior to the vaccination thing, was involved in the US slavery abolition movement and as a paid campaigner for vegetarianism.
Strong keep - I've expanded the article from the ODNB. He was an extremely wide-ranging social reformer. Gordonofcartoon 02:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per User:Gordonofcartoon's refs, I move to close this AfD as keep - Tebb does indeed appear noteworthy in a number of different Victorian movements. Bigdaddy1981 02:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From a cursory reading this fellow appears to have been a notable member of the late 1800s social reform movement. His opposition to vaccination is of historical interest, but certainly not the reason why he is particularly notable. JFW | T@lk 21:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - the vaccine stuff is marginal as far as he is concerned - he's clearly notable per the good work of Gordonofcartoon Bigdaddy1981 22:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. Like many reformers of that era, he seems to have been into every social cause in the book. I hope the rewrite and expansion puts the anti-vaccination into wider context; the old version gave it undue weight in presenting it as his only interest or activity of significance. Gordonofcartoon 22:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, notable for a wide variety of things. But anyway, he's in the ODNB and that has repeatedly been accepted here as sufficient criterion for notability. i think they're at least as careful and professional about this sort of evaluation as we are. If anyone here thinks our standards should be higher, I'd like to hear that argument. Though to be fair to the nom, that references wasnt there when he nominated it. Now that it is, I see he very reasonably and cooperatively wishes to withdraw the nom. DGG (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on additions by Gordonofcartoon. The subject may have been a crackpot on some of his views, but he was clearly a notable social reformer of his time. Edward321 01:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Skomorokh ^incite 15:44, 19 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. John254 00:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott A. Jones[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Originally considered at AFD in Dec 2006. The outcome was merge→ChaCha (search engine); however, only a couple of weeks thereafter and the immediately next edit after redirection, the action was reversed with the edit summary "It is nonsensical for a biographical page to redirect to a specific item or product." The article has been expanded since then, but complaints on Talk:Scott A. Jones led to marking the article for deletion via WP:PROD and tagging with Template:Bio-notability. The discussion on talk and actions thereafter are a de facto re-nomination for deletion, which should take place here. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and Talk:Scott A. Jones. Also possible candidate for block to prevent resurrection. Article's length and pseudo wiki-rich content are not a justification for allowing flagrant self-promotion Dick G 02:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with massive editing - The man holds patents and invented voicemail. He's notable. HOWEVER... I completely agree with Dick G that it's a sick-fest of self-promotion and should be edited to be a little less congratulatory and a little more encyclopedic. If this page is a 'KEEP', I would be willing to do the copy-editing. jddphd (talk · contribs) 03:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate waiting ;-) I just edited it. Now how's it look? jddphd (talk · contribs) 03:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and Comment useful copy edit and changes to tone but it's crying out for references/citations. As it stands - even with the neutralisation, it still reads like original research.Dick G 04:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete unless independent sources are found talking about him Corpx 04:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about now?

I have added a few links. The IEEE article in particular basically grounds all the biographical material. Don't know how to escape the circularity problem that he was the source of the details in the article, but between that and Forbes it feels like there might be some weight to it now. jddphd (talk · contribs) 04:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the newly added links Corpx 05:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on jddphd's dedication and work to make the article keep-worthy. spazure (contribs) 08:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes notability guidelines with new verification. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nice job sourcing; definitely seems to pass WP:BIO at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten, article definitely meets WP:BIO now. Yamaguchi先生 04:42, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Nicholas Windsor[edit]

Non-notable. No accomplishments. Mostly a rather subjective description of lineage. What little is of value can be added to her husband Lord Nicholas Windsor's article. Today's 24 hours 01:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to have done nothing apart from lay bogus claim to relation to the extinct Frankopan. Since anyone can do that, she's not notable. Bigdaddy1981 01:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete We do not decide whether to keep an article based on bloodlines, but on reliable and independent secondary sources covering the subject. Per [78] the Croatian Nobility Society denied these Frankopan-come-latelies membership on account of their just deciding one day to assume the noble name Frankopan (in place of their own lesser Noble Name Delupis). The Lady married into the British royal family (although hubby gave up any chance of assuming the Crown when he became a Catholic so he could marry the woman he loved). This achieved a bare smattering of coverage in independent and reliable sources, not quite satisfying WP:N and WP:BIO. Edison 15:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Rackabello 03:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the relevant information is already in husband's article (making it a bit of a WP:COATRACK, actually). --Dhartung | Talk 05:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Thin Arthur 08:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: no need to redirect. Any info. of value already manually transferred to husband's article. Check it out and update as needed. Thanks. Today's 24 hours 15:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 20:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Bearian 20:47, 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 since no district was provided. Wizardman 03:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freetown-Lakeville Middle School[edit]

Non-notable middle school. Article has no information that cannot be covered on the School District page Raime 01:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability whatsoever. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 02:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Mal. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 02:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Oyster guitarist 03:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability Corpx 04:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only requires some more information.
Merge and Redirect to an article about the school district, School articles usually fail WP:N on their own, but not with the district. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 15:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to appropriate district or geographic parent article. Subject fails WP:N VanTucky ^(talk) 16:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Either way works. Redirect something to a parent article or the local district or delete if all else fails.--PrestonH 19:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lakeville, Massachusetts. Information about the local education system is valid enough, and relevant when covering that location. The fact that this article is a stub indicates that a separate article is not needed at this point, and for a town of less than 10000 people we don't really need a school district article either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and re-direct to Lakeville, Massachusetts. School does not appear notable enough for its own article - a simple merge into a relevant local area article would be sensible. Camaron1 | Chris 10:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Lakeville, Massachusetts. It completely escapes me why people do not do this in the first place rather than recycling this same debate over and over, ad infinitum. Yamaguchi先生 04:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CorpX, no claim of notability included in article. --ForbiddenWord 16:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per the above. --Myles Long 22:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lakeville per precedent. Why come here? TerriersFan 00:34, 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. Wizardman 00:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George R. Austin Intermediate School[edit]

Non-Notable Intermediate School. Article contains no information that could not be covered in the School District article Raime 01:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability, article is well written. If author could get a record or something, would be worth keeping — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malinaccier (talk • contribs)

Delete not notable school. Oyster guitarist 02:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability Corpx 04:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Fails WP:N because the only source links back to the school district. However, the content could be mentioned in an article about the school district, as the school disctrict in general would pass WP:N. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 15:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if no merge is possible. Patently fails WP:N. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lakeville per precedent. TerriersFan 00:33, 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 delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 03:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Branch: The Real C.C[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Future NN student produced television show, fails WP:RS Rackabello 00:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to explain the rationale for deletion, even though it's so obvious as to be almost unnecessary. Okay, (1) There are no citations, (2) Much of the "overview" section is POV, and biased in favor of the production, by comparing it's positive traits against other programs' negative traits, (3) The production is in pre-production, and WP:FILM states that a film must actually be in production to have a wikipedia article, and (4) There is absolutely no assertion of notability. I hope that's a decent enough explanation. Calgary 01:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. There's no show yet and the article is being (mis)used for promotional purposes by the nonexistent show's creator. Or Speedy Delete due to the lack of any assertion of notability. -- But|seriously|folks 01:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Good grief, how did this not get speedied in the first place? Totally non-notable, unsourced, would even fly in a middle school class. Realkyhick 02:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Agree with Realkyhick. No WP:RS. jddphd (talk · contribs) 02:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Kids playing around with camcorder? Bad article idea. Kids planning on maybe playing around with camcorder someday? REALLY bad article idea. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:57, 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 SPEEDY DELETE due to author blanking. But|seriously|folks 01:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Branch: The Real C.C.[edit]

~~Future NN student produced television show, fails WP:RS Rackabello 00:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Right after I created the AfD discussion, the author blanked the page, so speedy delete under G7 Rackabello 00:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The author has also created at least two other pages with the same title. One has been tagged for speedy deletion; the other has actual content, but has been tagged for cleanup. Should this AfD be applied to the second of those two? Nikkimaria 00:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD applied to the content originally on this page. I'll change the AfD over to that one Rackabello 00:56, 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, tagged with {{db-afd}}, non admin closure. Giggy ^Talk 07:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farmboy Fine Arts[edit]

Article about a Canadian art and design company. No assertion of meeting WP:CORP. Only about 100 UNIGUE google hits. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a good company that has no particular notability to warrant its own article. It seems non notable. --Stormbay 21:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam spam spam spammity spam. --Calton | Talk 00:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice in adding more content to prove notability. Have added two more external links to reputable Canadian magazines which have done articles on the company's unique concept and recent growth.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.82.129.102 (talk • contribs).
Delete -- in such a large pond, there has to be a reason to single a fish out. This doesn't provide it. -- Simon Cursitor 07:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as the external links could be used to write a real stub. Too busy to do it myself. Bearian 20:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It it spammy? Yes, but that can be fixed. There do appear to be a few external links that go towards WP:CORP (from magazines not yet covered on Wikipedia [79] [80]). These links assert notability better than the PR-ish fluff in this article (i.e., "more than 75 international hotel projects currently on the go", "becoming a legendary Western Canadian success story")... — Scientizzle 15:46, 21 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.