Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 16

< August 15	August 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Achoti[edit]

Upon search on Google, I could not find any sources to back the article up. The article itself does not list any sources other than the organizational web site. Only other possible source will not open, possibly because the page doesn't exist anymore. Suggest deletion. Panoptical 22:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly non-notable. Perhaps an A7 speedy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, possibly speedy per WP:CSD#A7. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 01:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above and nom.Harlowraman 03:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, clearly fails WP:WEB. Per that guideline, it's either delete or merge, and I don't think there's anything here to merge. bfigura ^(talk) 05:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 16:43, 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The result was Keep : concerns about sourcing have been eliminated, nomination withdrawn. --Haemo 01:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSA Trust[edit]

This trust does not meet notability standards. Third party references are lacking. Relevant Google hits are few. Verification is spotty at best. Seems to be an obscure organization in a specialized branch of chemistry. Realkyhick 23:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uupate: Reliable sources have now been provided, and notability does appear to be established within the subject's field — a narrow field, admittedly, but still notable. Nomination is withdrawn, closure requested. Realkyhick 18:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My initial impulse, to see if this could be merged with a Chemical Structure Association article, led to finding that the parent merged with the trust a few years ago so they are one and the same. The group seems to be a UK-based, but internationally-active, analogue of an interest group within the American Chemical Society, so it isn't an equal of the ACS in significance nor is it a peer national group. I'm inclined to think that its grant-making and conference-organizing activities have some significance but it's difficult to determine how much without third-party sources. --Dhartung | Talk 01:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's the problem. This may indeed be a notable organization, albeit within a narrow niche, but there simply aren't any reliable sources cited for verification. Realkyhick 03:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 01:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Harlowraman 03:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The equivalent of the American Chemical Society is the Royal Society of Chemistry. This group is more specialized. Did the nom think to notify the Chemistry Workgroup? Why should the rest of us go guessing when there are people here who might actually know if its notable, & if so where sources might be?DGG (talk)
- How do we go about notifying them? Could you handle that? Realkyhick 22:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:RS. ¿SFGiДnts!

WP:RS says "Reliable sources are authors or publications ...". Author of this article is Prof. David Wild - a professor of chemical informatics writing about a chemical informatics organization. I would say that his fulfills WP's "reliable sources" definition. --Steinbeck 15:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, it is a specialist branch of chemistry. Why is that an argument to delete? It is an up and coming area of chemistry. The Sheffield Conferences are important conferences. Within that new area of chemistry, this is not obscure. This article gives valuable knowledge about an organisation that is playing an important role in this relatively new area of chemical knowledge. It needs more references. It needs improving. It would not however improve Wikipedia in any way to delete this. --Bduke 10:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's hard to argue that a chemical society featured in Chemistry International, that receives financial support from the likes of Pfizer, Unilever and Zeneca and organises two significant series of conferences is non-notable. The article as it currently stands contains references to completely reliable sources that show this (e.g. ref. 5). What could be gained by removal? Andreww 14:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems non-notable by our normal criteria. It gives a bit of money away and has some corporate sponsors, but then so does my village festival! Chemistry International is not a widely read (or quoted) publication. I don't wish to disparage the work of this organization, nor prevent an article being written if its activities expand (as its trustees surely hope they do) but neither would I want to keep an article simply because it is in a field in which I'm interested. A second time round, my vote may well be different but, for the moment, no. Physchim62 (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry International may not be widely read, but as the news magazine of IUPAC, its contents have real notability. I am surprised you do not think its activities are not already large enough. --Bduke 22:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm commenting in my role as chairman of the Chemistry-Information-Computers (CIC) division of the German Chemical Society (GDCh) (You asked for authorities, that why I mention this). The CSA Trust has played an important role in the last 20 years to shape the novel field of Chemoinformatics by organizing chemoinformatics conferences, helping students to travel and by providing training in the field. It it recognized as an important, small but fine organization by us (the German Chemical Society) as well as the RSC and ACS (see above). A number of the about 30 trustees are world-renowned scientists in pharmaceutical chemo- and bioinformatics. The work of the Trust has to help science, not to promote itself. That may be a reason for your problems of finding references. There are numerous accounts of CSA Trust's work through its name being part of joint symposia. What I don't understand is the following: Assume that the CSA Trust is less important than, say, Pyschim62's village festival, so what? If only two people in the world want to learn about either the village festival or the CSA Trust through looking at their Wikipedia article, the existence of these articles is justified. The Trust's work, however, has been witnessed and recognized by more than 20.000 people over the 20 years of it's existence. Let me know if I can help providing more evidence of importance. Would links from ACS and GDCH divisional pages to the CSA Trust pages help? Steinbeck 19:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links for ACS and other Socities would certainly help if they establish notability. --Bduke 22:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, only two people looking for an article about a subject does not justify the article's existence. If that were the case, we would have articles about pretty much every living person, every organization, every structure, and so on. Our standard response for "so-and-so's article exists, why shouldn't mine?" is expressed on this page: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Having said all of that, the trust may well meet our notability standards, but we have to have some citations from reliable souces so that we can verify this. It's much like what you would have to have in an established journal. These standards are designed to give Wikipedia as a whole a measure of credibility, which is a tough-enough task given its open nature. Realkyhick 21:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are more than 2 chemists in the world, so I dont know where you got that figure from. Chemical structure nomenclature is a basic part of chemistry, & I think there's enough material here to show that they're important in the field. DGG (talk) 04:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The CSA trust is also discussed in (a) Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling 1998, 16 (1): 48-54. (b) Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences 1994, 34 (1): 1-2. (c) Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 1989, 5 (2): 101-102. (d) Chemistry in Britain 1984, 20 (5): 404-404. These journals are published by Elsevier, the American Chemical Society, Elsevier, and the Royal Society of Chemistry, respectively. The last of these (now renamed ChemistryWorld) has a monthly circulation of over forty thousand, and so may be considered widely read. Jmg11 17:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If you could add these refs to the main article, especially those with a link available online, I think that might be enough in the way of reliable sources, and I'll likely withdraw this nomination. Thanks! Realkyhick 18:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I've added the four additional references in the appropriate location. Andreww 17:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good job! I have withdrawn the nomination, as there are now sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. Realkyhick 18:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From WP:N Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". This group has external references, and in my opinion this topic both asserts notability and is notable. Ante lan ^talk 17:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : This article is within the guidelines of WP:N and WP:ORG. JoJan 05:28, 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 No consensus after rewrite corrects some substantial problems. Xoloz 14:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Society for Bipolar Disorders[edit]

No matter how nice the organization's mission is, we still need independent references to assert it's notability on Wikipedia. Currently, this article does not satisfy WP:NOTE Chupper 23:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and also WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 01:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above.Harlowraman 03:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that they run international conferences and publish a major journal is sufficient, and both are easily verifiable. The article is however dreadful PR spam, and should be cut down to size. DGG (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the comments sir. Do you have any references from independent sources stating that this is a major journal? If so, it would be appreciated! Thanks, Chupper 22:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 8/17/07 Additional sources have been added, including a link to the IRS website where official 501(c)3 status can be proven. We hope to have quite a few sources, including information from medical organizations and journals, listed by next week. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isbd (talk • contribs) 16:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment While your contributions are appreciated, there may be a conflict of interest here. Wikipedia strongly discourages these types of edits. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Chupper 22:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per DGG. I am going to be bold and hack it up. Bearian 22:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, can somebody else take a crack at fixing this mess so it meets the Heymann standard? Bearian 22:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite Notable superspam. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 16:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It may not yet be a good article, but it appears to publish a serious academic journal, for Blackwell would not publish a trivial journal. The articel may indeed be a stub (as it is tagged), but should certainly be retained. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 15:33, 19 August 2007.
- Comment - We still need references stating that this is "not a trivial journal", or in other words, passes notability guidelines. Chupper 22:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That information is in the article itself. It is included in Web of Science (and Journal citation Reports) and all the medical indexes. In JCR is has a 2006 impact factor of 3.5, 26th out of 95 in all of psychiatry--and that's out of the 95 selected top[ journals in psychiatric included in JCR. (the article has 11th in a narrower category). I think that answers your question 05:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Response - Right, I've found some of the information in the article itself, but its not referenced. That's why I'm wondering - can you reference where you found this information and include it in the article? Right now the only reference this article has is a link to an IRS website stating its a charitable organization. That, alone, is not enough to show Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:Notability... Sorry to be annoying on this topic. It's just that you seem to know where this information is coming from, and if we could include these references in the article, most of these issues would be resolved. Thank you sir. Chupper 13:04, 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 (preceding non-admin comment added by Lourdes 17:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC))...where's the snow? Singu larity 07:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theistic evolution and the Roman Catholic Church[edit]

Yet another POV fork from the author that brought you Creation and the Roman Catholic Church. Like that article the material in this is already covered in Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church. ornis (t) 23:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems that contested edits in one article only spawn other articles. This one contributes nothing. Kablammo 23:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Per nom. This appears to be one in a line of POV forks. Not necessary, because information is presented elsewhere. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete If we allow these kinds of forks, Wikipedia will be unusable and unreadable and a mess.--Filll 23:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smite with the jawbone of an ass. Barring that, delete. Yet another POV fork from this author. Persistent fellow, isn't he? Realkyhick 23:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete POV fork of existing article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 01:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Harlowraman 03:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This POV-forking-spree is becoming the theater of the absurd. Jim62sch 09:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The author would do better to work on reaching consensus on the main article rather than throwing up pov forks in violation of WP:POINT. ... dave souza, talk 10:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't need a article to itself Ealdgyth | Talk 16:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Down with POV forks! ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 16:33, 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 delete. Singu larity 07:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Madaris[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable singer. His hit song "Hopelessly Lost and Found" can only be found on myspace and the other songs cited have no ghits. Searching for "Bob Madaris" finds only myspace and a family genealogy site. The only source of information about him seems to be family reminiscences. andy 23:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources, unable to verify. Realkyhick 23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 01:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:Music Harlowraman 03:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 16:33, 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 delete. Singu larity 07:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorite Artifacts[edit]

Gamecruft. Article concerns a plot device in a Tomb Raider game. It holds no relevance to science, society, culture, or gaming aside from the hyperlimited context of a gameguide. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 01:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Harlowraman 03:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of real world coverage Corpx 04:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About this article's proposed deletion - there is no reason to delete this article as it as just a history lesson on the fictional artifacts as is the article on the atlantean scion if there really is a problem with the article please reccomend any changes that can be made.The article has been edited ---Joxernolan

Above comment was reformatted to remove it from the table of contents for the day's AFD listings. Otto4711 21:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cruft. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 16:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Cruft? (ho ho I'm funny) FiggyBee 06:35, 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 Keep — article may be confused about what the scope of this topic is, but that's an editorial question which can be solved through editing. --Haemo 01:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public safety[edit]

No evidence that this term exists as a meaningful, encyclopedia-worthy subject. The article is pretty stubby and listy, but the topic is so vague that it is doubtful that improvements would make it any more helpful. Some government agencies use the word combination "Public Safety," but in those cases, an article on said agency would be more appropriate and that usage doesn't suggest that it means anything more than "safety of the public," i.e., the dictionary definitions of the words. Whatever useful info that could go into this article could fit better into numerous other existing articles. bobanny 22:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Legitimate field. Contributors have ample opportunity to expand the current coverage (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Preposterous. There are entire schools devoted to the public safety field. Obviously we might call this a modern hybrid but there is much more to this than police and fire. --Dhartung | Talk 01:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a legitimate field, and accurately describes my local police (Actually, public safety) department, the Kalamazoo Dept. of Public Safety. [1] Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 02:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vague topic. Squidfryerchef 03:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- History is a pretty vague topic as well, should we delete that article also? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - I'd change my position in a flash if someone produced a definition of public safety that is 1/2 as clearly delimited, precise, and attributable as the first sentence in the history article. bobanny 06:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look what we've got here. A dictionary definition, and a list. And the list contains "Search and Rescue" and "Food Safety" but somehow left off "Police". Squidfryerchef 03:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It needs work, I agree, but seeing as we are talking about a wiki article, the main criterion for keeping anything is potential. Sorry for the snarky reply, "vague topic" was a little too concise to seem like a proper reason. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to clarify, I'm not trying to deny that "public safety" exists, just that it's an umbrella term for anything relating to the safety of the public, such as Homeland security, intelligence, EMS, Disaster management, Emergency service, Police, Fire fighting, law enforcement, Food safety, etc., all of which have their own articles. Some combination of these things (but not all) is what's taught at public safety schools and are what state agencies named "public safety" are responsible for. Kalamazoo's Department of Public Safety is nothing more than police and fire services combined, according to their website. Unto itself, there's not much to say about it except that it's a grouping of some combination of these other things. bobanny 03:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That list complained of shows in fact the notability of the subject and the wording--just ook at the titles of all the various organisations. One of the negative comments offers the criticism that the list is insufficiently comprehensive, a minor matter for editing. DGG (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - No, the "complaint" is that the constituents of "public safety" do not clarify what public safety refers to. Is Kalamazoo's Dept of Public Safety misnamed because it only includes police and fire and not the others? On what basis is the C'tee of Public Safety of the French Revolution excluded from the scope of the article? Just because it's old? It's pretty arbitrary and attempts to define it in a "modern" sense contradicts Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. bobanny 19:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually I looked at those titles and, being from the U.S., was wondering what the U.S. Department of Public Safety was. When I clicked on the article it just explained what a state or municipal public safety department meant. I don't think this is a good basis for an article because it's ( I think ) a relatively recently defined umbrella term for different types of agencies with their own long and distinguished histories, such as police and firefighting. Also very difficult to define what is a public safety agency. Is it only first responders? Do we include things like the department of public health? What about security or private special police at railroads, hospitals, utilities? I think "Public Safety" is just fine for naming categories. i.e. "Public Safety Agencies in Virginia" but there's no basis for an article. Squidfryerchef 10:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG et al. Obviously notable and encycopledic. Needing a fix is not a reason to delete. Bearian 18:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article may need to be improved, but the topic is legitimate and notable. --musicpvm 04:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 16:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the number of items listed under "see also" would mean that a disambiguation page would be needed if this one were removed. Certainly the French Committee for public safety is notable. If the article includes NN junkm then delete that, not the article. Peterkingiron 15:39, 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. While it doesn't seem like outright deletion is called for, consensus seems to support trimming this down to something like Public safety, or even merging/redirecting there. If someone wants to go for it, this discussion should show there's not strong support for keeping the page as is. W.marsh 17:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public Security[edit]

No evidence that this term exists as a meaningful, encyclopedia-worthy subject. The article is pretty stubby and listy, but the topic is so vague that it is doubtful that improvements would make it any more helpful. Some government agencies use the word combination "Public Security," but in those cases, an article on said agency would be more appropriate and that usage doesn't suggest that it means anything more than "security of the public," i.e., the dictionary definitions of the words. The weblink (the only outside source) provided doesn't even use the term. Whatever useful info that could go into this article could fit better into numerous other existing articles. bobanny 22:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, over a billion ghits implies that this is a legitimate topic, just like public safety.Nen yedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 02:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vague topic. Squidfryerchef 02:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:SYNTH - Too vague a topic to cover all the items in the list Corpx 04:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not NOR/SYNTH because no new facts were deduced, but it's not a good basis for an article because it's ( I think ) a relatively recent umbrella term for some very different agencies with their own long and distinguished histories, such as police and firefighting. I think it would make a fine category, i.e. "Public security agencies in Australia" but not an article. Squidfryerchef 10:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nenyedi. Notable, encyclopedic. See my comments at Public safety. Bearian 18:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite Terrible, but notable. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 16:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - unlike public safety (above), I am far from convinced that this article has any significant content. Peterkingiron 15:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into National security and/or Homeland security, or perhaps even Civil defense?. Article is basically a list of governmental jurisdictions related to ~~safety~~ security, which is or should be covered adequately elsewhere. As it stands, it is misleading, vague, and hopelessly uninformative. Pure deletion is probably improper since one can imagine a person searching for information on public ~~safety~~ security, it is just that they need to be directed to a good article that is informative and useful. This one is not adequate, other similar ones may be. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 15:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Public Safety. The two terms deal with the same concept. Once the text (a personal essay) and the lists (selective and not helpful) are removed we should be left with an empty page. If, at a future date, anyone can come up with a sourced distinction between Public Safety and Public Security then the redirect can be undone. TerriersFan 00:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've never heard the term "public security" before. Possibly that term is a synonym for "public safety" in countries other than my own. Squidfryerchef 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The security article tries to distinguish that term from safety; if this gets redirected that might be the way to go. It also seems to serve as a sort of dab page as well with its 'see also' list. Some countries do use "Public Security" instead of Public Safety (China, Poland, Berundi, Quebec, etc.) There might be ambiguity in translations in some cases. bobanny 03:20, 23 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; improved. I agree I was a bit in a hurry with nomination `'Míkka 16:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Stanley[edit]

A music mixer engineer. Dubious notability. What next: wikipedia articles about groupies? `'Míkka 22:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:MUSIC Criteria for musicians and ensembles 6.: Was a member of Tom Tom Club,[2] and Criteria for composers and lyricists 1.: for a co-writing credit for the 1995 #1 hit "Fantasy" by Mariah Carey.[3] dissolve ^talk 00:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He is not musician, composer or lyricist. He is technician. With this level of participation we must have articles for each foreman who built Empire State Building. `'Míkka 01:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's one opinion, surely you have reliable sources to back it up? dissolve ^talk 01:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I base my opinion on the article. It is not my blooming business to do anything else during AfD. It is your job to fix the article using WP:RS if you want to keep it. It is a ridiculous demand to supply WP:RS that a person is a nobody. `'Míkka 01:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's true the article should do a better job of asserting notability. But a reasonable and responsible nominator won't just decide that every sloppy article deserves a trip to the chopping block. If that were the case, there would be no purpose for {{importance}} or {{unreferenced}} (for two examples). --Dhartung | Talk 02:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per dissolve. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 02:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a search of Google Books indicates Stanley was somewhat influential within reggae. --Dhartung | Talk 02:58, 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 07:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magistrati[edit]

Charles the Great, aka Charlemagne, as a king had many dealings with magistrates, but there is no web-available public record of him founding a special Magistrati group or of a secret judicial "Ordo Magistratorum". Ordo Magistratorum has no notable search hits except for the address of the article's single link, leading to a protected Yahoo group (empty of messages, as I was sufficiently curious to sign up). Frankly the article reads as a broken English translation of a private RPG or conspiracy theory. Regardless of its truth, the article fails the core verifiability test of a reliable source. Michael Devore 22:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless verifiable from reliable sources. `'Míkka 22:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS.Nen yedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 02:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also failed to find any sources for this, and the text reads a little madeup. If such an organisation did exist it was clearly not sufficiently notable to have wide currency in what was a comparatively well-documented period in history. In which case a mention of it could possibly be included in the Charlemagne article but it does not justify a standalone page. Euryalus 02:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:V. Ordo magistrorum actually delivers some Google Books results, but only as a phrase within various contexts. Smells like a strange spam trap. --Dhartung | Talk 03:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Harlowraman 03:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete about as confused an historical article as i have ever seen here. No point in going through all the errors. DGG (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete strongly suspect a hoax, no such order appears in my sources. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax? ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 16:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No substantive Ghits, most top ones being blogs. Unless its creator can provide verification and somethign to fill in 1000+ ye4ars between Charlemagne and Napoleon during the AFD period, it should be deleted. If retained it should be renamed "Ordo magistrorum". Peterkingiron 16:11, 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. — TKD::Talk 11:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air South Charter[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. All results I can find are trivial/directory listings. The destinations list could be hundreds of pages long as a charter they can fly anywhere, almost bordering on general aviation charter, most often being non-notable entities Russavia 22:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, and per WP:CORP. --Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 02:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 05:03, 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 07:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Www.kucinich.us[edit]

Was speedy deleted, has been recreated. An earlier version at Kucinich.us (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was also deleted, and has spent time as a redirect to Dennis Kucinich. Given that the US elections will soon be upon us, I am bringing this here to discuss the question: are official campaign sites inherently notable per WP:WEB. My reading is not really, but I could be wrong. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It seems odd that the campaign site would have it's own entry. See Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2008 or Hillary_Rodham_Clinton as an example. Her site only appears as a reference. --bfigura ^(talk) 22:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Change of opinion, see below bfigura ^(talk) 05:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect `'Míkka 22:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete and protect. I don't see anything in Wikipedia:Notability (web) that even causes me to look at this as a gray area. Unless the site itself "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" (and not in articles primarily about Kucinich or any other broader topic), it lacks notability and should be deleted. If there's ambiguity about it in WP:WEB, maybe you could bring the specific passage to the attention of those reading this discussion, Angusmclellan? Evil1987 22:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the candidate. The article's subject itself is not notable or encyclopedic. The website and its history have no inherent interest. --Moonriddengirl 23:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC) (changed opinion; see below)[reply]
Delete and oppose redirect this page was already speedily deleted and was then recreated with www added to the front.--Southern Texas 23:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page was already speedy deleted once before as kucinich.us; this meets ~~both General Criteria 4 and~~ Article Criteria 7 for speedy deletion. Furthermore, this article is nowhere close to meeting the notability standards for websites. I do not think that redirecting this page is appropriate: we certainly wouldn't want a bunch of redirects for the websites of the 18 major presidential candidates, it has little to no usefulness as a redirect (who searches for a candidate's website as an article topic) and it undermines our notability guidelines to permit the entry's inclusion. JasonCNJ 23:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: to the general question, "Are candidate websites inherently notable?" I submit the answer is no unless the site itself has been subject to external validation and news reports as containing notability itself. Failure of a site to do so means the site itself is an extension of the candidate's campaign - while the campaign might be notable, its component parts are not. JasonCNJ 23:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a widespread misconception that prior WP:CSD deletions qualify an entry for G4 recreation deletion. G4 is only for articles deleted via a consensus discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 03:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected and have caused the inapplicable grounds to be stricken. JasonCNJ 03:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing particularly notable about the website itself, it hasn't been covered independently of the campaign. JCO312 00:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good point from JasonCNJ. Changed my opinion. --Moonriddengirl 00:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect. If someone is typing in "www.kucinich.us" in that entry box on the left of the screen, they are either mistaking the Wikipedia search bar for the browser address bar or mistaking Wikipedia for google. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but at least this is more votes than he'll get as a candidate. Nick mallory 00:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ouch ˉˉ^anetode╦╩
Delete per WP:WEB. Candidate's websites surely do not meet the criteria for inclusion. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 02:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need for redirect for this as a search term. The website is only a partial aspect of the candidate's campaign. --Dhartung | Talk 03:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Prevent recreation as per nom and Nenyedi Harlowraman 03:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. This is an WP:EL masquerading as an article. As was mentioned above, Wikipedia is not Google. Resolute 05:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Jason and Anetode. Changed my opinion bfigura ^(talk) 05:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JasonCNJ and Anetode. --Metropolitan90 06:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. It lacks the nobility as stated on WP:WEB. It has also fall under speedy deletion previously.Cocoma 13:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep. This page should by no means be deleted. If this one survives, I might do other candidates sites." (This comment was left by Www.kucinich.us page creator Zelogan on the discussion page of this AfD, so I have reprinted it into the appropriate section.)
Redirect to Kucinich. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 05:03, 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. — TKD::Talk 11:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Chesler[edit]

The assertion of notability in this article is that she was a voice actor in 6 out of 52 episodes of W.I.T.C.H. (TV series). She doesn't have any other notable roles to her name. I would have speedied this article to be honest, but in fact it came up on DRV and the decision was to overturn deletion. So I will reluctantly vote strong delete instead.-- ugen64 09:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is a cast member on the show, but I don't believe that warrants an article itself, unless it can be expanded somehow. I doubt the "6 of 52". IMDb is notorious for its shoddy documeting of cast lists.--Sethacus 16:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete unless more info is known about her and/or important, delete. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be nn. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Non-notable person who has had a job. Resoundingly fails WP:BIO. Valrith 21:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I don't see any sufficiently notable roles either. Although there are other listings in IMDB other than WITCH, including one movie as an actual actress in a minor role, it's just on the fail side of borderline to me. — Becksguy 19:10, 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 speedy keep—fairly obvious reasons, including many independent reliable news sources. — Deckill er 22:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kobe Bryant sexual assault case[edit]

This article is about the Kobe Bryant's sexual assault case in 2003. David Pro 22:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, nom hasn't really given a reason for deletion. Was a notable case, has decent sources, too long to merge back into Kobe Bryant. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep, the nominator seems confused.-67.85.180.72 22:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and get the WP:SNOW shovel. Clearly passes any possible test of notability. Otto4711 22:46, 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 not deleted. Singu larity 07:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny And Mary[edit]

Non-notable song. Man It's So Loud In Here 22:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC. According to the article, it placed on the charts. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, notable charting single. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nationally charted song.[4] dissolve ^talk 00:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Internationally, actually - I'm almost certain it charted here in NZ, too. Produced by Gary Numan, IIRC. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, it has been charted quite high nationally.--JForget 02:13, 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. — TKD::Talk 11:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave's Farm[edit]

Strongest claim of notability is a YouTube link to a news channel's human interest story. YouTube stats are not in the ballpark of other YouTube celebrities'. Ichormosquito 22:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB, and also WP:SPAM. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of coverage from non-youtube sources Corpx 04:05, 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 07:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All My Children title sequences[edit]

Delete - as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Another World opening sequence, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Closing credits of Another World, Guiding Light opening sequence, and others. The notability of All My Children does not mean that every aspect of it is notable. Otto4711 22:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The show is notable, but the notability does not transfer to every single detail and aspect of the show. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research about a trivial element of the show. —tregoweth (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to establish the notability of the title sequence. The article is also heavily a non-free content gallery. Jay32183 02:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability for this sequence Corpx 04:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources specifically discussing the title sequence can be found. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:02, 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. Moreschi ^Talk 09:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of magical items in Jackie Chan Adventures[edit]

Non-encyclopedic topic, unnecessary list. Not notable, not sourced. Man It's So Loud In Here 22:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per many aspects of WP:NOT. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Magical merge back into Jackie Chan Adventures If it's that central to the theme of the show, it belongs there. Is the article too big as it is? Not a major problem. Mandsford 23:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability for magical items in Jackie Chan Corpx 04:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I like the show but this is unnecessary and not encyclopedic. Axem Titanium 01:27, 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 into Jenna Bush. --Haemo 02:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Hager[edit]

He is not in line of succession of royalty. The mentions in various sources are only trivial mentions due to his relationships with notable people (his father and Jenna Bush). He hasn't done anything of note. Dismas|^(talk) 22:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jenna Bush. I completely agree, the coverage by the media is only trivial. For now, it's better to do the merge. BlueAg09 (Talk) 22:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jenna Bush per BlueAg09 comments above.--Getaway 22:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, notability isn't transferable. --Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An AfD this early on is stupid -- Y not? 23:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple non-trivial published sources about this person. -- Y not? 23:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jenna Bush. There currently doesn't seem to be anything that couldn't be better handled in that article by a "Henry Hager, who is [blah blah]" clause. No objection to recreating in the future if more to say appears, though. --Delirium 01:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the others here. Merge into Jenna Bush. --googol 01:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Himself is not very notable at all.--JForget 02:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jenna Bush (Hager). No independent notability, despite his White House post, which was fairly minor. --Dhartung | Talk 03:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's not notable unless he actually marries the Bush daughter.. let's wait and see if that really happens before we call him "notable". Tom M. 04:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's been the primary subject of multiple, reliable, independent sources stretching back to 2005. Notability is overwhelmingly established. He's passed Wikipedia's notability guideline for over two years; this isn't a recent development even if some people are just hearing of him for the first time today. People might not like it, but the fact of the matter is that getting engaged to the daughter of the most powerful person in the world is something that the media has decided for us is highly notable. --JayHenry 05:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's sufficiently notable. Fjl 09:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like he may be making news in the future. Do we really want to merge and then unmerge later? michaelbraun 8:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)— Michaelbraun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Well i think its notable as its been in the news and he will become the son of Bush, but unless a lot can be written about him merge him with jenna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.233.180 (talk • contribs)
Keep I think as the media swarms around this topic a seperate page for Mr. hager will be justified. 70.21.84.235 — 70.21.84.235 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Has not accomplished any notable feats whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.11 (talk • contribs)
Merge to Jenna Bush. He's only notable because of his fiancee, and she's barely notable herself. Ariadne55 16:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only notable for his connection to Jenna Bush. DCEdwards1966 17:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge him into Jenna Bush. Getting engaged to the daughter of a notable person does not make one notable. Fails WP:BIO. Edison 17:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jenna Bush--SkyWalker 19:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nearly all of his information is presented in Jenna_Bush#Engagement. His article contains the same information, so it would just be a redundancy. I don't think he'll be making news in the near future; he's still an MBA student looking to complete his studies next spring (according to a Washington Post article) If he's going to run for or get elected to a political office or do something similarly noteworthy, it's quite unlikely that will happen until he's done with school. For now, there really isn't anything important about him besides his connection to Jenna Bush that would need a separate article. The media's spotlight is really titled more toward Jenna than to Hager. BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of people will want to know who he is and will want more information about him, the fact that most the information on his article can be found on Jenna's article is because no one has taken the time to do a proper bio about him. His fame will only increase from now on.--Joebengo 21:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we delete all articles of people in the spotlight because of who they date or marry? Such as Kate Middleton, and Chelsy Davy.--Joebengo 22:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per jayhenry Thesmothete 14:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Joebengo says "no one has taken the time to do a proper bio about him" ... that's because there is nothing notable about him to write about. He is a college kid engaged to a well known (not notable) girl. There are lots and lots of engaged college kids .. and they, like Hager, are not notable. Tom M. 15:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , for the reasons given by previous keepers.--Bedford 04:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Criteria for notability of people, and the only debatable criterion is the first one listed. Has Henry Hager been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of him? No, Mr. Hager hasn't really been the subject of either of the sources cited in the article, and they certainly don't go into great detail. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, are there multiple independent sources to establish notability? Our article cites two sources, but I'm not convinced that they provide nontrivial coverage to establish notability. Verifiable content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for merger with another article, so let it be merged into Jenna Bush. WODUP 01:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jenna Bush. It's all been said, so I'll simply say 'merge.' JamesLucas 02:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per comment above... Booksworm ^{Sprechen-sie Koala?} 09:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete Not notable on his own per WP:BIO and WP:NN. --Strothra 17:37, 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. — TKD::Talk 11:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Kauzlarich[edit]

This article contains an extreme amount of bias in its entirety. It appears this article has been written by a subordinate or an associate thereof who shows an extreme distaste for Kauzlarich. Although the links are properly noted, there is a minimal factual base to the remainder of this article. Due to the hostile and defamatory nature of the content, any editing to cause this article to meet the Neutral POV guideline for Wikipedia will essentially start this page from scratch. This article should be deleted. Ngajoe 21:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Attack page. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and make NPOV. He was involved as stated in the incident and did make tactless remarks on ESPN. I've removed the slurs and added a reference for Waxman. Clarityfiend 02:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to involvement in the Tillman incident. Needs better sources, but other than the slurs that Clarityfiend removed, I don't know where you're getting "minimal factual base". --Dhartung | Talk 03:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above. Bias is not a reason for deletion. Make it neutral, but he does have involvement in the Tillman case. I'm also wary of the motivations for nominating for deletion, as the nominator seems to have an SPA. [5]--Nobunaga24 05:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and alter the article if you need to in order to make it NPOV. People are looking for information when a military man in a position of power makes statements like these. Flying Jazz 14:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'd suggest expansion, more details about Kauzlarch's career, bio, etc. --Trippz 08:20, 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. — TKD::Talk 11:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vikki Blows[edit]

I searched on Google and I haven't been able to find anything that would suggest that this model is remotely notable. She has been tagged as having questionable notability since April 2007. Nothing seems to have changed. Max Talk (+) 21:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep found 3 sites including IMDB and added it. .she is a upcoming actress.But the article needs improvement. Harlowraman 21:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Her IMDb page claims her only role was as some background character in an minor mini series, When Evil Calls, which doesn't come close to meeting the notability criteria for entertainers. Other sites were random fan sites and her personal homepage. I stand by my original opinion.--Max Talk (+) 22:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until she is notable. Just having an IMDB page does not help at all.Man It's So Loud In Here 22:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per the guy above :-) --Boricuaeddie 22:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and also WP:N, and WP:RS --Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I have known IMDB pages that have been put up by the person themselves or their mate. It's not often allowed as a reputable source here.Merkinsmum 23:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - until she is notable. The article does not contain any information that would not be equally available if/when Ms Blows achieves greater fame. In the mean time, Wikipedia is neither a crystal ball nor a directory. Euryalus 02:36, 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. — TKD::Talk 06:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawndale High[edit]

This article is about the fictitious high school of a cartoon character. It's not notable; it's fan-cruft. It's unreferenced. It's trivia. Mikeblas 21:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unencyclopaedic. Jakew 21:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Jakew Harlowraman 21:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The show might be notable, but a separate article for a school in the show? Notability is not transferable.--Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. Please note that Wikipedia does have articles about other fictional schools from animated television series, such as South Park Elementary and Springfield Elementary School, and those articles have few citations or none at all. Ultimately these articles may be sourced and then kept, or deleted, but they should be subject to similar criteria. --Metropolitan90 06:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The presence of other articles which do (or don't) seem similar is irrelevant. It would be awesome if we could edit the whole encyclopedia at once, but until that's possible, we'll have to work by iteratively editing, deleting, or adding individual articles. -- Mikeblas 13:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The articles linked to here may have content which may help establish notability. Or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:52, 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, default to Keep. Walton^One 15:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Egged bus lines[edit]

This is a directory of bus services in Israel. It is not encyclopedic, The flatly contradicts WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#TRAVEL. Samfreed 21:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or severe cull of lists. Oli Filth 21:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is an encyclopedic and informative list, and as was stated several times on its talk page, isn't meant to be a travel guide for Egged, which is what the Egged official website is for. No good reason to delete; the article does not violate any of the policies claimed by the nominator. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- Jon513 22:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ynhockey or Merge to the main article.--JForget 02:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:IINFO, WP:NOT#TRAVEL and WP:NOT#DIR. This is not something that should be in an encyclopedia. i ^said 03:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG delete per WP:NOT#TRAVEL - WP is not a bus schedule/guide. No point in documenting every bus in the world for the route it runs Corpx 04:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep This is a perfectly valid fork of the parent Egged article. As usual, WP:NOT is being abused and utterly misinterpreted to mean WP:IDONTLIKEIT. A usual, those claiming that this article fails WP:NOT have not provided any indication of how this article fails their preferred section. The blatantly false claim that this is a "bus schedule" is belied by the fact that not a single time is listed here. Precedent shows that there are hundreds to thousands of similar articles for cities, states and countries throughout the world, and this one clearly satisfies the precedent. Alansohn 04:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No time is listed, but we do really want a list of ALL the buses that a company operates? All the buses that greyhound operates? All the buses run by state owned companies in countries like India? WP is not a directory of buses. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation operates almost 5000 buses, per the article and that's just the state provider in one state in India. Corpx 04:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Is the material non-encyclopedic or is it not broken up as finely as you'd prefer? New York City bus routes are listed in the exact same format by borough (See List of bus routes in Manhattan). In New Jersey and Long Island, they're grouped by ranges of route numbers. I would suggest that routes for Kerala could be grouped into a number of articles, by area within the state, route numbers, distance or other characteristics, and the groupings listed within this article could be broken into subarticles if that were more palatable. I don't buy the WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument, nor does the slippery slope of "what would we do for India" convince me otherwise. This is a well-structured, well-grouped and defined article that has nothing whatsoever to do with WP:NOT. Alansohn 04:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn, Your argument runs basically like this: Because WP:NOT Has been violated so often, then the Wikipedia is now Anything and Everything, and therefore why not. Well, I have it in mind to go around and nominate each and every "list of bus routes" in the WikiPeida for deletion, or, alternatively, they can change the policy from "not a travel guide" to "yes a travel guide", and then I will shut up. Also, List of bus routes in Manhattan just lists who are the bus companies, and tells a bit about them, not a blow-by-blow directory. Bottom line, this page is a violation of policy.

And to those who say they don't see how this violates policy - please refer me to a list of bus routes in any encyclopedia in the world, that isn't "The encyclopedia of Rome" or some suchlike. Samfreed 05:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the Wigglytuff article in any encyclopedia in the world; I'll wait. A very long time. I do NOT advocate that "WP:NOT Has been violated so often, then the Wikipedia is now Anything and Everything, and therefore why not." I advocate that you have misinterpreted WP:NOT and that WP:NOT has NOT been violated. You have NOT pointed to any policy that this article violates, other than a hazy claim that this is a directory or travel guide. Each part of this policy provides specific details of what is covered and this article satisfies none of them. Precedent is clear that articles of this type violate no Wikipedia policy. Alansohn 06:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you there. This falls under "WP is not a directory" - "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed.", as well as WP:NOT#TRAVEL. I strongly do not think that an encyclopedia should be providing routes for any means of mass transportation. I'm really not looking forward to seeing bus routes of every metro bus/train/taxi service in the United States, or any other country. Corpx 06:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#DIR lays out specific definitions of what "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." means: 1) Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). 2) Genealogical entries or phonebook entries. 3) Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. and 4) Sales catalogs. The problem is that it doesn't meet any of these four extremely specific definitions provided. WP:NOT#TRAVEL states that "Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées." and again this is not even close to what is presented here: I see no prices or addresses. I understand the WP:IDONTLIKEIT approach, but there is no Wikipedia policy violation here. Alansohn 06:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn, If you don't see how this violates policy then we probably aren't speaking the same language. Strange. Samfreed 06:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing Wikipedia policy, not claiming a language barrier, would be a far more productive means of showing how this article violates Wikipedia policy. See above and pick which part of WP:NOT#DIR or WP:NOT#TRAVEL applies here. Alansohn 06:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand. You believe that the examples are the definition of the policy, while I believe that the terms of the policy itself are categories. To me, a "List (of Egged) bus (lines)" is a directory or travel services, and hence doubly wrong. Is seems that under your interpretation if we defined "Citizenship" and gave examples from 5 different countries as to how this concept works, then when we meet a citizen of the 6th country he is not a citizen at all, because he does not fall under the examples in the definition. Maybe the source of the difference is that we come from different disciplines - Are you a lawyer? In law it sometimes works that way. This is Policy, not Law. Samfreed 06:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy provides definitions of the terms, using rather specific examples, none of which meet your interpretation. There's nothing here in this article that lists any information useful for travel purposes. The word "directory" that you refer to is defined as "a repository or database of information". There's no Wikipedia policy violation here, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Precedent is clear that similar articles for train, plane and even bus routes are appropriate subjects for articles, even if they don't appear in most paper encyclopedias. Any luck yet with finding Wigglytuff? Alansohn 06:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly entitled to your interpretation, but I disagree with it. If not for travel purposes, is it not "a resource for conducting business" ? An article does not have to provide detailed contact information to be considered a violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hotels in Hong Kong. Where exactly is this precedent set at, which allows for bus/train/plane schedules to be posted? From what I can remember, these are deleted, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flight Schedule Cibao Intl Corpx 07:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hotels in Hong Kong AfD cites 90% red links as a major factor in deletion and cites another article as an example of a perfectly valid article, Hotels in London, which consists primarily of a list of hotels, their location and the number of rooms. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flight Schedule Cibao Intl hit the travel issue, as it was a "flight schedule" as suggested by the title. Precedent is clear that there is a place for articles such as this one, even if they contain information that might be distantly travel-related. As long as we're in agreement that this is solely a matter of interpretation, and not a violation of policy, I'll agree to disagree. Alansohn 07:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nom's claims have not convinced me of a reason to delete the article. Egged in Israel can not even be compared with Greyhound in the US with regard to visibility and pervasiveness across the country. I think that using US standards to judge worthiness is not fair and needs to be scaled down when dealing with much smaller countries where institutions (like Egged) form the backbone of the country's economy. Oli claims that it is not encyclopedic but frankly, neither are any lists for that matter - never seen them in Britannica or World Book either. The page provides information that is not available anywhere else, period. IMO, the power of WP is that it is a repository of notable information. --Shuki 10:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major transit systems are notable, they are characterised by their routes, and whether to have them in a separate article is an editing decision. Though useful is not enough by itself for a keep, it is a reasonable additional factor. DGG (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is information that is hard to find anywhere else. Extremely useful and helpful. Israel is a country that relies heavily on buses and this is basic information for anyone in Israel. Leppi 11:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inarguably clear violation of WP:NOT. Eusebeus 12:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, major transport routes are notable. Kappa 23:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing "Major" about every last suburban bus line. Samfreed 05:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In its current form, this isn't very encyclopedic. The way to make it suitably encyclopedic would be to add history, like on list of bus routes in Manhattan. --NE2 09:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the very least the patterns of the bus routes (160's are to gush etzion, 900's is for haifa) is notable. I agree that history is needed - the night lines for example are a recent invention - but I don't see the need to expand and prune as a reason to delete. Jon513 23:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a flawed nomination. WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#TRAVEL are about directories (i.e. lists of names and telephone numbers) which this patently is not. The article is a useful summary which, as a work in progress, is subject to further improvement. --Redaktor 22:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The standard interpretation of WP:NOT allows for a list of routes. The featured article El Al for example, has a subarticle with its routes. Note that this info was originally in the parent article, but was branched by consensus. In fact, the WP:AIRPORT wikiproject has a whole section explaining how to create airline destination lists. If we are encouraged to create destination lists for airlines, then I see no reason not to create a similar list for buses. Wikipedia is not paper. nadav (talk) 03:49, 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 deleted. the wub "?!" 22:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magician's tale[edit]

Delete nn books likely a hoax, tagged speedy A7, but technically and despite much debate A7 only applies to web content - books, fake books, etc. have to be afd'ed. About 1k ghits nearly all for a book by David Hunt itself ranked at #504,586 in sales at Amazon.com. Carlossuarez46 20:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article about a book series where the first book is "on on the way to being published" from an unknown author[6]? Don't see any way it can pass Wikipedia:Notability (books) - Fordan (talk) 21:26, 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 - nomination withdrawn. the wub "?!" 11:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish space school[edit]

Fails notability. This might be speedy delete. Davnel03 20:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The article lacks context to ascertain any possible notability. --Stormbay 21:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The context is now clear and the notability has been established. --Stormbay 00:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frag - can't see a claim to notability, possible spam as well. David Fuchs^(talk) 21:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —TerriersFan 21:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - let's be clear; despite its gimmicky title this is not a school and is not spam - it is a government education programme, organised jointly with NASA. Government programmes are generally considered notable. In this case WP:N is easily met by a wealth of media coverage. Another reference is here. I am going to rewrite the article to make its status clear. TerriersFan 21:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OK, I have rewritten the article and included cites from The Scotsman and the Scottish Parliament - sources for Scotland don't come any more reliable than those! TerriersFan 23:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a government sponsored educational program. How is that not notable? Neil ム 22:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:RS. How can a government sponsored space education program not be notable? Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Easily passes Wikipedia:Reliable sources and so appears to be factual. Has some of the appearance of a temporary government gimmick, so unsure if it passes Wikipedia:Notability is_not_temporary. Article is now decently written and well cited, but still has the smell of advertising. That being said, the future is unknown and article is not clearly non notable, so vote for a keep, if a weak one. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gimmicky but passes the required policies. Dbromage [Talk] 00:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are there many other space schools in Scotland? The article seems to make rather explicit claims of notability, supported by reliable and verifiable sources that satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 04:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, uniquely notable as demonstrated above. Yamaguchi先生 04:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please withdraw nomination, when I nominated it the article was in a much worser state. Good job to the people that have since cleaned it up. Davnel03 08:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been cleaned up Lurker (said · done) 10:05, 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 Keep. Appearance in the ODNB is a significant argument for inclusion, unrebutted. Xoloz 14:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Pearce[edit]

Pearce doesn't appear to be a notable figure, even within the Victorian anti-vaccination movement, compared to well-documented contemporaries such as William Tebb (whose inclusion I strongly supported) He has only about four lines in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography in the article for his better-known son, the medical astrologer Alfred James Pearce. Also this article has been tagged for sourcing since February, and is well up for review, plus there are signs of WP:SOAP in the use of the selective quotation. Gordonofcartoon 21:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, and WP:SOAP. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography; notable during his time for starting a movement of which a Google search suggests he still remains a figurehead. There seem to me to be signs of bias in the concerted recent AfDs of a number of subjects with an anti-vaccination stance. If selective quotation is a problem then fix it. Espresso Addict 03:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have always accepted ODNB as a sufficient standard of notability, as we do similar national biographic compendia. If he's worth a paragraph there, he's worth a paragraph here. I think their standards are as high as ours. If anyone thinks we are better able to judge than the professional historians there, I'd like to hear an argument for why. DGG (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To the above comments:

1) He's notable or not, and the motive for the AFD doesn't affect that.

2) What Google results? "Suggests he still remains a figurehead" is not the same as third-party sourcing that he was at the time, as stated in the article.

3) I think there's no doubt that those who get a full article in the ODNB are notable. But the question is where to draw the line with those who get bit parts in other articles. All ODNB articles contain basic details of the subject's parents - but WP:NOTINHERITED works "upstream" too.

I've added what there is (plus a bit more I found in The Times) but it's not much. The Times makes no mention of him except the 1849 court case, and certainly nothing about his involvement in the vaccination controversy. Gordonofcartoon 11:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First anti-vaccine medical man of note, and first to write an anti-vaccine book. john

That needs third-party citations. Gordonofcartoon 09:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Member of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. 1868, you find an anti-vaccine book by a UK MD, any MD, before that, and an editor of a medical journal to boot. And if he wasn't notable you wouldn't be trying to delete him. john

WP:V: What medical journal? "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". And assume good faith: I started the AFD because, going by level of coverage, he's considerably less notable than others in the same field. Only an aside in the ODNB, and (unlike Tebb, Hadwen, Collins, Creighton) his work in this area isn't covered in the Times of the period. Gordonofcartoon 15:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course he's notable, per DGG. History was not invented by the Internet. Bearian 19:02, 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 07:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Í Mynd[edit]

Delete nn album by nn band on a nn label. No assertion that this meets WP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 20:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly Speedy Delete as there is no assertion of any sort of notability. JCO312 20:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 21:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, and WP:MUSIC, WP:RS, and WP:N. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. andy 23:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 07:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breyttir Tímar[edit]

Delete nn album by nn group on a nn label. No assertion that it meets WP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 20:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly Speedy Delete as there is no assertion of any sort of notability. JCO312 20:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC, and WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. andy 23:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 07:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egó (album)[edit]

Delete nn album by nn group on a nn label. No assertion that it meets WP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 20:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly Speedy Delete as there is no assertion of any sort of notability. JCO312 20:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteIn order to assert notability, there needs to be text. Man It's So Loud In Here 22:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - why was the speedy declined? All this author does is create partial track listings of non-notable albums. If it wasn't idiotic it would be troll-like. andy 23:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^One 15:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalry Records[edit]

No independent sources establishing notability. — Swpb^talk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 20:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, and WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources; largely a track list. Xoloz 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 all. If someone wants to be bold and redirect them all as well, that's fine. Wizardman 04:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide episodes[edit]

Contested prods, without explanations. All these pages are articles from episodes of the Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide series, these articles are merely plots of these episodes and don't explain why these episodes are outstanding episodes, and notable. They therefore don't meet WP:EPISODE. Many of the other episodes of this series are already deleted. -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, these are basically unsourced plot synopses and trivia pages. They do not meet WP:EPISODE. --Core desat 20:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOT#PLOT. None of them meet WP:EPISODE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleta all per nom.--Max Talk (+) 21:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these are generally plot summaries without analysis or criticism. We don't do straight plot summaries here. Squidfryerchef 22:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Hooray! Not that I don't like Ned, but I'm glad to see someone take the lead in nominating articles about TV episodes for deletion. If I want to read about an episode of Ned, I'll read it in volume "N" of the World Book Mandsford 22:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I havent seen the show, but it sounds like a very interesting concept, even if it sounds a bit preachy (i.e. don't listen to rumors, etc. ). I wish the effort that went into writing up these plot summaries could be used to write a good, solid main article on the series, which undoubtedly has been discussed in magzaines and newspapers that can be cited. Squidfryerchef 22:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the LOE - and I can bet with certainty this AFD will devolve into silliness. Will ^(talk) 23:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add commentary Its a lot easier to find commentary than to delete and have to recreate a summary. There should be a tag created to announce its missing "critical commentary". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Ten Pound Hammer. Dbromage [Talk] 00:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect No particular need for them to be deleted, they can be merged and redirect to the LOE page. i ^said 03:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all in failing WP:EPISODE per lacking coverage from reliable sources Corpx 04:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i don';t think we'll find commentary for these. I can't see anyone else caring that much about the plots. Of course, I might be wrong, so let's see if Richard can find some. DGG (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide episodes. That way, if notability-establishing sources and commentary are forthcoming later, the summaries won't be completely lost. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Josiah Rowe and per WP:EPISODE which actually says to merge and redirect, not delete. DHowell 22:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all and expand the list to include brief episode summaries. --thedemonhog talk • edits 02:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a "list of episodes" page. --Fabrictramp 13:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Josiah and WP:EPISODE. Neranei (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nom Harlowraman 21:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - as failing WP:V due to lack of supporting sources. Further there are no 'real-world influences' nor any sourced critical commentary. TerriersFan 21:07, 23 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 07:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Miller (guitarist)[edit]

No case for note after some 8 months and some 3 months tagged. Made good faith attempt to remedy, but found no readily available sources on Google News, no press sources. No secondary sources in article at all: two point to official site and the other to a forum post by the subject. Presumably non-notable musician. MrZaius^talk 20:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Time's up, there's the door. - Richfife 20:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable.Sethacus 20:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no secondary sources at all, and no assertions to passing WP:MUSIC - Zeibura ^(Talk) 23:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion As the creator of this article, I appreciate the and respect the opinions on this page although I don't agree with them. I think we have to ask ourselves this fundamental question: is Wikipedia going to become a place, for example, where only those guitarists who have attained the level of achievement of a Jimi Hendrix or Eric Clapton receive an article. I prefer to spend my time creating content rather than tearing down the work of others, with an exception for articles that are created for crass commercial purposes (advertisements).--Hokeman 01:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many, many independent and small-scale musicians and bands covered here. The simplest threshold is multiple Wikipedia:Reliable sources covering the subject. Meet WP:MUSIC with strong sources, and the nomination will gladly be withdrawn. I unfortunately was unable to do so, myself. MrZaius^talk 02:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:Music with strong sources sections as per your suggestion; however it's still not clear to me exactly where we draw the line as to who is "big time" enough to have his or her own article in Wikipedia. There's a lot of subjective decision making here. Miller is no Elvis, but he is a legitimate entertainer who has performed for thousands of people. --Hokeman 04:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing subjective about it - Multiple independent, verifiable sources are required to make a strong case for notability. All that we have to point are a forum post by the bio's subject and a couple links to his personal site. Again, given that, I'd gladly withdraw the nom. MrZaius^talk 05:40, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetable Rights Militant Movement[edit]

I'm new here, but I think the fact that it is a joke is not reason enough to delete it. So let's delete it because it has no content. Man It's So Loud In Here 20:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does deleting because it has little content make sense? Isn't this site supposed to be about collaborative information? Let someone start the article and others contribute. Phred00— Phred00 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. }

Delete as non notable and per no sources. meshach 20:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete maybe A7-able jokey blog. Needs sources to be considered. — brighterorange (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That joke's practically an antique. - Richfife 20:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 20:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Meshach Harlowraman 22:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS, and WP:HOAX. No sources provided. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Joke or not, it fails WP:N and WP:V. Dbromage [Talk] 00:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, ridiculous organization. --musicpvm 03:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V, and a very likely WP:HOAX.-- danntm ^T _C 18:53, 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 redirect to It Won't Be Soon Before Long. Singu larity 07:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Won't Go Home Without You[edit]

As the article itself asserts, this is pure speculation. A sticker placed on the plastic shrinkwrap of a CD is not a reliable source. Suggest delete or merge to the album article until an official announcement is made. - eo 19:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's possible the article creator is right, but we don't know yet. WP:CBALL. - Richfife 20:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A sticker on the CD does not meet the requirements of WP:RS, also delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 23:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to It Won't Be Soon Before Long (no need to merge—pure speculation). Precious Roy 16:02, 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 As Kappa points out, it is at best unclear, from policy and the discussion below, whether "manner of death" is a defining characteristic meriting a category. The list is limited to notable people by virtue of its being in an encyclopedia -- a name change to reflect this is a choice left to talk page discussion. Given these two considerations, at least some of the deletion arguments below are weakened; and so, no consensus exists. Xoloz 14:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who died in road accidents[edit]

Another list that is better served as a category, hundreds of thousands of people are killed in road accidents every year. See WP:LISTCRUFT, Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unmaintainable, shouldn't even be a category. Man It's So Loud In Here 20:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unmaintainable and not very useful. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 20:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not very useful...unmaintainable and millions of people die from road accidents every year.--PrestonH 20:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although it looks better than most of lists here I do not think it is maintainable now. It may be recreated when tag based system gets implemented by MediaWiki. Pavel Vozenilek 20:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and we will have millions.It can be mentioned in there Bio if notable people.Harlowraman 22:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep They're all blue links, so the nonsensical, Carl Sagan style, "billions and billions" argument doesn't really apply. And unmaintainable? Geez, does a famous person die every day in a car wreck? I'll have to stay off the road. And yes, it is notable if a person died "before their time" because of a motor vehicle accident. This one is well-organized and encylopedic. I'll have to save it since the boo-birds are winning this one. Mandsford 22:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOT#INFO. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 22:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of people by cause of death and the fact that cause of death is not a defining characteristic, therefore it is not appropriate for a category. Kappa 23:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and annotate further. Category and list should both be available for navigation. Having an existing category is never a reason to delete a list. Cause of death is very encyclopedic, and mentioned in every obituary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If 'It's Useful', which it is, is not an argument which can be used here, then why is 'it's not useful' justifiable as a reason for deletion? If it needs 'famous' to be put into the title to prevent it becoming a repository of 'billions and billions' of names so be it. Arguments saying that it is 'unmaintainable' are clearly false as it obviously is well maintained. The intersection of fast cars and fame is a common and legitimate topic of interest and is just the sort of information which wikipedia excels, or at least should excel, in providing. Nick mallory 00:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It should be more maintainable in a category that a listcruft individual article.--JForget 02:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Loads of people die in car accidents, there is no need for a list. No need for a category. If the fact that they died in a car accident in notable or worth mentioning, it should be done in the article. i ^said 03:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no need to categorize people by the way of their passing. There is just way too many ways out there to die. Corpx 04:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it will never be an accuarate or complete list; thus it can not be maintained. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't it be accurate? Kappa 11:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's very, uhm, odd, but the list is not arbitrary as long as it is limited to blue links of already notable deceased people. The annotations are sortable tables make it more useful than any category.-- danntm ^T _C 19:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It feels strange to be on the other side of a list afd, but famous people killed in cars is actually encyclopedic, IMO. Easy enough to verify and hardly arbitrary. Clarityfiend 22:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of notable people who died in road accidents. such lists should contain only notable entries. --SmokeyJoe 12:27, 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. Xoloz 15:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of Triangles[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Still a nn group, even after research. This article was first kept as no consensus, but further research has turned up no third-party sources either online or in the Masonic Library in Triangles' home state of New York. There are only 13 chapters in the entire state, and they are concentrated in small areas, and there isn't even any local coverage. Thus, there is still no assertion of notability. MSJapan 19:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the group gets very little reference that I could see, except for refs such as "so-and-so, Organization of Triangles group leader" and the like. Nom states that printed material, even in the Masonic Library, is missing - that suggests the group just doesn't make WP:ORG. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I repeat my arguments from the previous AFD, with the addition that I could find not one external source on the orgainzation... even at the Masonic Library in it's home state (which did not even have internal sources). This leads me to seriously doubt that any external sources exist. Blueboar 20:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG and WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 22:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and dubious article. docboat 06:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I realise that i am biased here, seeing as i have had some small degree of input into the article. However, the organisation does exist. I would argue if anything that if the article itself is not large enough or detailed enough or interesting enough to keep by itself, then it could be merged into some other article that deals with masonic youth organisations for girls that have stemmed from the Order of the Eastern star. As many of them have including one that i was planning on writing a short article on "the constellation of junior stars." This article could easily be included in something like that. I feel that the information should be included at least for some degree of completion's sake. Ithillion 10:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I might be willing to support a brief mention of these organizations in a more over-arching article on masonic youth orgs in general... Perhaps a section in the main Eastern star article on "offshoots and youth groups" or something? It's just that they are not notable enough for an article on their own. Blueboar 15:59, 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. Walton^One 19:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Harrisburg[edit]

Unmaintainable and unverifiable list. Man It's So Loud In Here 19:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as unverifiable list. Better suited as a category. (Oh, and which Harrisburg? I believe there're several more than just the one in PA.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely a better option to have this as a category. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. This is what categories are for. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 22:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Most people don't know that it's the capital of Pennsylvania, let alone care that someone is from this place. However, in the spirit of civic pride, let the city's favorite sons and favorite daughters live in a Harrisburg Hall of Fame within the main article. Mandsford 23:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorize please. My preference for list of people from ____ is to categorize Corpx 03:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is annotated and structured, and so complements, rather than duplicates the category (see WP:CLS), and it meets the stand-alone list guidelines. Harrisburg is a redirect to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, so there's no reason to assume that the Harrisburg referenced in this article's title would be any other Harrisburg (and if there was, then a disambiguation link could be added to the top of the article). I don't see why the list would be "unmaintainable and unverifiable" as long as the list is limited to those people who are notable and are verifiably from Harrisburg. Finally, no policy-based reason has been given to delete other than WP:NOT#INFO which says nothing applicable to lists of people based on city of origin. DHowell 23:09, 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 07:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetable Rights[edit]

This article has existed for three years and it still has no content. It was tagged with a cleanup, but it obviously never was. Man It's So Loud In Here 19:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - relates to NN joke website www.vegetablecruelty.com. You might want to add Vegetable Rights Militant Movement to the AFD. Gordonofcartoon 19:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable and per no sources. meshach 20:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Pavel Vozenilek 20:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - bias is not supposed to be a part of Wikipedia, last time I checked. Who here can tell any other whether their cause is legitimate or not? Phred00— Phred00 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Who can tell whether it's legitimate or not? Join the cause if you wish, but I never heard a vegetable cry in pain...Mandsford 00:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete In looking over the article, this phrase "a new issue largely considered frivolous, unworthy and illogical by it's loudest opponents: animal rights activists" jumped out and grabbed me as being both a joke and POV at the same time. ~~216.52.210.36 20:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)~~Pat Payne 21:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC) (didn't realize I wasn't logged in ^_^*)[reply]
Delete omnivorously. Reeks of a joke/hoax. Ante lan ^talk 21:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX, and WP:RS especially. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 22:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Joke or not, it fails WP:N and WP:V. Dbromage [Talk] 00:55, 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 07:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DbXpert for Oracle[edit]

Non-notable technology; spam. The Evil Spartan 18:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTABILITY Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not suggested. Pavel Vozenilek 20:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Evil Spartan. Jakew 21:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM. Also, there is a WP:COI. The developed is the only contributor to the article. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 22:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it I am doing some research on the software tools on the Database marketing. Wikipedia provides a great place for me to search for related tool. I can seach the tool here such Toad (Software), Advanced Query Tool, Sequence profiling tool, etc. I would sugget to keep it. Kekedada (talk • contribs) — Kekedada (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Suggest to Keep, useful to reader. It's an article to provide information about the tools available, not a WP:SPAM- Maahela (talk • contribs) — Maahela (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 07:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SquareMania[edit]

Non-notable computer game; author has a conflict of interest The Evil Spartan 18:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N, WP:WEB, and WP:V and probably others. Jauerback 18:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Also fails WP:RS, and WP:COI. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I knew there had to be others... Jauerback 19:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 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. Whatever merging one might choose to do would be minimal mentions, and would not really require attribution to this article (One should use a reliable source for the mention, of course.) Xoloz 15:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Procreation Movement[edit]

self-promoting article about a non-notable organization, the so-called Anti-Procreation Movement. The media references aren't about this specific organization, but about other organizations with a similar agenda. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)*[reply]

Delete per WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Man It's So Loud In Here 19:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is the creation of this article counter to the concept of Anti-procreation? I've learned that the three categories of human existence are survival, boredom and entertainment. Now that I know that, what am I going to do?

Maybe you can merge this back into Arthur Schopenhauer. Mandsford 00:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and merge anything useful and referenced to Arthur Schopenhauer. Dbromage [Talk] 00:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete + Partial Merge This seems to be related to the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement or Zero-population growth movement. Where most VHEM groups are radical environmentalists this group seems to be radical followers of Schopenhauer. I would add mention of it to the VHEM page but I don't think it really needs its own page. Jmm6f488 05:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above. The major source, the NYT article, is not actually about the subject, just about those who do not wish to have children for whatever reason, or subsidize those who do--which is a much less drastic matter entirely.DGG (talk) 08:25, 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. Walton^One 19:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garachop[edit]

Probable hoax - place doesn't appear on Google maps, for instance, and no relevant Google hits. Oli Filth 18:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, page makes no sense, per WP:CSD#G1, tagged. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - appears to be a hoax, I have found no info on this whatsoever Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears to be a real place. Please see: [7]. Apparently, they make carpets there. That said, it's still probably a candidate for speedy deletion unless the author reworks the page. bfigura ^(talk) 19:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree it was worth checking out rather than simply assuming hoax because it doesn't immediately Google. However, this article appears to be conflating two different places. Google finds Iormuganlo - more commonly spelt Iormughanlo, Sagarejo region exists as stated in eastern Georgia. Garachop, however, is somewhere in the oilfields of Turkmenistan, on the other side of the Caspian Sea. Gordonofcartoon 19:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks non-trivial media coverage Addhoc 19:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename "Iormuganlo" - This is a strange one. The Georgia region "Iormuganlo" actually does exist [8][9]. Why this article is listed under an "unofficial" name is beyond me. But it is a real place. --Oakshade 22:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article asserts that Garachop is famous for its contribution to Nagorno Karabakh war with Armenia, though that seems to be a well-kept secret. I note that there's no link to any other Wikipedia. Maybe the author can write about Iormuganlo. Mandsford 00:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Lormuganlo also lacks non-trivial media coverage. Addhoc 11:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Iormughanlo is a real place (and the satellite photo shows a mid-size village of probably 1000-2000 people) and there are some results for Iormughanlo ("i", not "l") and Iormuganlo. However, I can find no source to confirm the existence of Garachop district in Georgia. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have created a new article about the village of Iormughanlo using a few online sources I could find via Google. I expect that there are also local news sources about the village and there may even be online sources that I missed. Since Garachop is the name of a gas deposit in Turkmenistan, I still think that this article should be deleted without redirecting. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further searching only seems to confirm that there is little or no connection between Garachop and Iormughanlo. The closest connection I could find is this: Garachop seems to refer to an Azerbaijani carpet style (see link) and Iormughanlo is located near the Georgian-Azerbaijani border and is populated by ethnic Azeris. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:41, 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 07:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synchronous destructors[edit]

Seems to be a how-to guide, possible nonsense and/or original research. "Synchronous destructors" gets about 5 google hits. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the Hammer, and many aspects of WP:NOT. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and maybe add notable parts to Object-oriented programming. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rarely used terminology, non-encyclopedic form. The differences between destructors and finalizers (more common terms), their implementation and preferred style of programming is frequent hot topic of debates but those are bellow threshold of encyclopedical notability. Pavel Vozenilek 20:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against re-creation with notability firmly established by reliable sources. — TKD::Talk 06:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emerson Flag Co.[edit]

Was spamish at first. Spam was cleaned up however the article still lacks sources and is possibly not notable. -WarthogDemon 17:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. Also WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above or add more info. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Mostly because of the second oldest flag company in the US, but more info would be needed that's for sure, so mostly a conditional keep on that one.--JForget 02:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, might be the second oldest, but currents its unverifiable per lack of coverage from secondary sources Corpx 03:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 21:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etuvluk River[edit]

non-notable, possibly non-existent river, not in GNIS (http://geonames.usgs.gov/redirect.html) or on any map I could find, Google only brings up Wikipedia mirrors Kmusser 17:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The river appears in Alaska laws 5 AAC 99.025. Customary and traditional uses of game populations. Apparently it's in or near the Schwatka Mountains. It's a real river. Flyguy649 ^talk_contribs 18:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that's the only reference I'm tempted to say it may be a typo or something - if it is a real river I'd expect it to be on a map somewhere, I've checked the most detailed maps made of the Schwatka Mountain area and it's not on there. Kmusser 13:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you may be right. If you look here (roughly south of Peard Bay and roughly east of Cape Krusenstern), you can see that there is a River Etivluk. And there seem to be plenty of reliable sources that discuss it. Jakew 13:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per flyguy. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - it is a real river. Needs more info. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a real river and thus notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mention of the river is already included in Wikipedia, in List of rivers in Alaska, otherwise I'd have suggested merging. If the river is notable enough to justify its own article, we need some sources to allow us to state - and verify - more than just the existence of the subject. But - like the nominator - I've been unsuccessful in my own best efforts to find these sources. Jakew 22:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per refs provided by Flyguy. It is a real river. --Oakshade 22:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Flyguy649's ref confirms the subject's existence, but I can't personally see how we can use it as a source. It is apparently part of a table. To quote, it states: "...that portion east of the Etuvluk River (Schwatka Mountains) positive 2 - 4 Units...". Jakew 22:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as geographical features are generally notable, being permanent and all. --Dhartung | Talk 03:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:N states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ... "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." Jakew 10:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:OUTCOMES, geographical features such as rivers are considered inherently notable. --Oakshade 21:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that it states: "This page is not policy. This page is for quick, easy-to-follow tips. Detailed rules, guidelines, and suggestions should go on the various notability policy pages instead." I interpret that to mean that if the minimum standard of WP:N is met, then there are no further requirements for a river. Do you think that's reasonable? Jakew 21:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is not policy either. WP:CONSENSUS (which is policy) has recognized "inherent" notability of certain topics like towns and geographical features even if they have zero significant coverage by reliable sources. Even WP:N states at the top that "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." --Oakshade 22:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus supposedly always means "within the framework of established policy and practice" (that's a quote). If a subject hasn't received any coverage in reliable sources, then it cannot exist without violating WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR. In this case, it has only received very trivial coverage in a single source, which means that we basically have nothing to say about it. Notability, in general, is a WP:V issue: if a subject has been noted, it is notable (though we may have additional requirements). If there's a consensus that rivers are an exception to WP:N, or indeed WP:V, then surely we need to change policy/guidelines to reflect that? Jakew 10:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And within the framework of established policy and practice, practice especially, certain topics like geographical features are considered inherently notable with no coverage from secondary sources. --Oakshade 16:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Practice only, apparently. Which is a particular problem in this case, because there is only a single source, which is a web reprint at a company's website, and may well contain a misprint for Etivluk (see above comment by Kmusser and my reply). So it is entirely possible that Wikipedia will declare that a non-existent river not only exists but is notable enough to warrant its own page. Which I find worrying. Jakew 16:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:N, right at the top A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right. That's why we have specialized standards. They can all be changed, of course, if there is consensus to change them. If WP:N were the only guideline, everything would be argued from first principles, and the result would be chaos. The more things we can make into brightline groups by consensus, the better. I do not want to discuss 5000 articles a day here. DGG (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A1: it's empty. "Superman is a hero" is not an article. "The Etuvluk River is a river" is not an article. It's not even a lexically meaningful sentence. Shame on you "keep, notable" voters. It's not about notability: it's about validity as an article, and this isn't. Geogre 02:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Somebody very inappropriately speedy deleted this article as this AfD is in progress. I just put it to DRV here. --Oakshade 04:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was the admin who commented just above you. I suggest he reverse himself. I'd undelete it myself if I hadn't been participating in the discussion. DGG (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten The article was speedy deleted and recreated at a different spelling at this point in the conversation. The rewritten article is radically different than the original version, and some prior comments may be less relevant or no longer true. GRBerry 18:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to note that with over 250,000 rivers in the US alone[10], and obviously a lot more in the wider world, I think that we need to develop some guidelines for notability of rivers. In the absence of such guidelines, however, I would like to state that most of my concerns about Etuvluk River do not apply to the new article (Etivluk River). Jakew 19:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My original criteria for deletion does not apply to the new article. Kmusser 19:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the rewrite. --Myles Long 20:52, 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. Walton^One 19:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of forests[edit]

Should be replaced with something similiar to Category:State forests in the United States, instead of being a directory of all the forests/woodlands in the world Corpx 17:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOT#INFO. Better served as a category. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this list could be clarified by stating what criteria are necessary to put it on the list. United States national and state forests count as established protected areas, for instance. I don't know if the Black Forest in Germany is a protected area (i.e. in the IUCN database), but it's famous enough. Keep for now until some criteria are sorted out. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and convert to a Category, and state criteria for addition to the category. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorify ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be in categories per continent and/or country depending on the case.--JForget 02:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and convert into a category. i ^said 03:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not so much a matter of list vs. category, but the central problem is that there are no criteria for inclusion in this list. Is this supposed to list every woodland in the world, including my and your backyard or is it a list of protected areas of various status? Right now it is useless. --h-stt !? 10:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize and Delete This is to broad of a list (or probably even category) to have. It should be broken down into lists and sub-categories such as US National Forests or Large Forests in Montana.I also think thatYamaka122 ...:) 13:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also that Elkman is right that if it is kept (or if its divided into other lists) there needs to be criteria for notability and such. Yamaka122 ...:) 13:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Categories do not replace lists. Intro can be expanded to explain criteria. Rmhermen 16:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after defining criteria for inclusion - this would be a useful "world" list for collecting national and perahps state level forest lists in. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Criteira for inclusion can be expanded leading to a maintainable and finite list. If after this the list is still too unwieldy it could be a top level list i.e. a list of lists of forests which is what it already does under some sections (US, Poland etc). Suicidalhamster 21:50, 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 and redirect to Petra Němcová. Walton^One 19:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Atlee[edit]

Non-notable. Only known because of his death in the 2004 Asian Tsunami. Davnel03 17:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, and WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many died in the Asian floods, don't require an entire encyclopedic article about them. Delete per above. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge Shorten and merge to Petra Němcová the article about his supermodel fiance, who was also injured in the tsunami. Edison 19:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by Edison; I think most of what was presented here that's relevant and encyclopedic is already there, to be honest. Doesn't appear to have much to stand on his own for notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as a potentially valid search term. Atlee was a fashion photographer but searches indicate his notability was minimal prior to his death. --Dhartung | Talk 03:23, 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 close and take this redirect to WP:RFD. Non-admin close by Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damu Ridas Vol.2: How Deep Is Your Hood[edit]

The name of this articles is not correct, the right one is "How Deep Is Your Hood" and no article is linking to it. Tasco 0 17:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; my given reason is above.
Wrong venue You want WP:RFD, as this page is a redirect. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm moving this to RFD Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:50, 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. Singu larity 07:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack_Mantos[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jack Mantos

Not a notable person for an encyclopediaWisdum 17:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost the only information I can find on google about him is from Wikipedia and its mirrors. The only other sources appears to be from this Los Angeles Times article, and thus, it is non-notable. The Evil Spartan 17:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS, and WP:BIO. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. This appears to be part of an effort to document people in the est/Landmark movement; we've previously deleted several "training leaders" or whatever they're called. --Dhartung | Talk 03:25, 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. — Scientizzle 20:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back on Track[edit]

Really, no notability established for this DVD and looks to be published by the local newspaper Corpx 17:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cannot find any info about it execpt a listing on eBay 1. Probably unnecessary. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS, and WP:MUSIC. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:30, 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 wrong venue; take to WP:RFD. Non-admin close Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damu Ridas Vol.1: Dangerous[edit]

The name of this articles is not correct, the right one is "Damu Ridas (album)" and no article is linking to it. Tasco 0 17:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; my given reason is above.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion as an attack page on a living person JoJan 18:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Rudat[edit]

Appears to be just an unreferenced attack page. No citations, no notability established and a number of insults. Recommend deletion. Dugwiki 17:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD - Tagged as db-attack Corpx 17:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - highly likely attack page. Davnel03 17:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:BIO, and WP:N. The article also falls under the CSD parts WP:CSD#A7, and WP:CSD#G10. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rewrite - attack page, very unsourced, lacking info and/or sources, it can be rewritten if this person is notable enough, appears to be a real person 1 2. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 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 — Caknuck 20:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of the Dead (1976 film)[edit]

This film is non-notable. It only has six votes on the IMDB. It can't be very worthy of an encyclopedia with this status. MalwareSmarts 17:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The IMDB page is a reliable source. All movies have some notability. The number of IMDB votes does not control what goes in Wikipedia. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while the number of votes a film has received on IMDB is not a reason for deletion, lack of notability is. IMDB is not really that reliable of a source as it relies heavily on user input, and even if it were, all films are not inherently notable and a source establishing the mere existence of the film does not establish the notability of it. Otto4711 18:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If IMDB is "not really that reliable of a source as it relies heavily on user input," then what is Wikipedia since it relies entirely on "user input"? -75.130.90.56 22:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)-[reply]

Wikipedia is absolutely not a reliable source. Not sure what that has to do with anything. Otto4711 00:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, rationale is not valid. Movies are generally notable if they're listed on IMDb... but this one may be a little low on WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out where it says that an IMDB listing establishes notability? It certainly doesn't for actors and it's unclear where a different standard for films is coming from. Otto4711 19:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per User:TenPoundHammer. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The movie is also listed on Rotten Tomatoes in addition to IMDb, but that fact raises an interesting point; Rotten Tomatoes doesn't have any critical reviews of this 30 year old movie. That, and a Google search, would seem to indicate a lack of notability through reliable sources for this movie. Leebo ^T/C 20:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wrote this article. The reason there are so few reviews is because it has not been released since the early days of video. Given the personnel involved, if it were to be issued on DVD, even quietly, the number of Google hits would skyrocket. I don't think that's an invocation of crystal ball. All I am saying is that obscurity alone does not make a film not notable. If it does, then if Baby Geniuses goes out of print for 20 years, its article should be deleted.--Scottandrewhutchins 20:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of a style question, but the article has existed since November 2006 as nothing more than a plot summary. If there isn't anything else to be said (due to lack of reliable sources) do you feel it can grow beyond a stub? Leebo ^T/C 20:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - It's possible, if one could find more information. I'll check next time I'm at the Performing Arts Library.--Scottandrewhutchins 03:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable Actor, Another Notable Actor, Notable Director (at least as far as the television industry & Broadway are concerned), A positive review that notes the film is filled with recognizable character actors... Other notable actors & actresses as well. -75.130.90.56 22:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. The notability of the participants does not make the film notable. Otto4711 22:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the film is obviously notable enough. It is listed at many popular film websites. It does not need mass coverage in the media to have an article. --musicpvm 03:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no coverage in media that indicates notability. Being listed on large databases of movies that do not have viable critical commentary does not assert notability. i ^said 03:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP Because of the lack of crew credits on IMDb, I just went and looked at the on the film, particulrly for the writing credits, which are not on the cover, and saw that the film is based on a novel that is considered notable enought for an article, even as a much smaller one than this: One Across, Two Down. --Scottandrewhutchins 03:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically enough, if a book has been made into a movie, it is automatically notable. The movie, however, is not. i ^said 03:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the film is better known? That doesn't make any sense. --Scottandrewhutchins 04:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who says the film is better known? And no, I'm just saying that the notability criteria for books say that if it has been made into a movie, its notable. Not the other way around. i ^said 05:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your discovery seems to present a case for merging the Diary of the Dead information to the One Across, Two Down article as an adaptation, since there isn't much other content in the adaptation's article. Leebo ^T/C 12:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This may not have been a hit, but it's a mainstream film with prominent contributors, and the article is verifiable. Postlebury 19:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, notability is not inherited. The fact the James Earl Jones starred in Blood Tide during the 1980s does not make that a notable film. MalwareSmarts 20:36, 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 07:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Parker and the Dark Machine[edit]

Contested prod. Clearly a non-notable book; appears to be the creation of the author of this article. The Evil Spartan 16:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reviews etc are found - WP is the only result in a google search of the name Corpx 16:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. Clearly a WP:COI, and possibly even a WP:HOAX. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unverifiable at this point, and the COI adds to the problem. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COI. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Corpx. --mordicai. 22:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless some third-party sources can be found — preferably by someone other than Savithru Jayasinghe (talk · contribs), although if he wants to post links to sources on the article's talk page that's fine. Incidentally, I'm disappointed that until I came along nobody had even tried to explain WP:COI or WP:BK to this user. Nominating a new user's article for deletion without explaining the reasons constitutes biting the newbies, and someone should have rectified this before now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:20, 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 keep, clear consensus established. —C.Fred (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery[edit]

Non-notable fish hatchery. No reliable sources provided in article. Article strongly fails Wikipedia:Notability. If it were a private hatchery instead of federal, I'd speedy delete as a non-notable company, but I'll grant that claiming to be a national hatchery is just enough of a claim to spare it speedy deletion and send it to AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I know that this isn't in the guidelines, but it would seem like a shame to me to delete something whose home website has a .gov extension. There is little information provided in this article, but I'll do a little research to see if I can add to it. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 16:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's just a hatchery. There's nothing notable about it, and no sources. List of National Fish Hatcheries in the United States documents that it exists, and that's about all we really need to know. Sxeptomaniac 16:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as it stands now, it's just a directory entry. We're really not losing much to delete and start over at a later date. Corpx 16:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have just expanded this article to include more information about the fish that the hatchery cares for and its facilities. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 17:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep based on the changes there, plus there's some 3rd party sourcing here Corpx 17:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep per Corpx. bfigura ^(talk) 17:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Above. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Famous , and now adequaely sourced. DGG (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is expanded, but there are still no independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do exist, as per my google news link earlier, but I do not feel strongly enough about this topic to pay to read & cite those articles Corpx 20:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, as much as Wikipedia bills itself as the "free encyclopedia," I don't think an editor should have to pay to keep an article around. I'll concede that sources exist, and therefore it is notable, even without quoting the little preview shreds in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is fine now. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Technically, I can't withdraw my nomination, since Sxeptomaniac still has an open !vote of delete. However, WP:SNOW tells me that this process is going to end with a keep result, so nothing's gained by leaving it open. —C.Fred (talk) 13:19, 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 No consensus. Bduke 21:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Architects Sketch[edit]

Delete - prod removed by anon stating "Monty Python sketches are notable!" Well no, they're not inherently notable. In addition to notability issues this article is a clear violation of WP:PLOT, being nothing but a description of the sketch. Otto4711 16:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless real world sources are found to give notability Corpx 16:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PLOT. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:PLOT. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The sketch itself has been cited in scholarly works.[11] Suggest cleanup to remove the bulk of the plot and discuss the cultural impact of the sketch.Dbromage [Talk] 01:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A simple reference or citation doesn't constitute a reliable source attesting to the notability of the specific sketch. Otto4711 14:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Among the most well-known of the group's sketches; certainly better known than many of the individual articles on episodes of lesser-known television series. Clean up and retain. Kablammo 09:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How well-known the sketch may be is not relevant. How well-known it is in comparison to other articles is not relevant. Otto4711 14:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is relevant is notability. With over a thousand web references, from the usual fan sites (numerous), to cultural references ([12]) , to the serious (e.g., [13], [14]) the sketch has achieved a certain degree of notability. Kablammo 15:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your first "source" appears to be a biographical article, or "sketch," about an actual architect. It does not appear to have anything to do with the Python routine and it is also at a subscription site and so is not suited for use as a source here anyway. Your second "source" is about software architecture and merely quotes a line. Your third "source" is about Britain's response to the death of Princess Diana and while I did not read every word of it a scan through it did not indicate to me any great level of connection between it and the Python routine. Simply being mentioned in passing or even quoted in a piece that is not substantially about the sketch does not establish the notability of the sketch. Otto4711 18:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One point here needs clarification, Otto: links to subscription sites are acceptable as sources for Wikipedia articles. WP:EL's restriction is about links not used as sources. I recently had to clarify this at Wikipedia talk:External links#Question about sites requiring registration, and the consensus was clear — the notion that links to subscription sites are never acceptable appears to be a widespread error. I don't know whether the Chronicle of Higher Education link is useful for the article or not, but the mere fact that it's subscription-only shouldn't prevent it from being used as a source. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The full-text version is cached at Google but adds nothing more. My point in referencing it is to show that the "Architects Sketch" (or "Architect Sketch") has become part of the vernacular; that it is a cultural reference like other well-known comedic sketches; and that even the use of its title on an unrelated essay is a cultural reference known to readers. I understand and respect the arguments and votes for deletion, and I hope that the fact deletion has been proposed will lead to improvement of the article and therefore its retention. The subject is notable but the page needs work. Kablammo 21:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kablammo. I'll make some slight improvements too in the next moment. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. The RT Fielding essay references the sketch in a non-trivial way, and this thesis (.doc file) specifically examines the sketch in translation. These citations (or similar ones) should be incorporated into the article, which does need to provide more cultural context (e.g. discussion of attitudes towards Freemasonry, etc.). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A student's English paper that quotes a few lines from the sketch in an appendix on a half-page out of a 70+ page document? Are you kidding? Is this even published anywhere or did the writer just post it on her website? This is a paper about how well translators do in translating comedy sketches from one language to another and Architects Sketch was picked, not because it is a particularly notable sketch, but because it has a large number of words that might give a translator difficulty. The notion that this somehow establishes the notability of the sketch is ludicrous. It's in all likelihood not a reliable source and it's not "substantially about the subject" of the sketch, as required by WP:N. Otto4711 22:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't read Czech, but it looks to me as if the thesis was published by the university. That makes it a reliable source in my book. Incidentally, I'm not certain whether this article is referencing this sketch or another one, but if it's the same sketch that could also be a notability-establishing source. —07:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if the thesis has been published, it is still not substantially about the sketch and does not establish the notability of the sketch. El Mystico and Janet is a completely different sketch. Otto4711 12:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - at the very least the article should be renamed as Architects Sketch (Monty Python sketch) or something to that effect. I thought the problem was going to be that the candidate article constituted nothing more than a dictionary definition of one of the formal processes an Architect might use in bidding on a construction project; or something on those lines. As it stands the article is potentially misleading and unhelpful for someone who might be wanting to know more about Architects and how they prepare their drawings for clients. I think if it can be named correctly and worked into the Monty Python wikiproject for proper upgrades and maintenance, then it could potentially be improved to the point that it could stand alone as a notable MP skit. At present, the improper name is the more critical problem. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 18:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the critical problem is that the sketch does not have the requisite notability to have its own Wikipedia article. Otto4711 17:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and WP:PLOT Harlowraman 20:58, 23 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. — Scientizzle 20:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who - Battles in Time Trading Cards[edit]

This is just a list of trading cards- unencyclopedic, and possibly a copyvio. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminent collection of infomation. Prod failed. OZ OO (What?) 16:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I agree this is directory level information Corpx 16:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what can be merged into Doctor Who merchandise Will ^(talk) 23:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Route 193 (STM)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Route 193 (STM)

An article for each local bus route is not needed. Rufus843 15:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, unless we're missing some sort of special significance for this route? Corpx 16:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it for CSD Corpx 16:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. No "multiple reliable and independent sources" with substantial coverage to satisfy WP:N, and no guideline saying that every bus route in the history of the world has inherent notability. On the other hand, a well sourced article on the history and significance of the Montreal mass transit system would be quite encyclopedic. Edison 19:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:50, 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.

What about article on Paris bus (in French), I guess that we should delete them too, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin Hood 1212 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 31 August 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 no consensus. The Community was divided between those who consider this to be a collection of information that lacks coherence and those who think that it should be kept or merged somewhere. I am unconvinced by the argument to merge into Kraken in popular culture since Kraken are mythical creatures, albeit with the giant squid implicated, whereas the giant squid is a real animal. Any merge proposals should take place as post-AfD editorial actions as should pursuing the lack of sources. TerriersFan 03:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giant squid in culture[edit]

Delete - directory of loosely associated topics stitched together with original research. This collection of any appearance of a giant squid (or collosal squid, or squid-that-is-not-identified-in-the-fiction as "giant," or creature that is vague and undescribed but someone decided that it must be a squid) tells us nothing about squid, nothing about the fiction from which the references are drawn, nothing about the relationahip between them (as there is none) and nothing about the real world. Oppose merge of any of the information to any other article on squid, giant, collosal or otherwise, as it is just as trivial in another article as it is in its own. Otto4711 15:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This can safely be deleted because it is redundant to our articles in chief on Kraken and Kraken in popular culture; the Kraken is the usual name of a giant squid when it appears in literature as a sea monster. If anything should be merged, it should go there rather than to any article about the actual molluscs. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. I'm not sure that giant squids are always called Kraken. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of loosely associated topics, just like most of the other IPC articles Corpx 16:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kraken in popular culture. SolidPlaid 17:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 24.176.25.116 18:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NOT#DIR + WP:OR = bad article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. I think it should be kept or at least merged with the Kracken page for I and other people I know have used it many a time to find movies,tv,etc that feature this beloved beast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Infamous Dr. Salvador (talk • contribs)
Avast, to Davy Jones's Locker wi' the fearsome beastie. 'Tis a loose collection o' unsourced scuttlebutt, an' we've got lots of info in the related pages. Arr. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kraken in popular culture. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The material here is notable and sourceable. I see the people who think that the subject of a creative work is not a notable feature of it, or that having common themes or plot motive is a "loose association" are till at it. I think its about the strongest association there can be, and exactly what is meant by encyclopedic content and the purpose of a general encyclopedia. Kraken isnt really that good a merge--that article talks about purely mythological beings, not actual animals. DGG (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giant squid are not the "subject" of the items included in this article. Giant squid are not the "theme" of these items and they are not the "plot motive." The things have no association with each other beyond "it's got a squid in it" and in many cases they don't even share that. Otto4711 15:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it has a squid in it, there's a reason it has a squid in it. Creative works don't use content at random, they use it for the meaningful associations. If there's a few that don't belong, that becomes a question for editing, not deletion. if we deleted every article that had an item of questionable content, there wouldn't be a WP. Trying to judge articles of a particular type that way is exactly what I mean by trying to remove the whole content area from the encyclopedia--on the reason, ultimately, of IDONTLIKEIT.

But let's look at the ones I know about enough to say: For books, 1, 2, and 3, are major plot elements, all memorable & meant to be. There will certainly be references for any theme in Moby Dick. The Watcher is meant to evoke a squid, & there will be refs in the immense literature on Tolkien. for Dr No it's also a significant element. for 5, & 6 its the basis of the plot. 7 & 8 significant element also. 9 is relatively trivial, if I remember right. 10 I dont know the books, 11 is also trivial. 7/11 at least. At least 3 or 4 of the film ones are certainly significant also, and so on. DGG (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's got a squid in it, there's a reason it has a squid in it. And if a movie has a cell phone or a book has a taxi cab or a TV show has a blue sweater in it there's a reason why that cell phone or taxi cab or blue sweater is in it. That doesn't mean that the existence of the phone or cab or sweater serves to tie the movie or book or TV show to every other book or TV show or video game that also includes a cell phone or a taxi cab or a blue sweater. The assumption you're making, that the presence of a squid or squid-like thing evokes a deliberate and close association between the things, is original research by synthesis, not to mention POV-pushing. Otto4711 02:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

certainly, for a particular cell phone. But not for cell phones in general--if cell phones in general are used in movies, there are reasons. And if for some reason a particular cell phone did occur in dozens of movies , there would surely be an interesting reason. I don't know if there's an article yet, but the fact that almost all advertisements with personal computers have contained Macintosh computers is actually interesting and encyclopedic and sourceable. DGG (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again, your assumption that there must be an association between things because they share one feature or element in common has no basis in fact. Otto4711 13:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the element is the significant use in a novel or film, yes. What do you think the study of literature or cinema consists of but the study in historical perspective of the themes and characters and techniques DGG (talk) 06:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the study of it on Wikipedia consists of articles that discuss independent secondary sources that are about the topic of the article. There appear to be no such sources that are about the subject of "Giant squid in culture" or the supposed automatic association between otherwise unrelated items that happen to have a squid in them. Otto4711 13:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean discuss the topic in the light of secondary sources, not discuss the sources. Just to clarify.DGG (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kraken in popular culture and merge the contents. --Martin Wisse 14:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another list of unrelated occurrences where a giant squid happens to appear, or be merely referenced. - fchd 16:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Kraken in popular culture; arguably, the resulting article should be renamed, to indicate that not all giant squids are explictly based on the mythical Kraken. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn topic, every animal that exists has been in "culture" one way or another, does not make for a notable topic and ultimately becomes trivia. Biggspowd 14:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The GS is a powerful symbol in popular culture and a strong sub-culture exists around it. I can see how the relationships between items might not makes sense to everyone but I assure you that they do to me and many many others. Perhaps the article could do better at explaining this, but after all these are artistic relationships so the best way to understand them is to see specific examples of how artists have used the symbol. As with all art it isn't going to make sense to everyone and that is fine. Personally, it has been a good exercise that this has been flagged for deletion because it has challenged me to think about why I find the symbol so compelling, and the list of references in this article so very interesting and useful. 20 August 2007

Could you please post some links that discuss the "giant squid sub-culture"? Because I can't say as I'm too familiar with it. Otto4711 21:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. From my experience is it a strange mix of people who are fascinated by the biology on the one hand and on the other identify with the pop culture. These people also tend to be into They Might Be Giants if that helps. This page on Laughing Squid is a good example. It includes both links to experts in squid biology such as Steve O'Shea, as well as all kinds of pop culture references. I can't explain to you why these fit so well together in my mind, but they do. That's culture for you! Wicklonious 20 August 2007

So then, nothing other than a blog. No actual reliable sources attesting to this supposed sub-culture. Otto4711 23:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would you consider to be a "reliable source"? I looks like more than a blog to me, but what do I know. Here's another one showing the community/sub-culture around squid. It is the Octopus News Magazine Online and also covers the range from biology to how cephalopos impact popular culture. Here's the culture forum. Maybe the problem here is that the Wikipedia artical needs to edited to better explain the impact of squid on culture. That doesn't mean it should be killed. Wicklonious 21 August 2007
Independnt of the sub-culture the basic point is that squid are a symbol that have been used by artists in various ways. Wicklonious 21 August 2007

So to bolster the blog you post a fansite. Please read WP:RS. These links you're providing do not meet that guideline and your argument here amounts to people like squid. Otto4711 21:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources Please see [15] I'll be adding a few , but for the moment let me just quote from Google Scholar "

Kaleidoscopic Nuclear Images of the Fifties MJ Strada - The Journal of Popular Culture, 1986 - Blackwell Synergy... 188 Journal of Popular Culture ... In It Came From Beneath The Sea ( 1955), an irradiated giant squid-turned-carnivore terrorizes San Francisco, ripping apart the ... I think that shows that 1/ the general subject is considered notable and 2/at least some individual items are discussed in RSs. I assume you will now withdraw the AfD. I really dont know what more you could ask for. DGG (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm not going to withdraw the AFD on the basis of the existence of a few articles that happen to have both "giant squid" and "popular culture" in them. I can pick any two phrases and plug them into Google and I'll get some hits. "Hitler" and "Pop-Tarts". "Bungee jumping" and "wonder woman". "hard boiled eggs" and "nuclear war". None of this and none of your so-called sources refute the basic premise of this nomination, which is that ther mere presence of a giant squid in something does not mean that the thing has any relation to anything else with a giant squid in it. You make this same mistake over and over and over again. "Existence" does not equal "relationship" and "stuff has squid in it" does not equal "squid in culture." Otto4711 22:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, considering that It Came from Beneath the Sea features an octopus and not a squid, I'd have to say that a "source" that can't get that basic fact right has some issues. Otto4711 23:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a few sight-unseen sources do not suffice. --Eyrian 22:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Go read them. i did since yesterday. Even on a preliminary look, I note I did not include them merely on the supposition that the title was significant, but looked for quotes where the actual sentence liked them both in a substantial way. I'll be adding some other things from these articles, since they seem useful. Its a fairly frequently held journal. I do not know what you expect, even when the articles are presented you won't use them. And then you say the source has the facts wrong, and it might, so if there are other sources, just add them and improve the article further. We don't have to show that scholarly sources are right -- we just show that the subject is discussed in major journals. If the scholars discuss this and get it wrong, it's still notable. The standards you use are much too erudite to be useful at wikipedia. DGG (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Kraken in popular culture. Artw 22:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect. Another extremely poorly-named article. Should have been "Giant squids in popular culture" or something on those lines if it should exist at all. In any case the Giant Squid, which does not go around wrecking pirate ships and such, but might attack a whale for food, is covered well in that article. The Kraken is the legendary monster that grabs hold of sailing ships and drags them under, as seen in the Pirates of the Carribean films and elsewhere. While the two may be similar-looking and real sightings of the one may have led to the mythology of the other, they are very distinct in terms of the "popular culture". The current article confuses the two, by showing a real Giant Squid carcass preserved at a museum, and then images of Krakens attacking ships. Clearly improper. Merge: any "useful" information in the article can be merged either to Giant Squid or Kraken or Kraken in popular culture (with cross-referencing links between them), and then redirect this fell beast to the latter. Then there is Gigantic octopus which is apparently a hypothetical creature yet to be discovered... --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 18:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a good argument for redoing the group. I agree they should be redone and possibly rewritten. I don;t see though why you want to merge to Kraken when you agree they aren't Kraken. Obviously a good question to be discussed on the talk pages. Personally, I think the best solution is a merged Squid and Kraken in popular culture. Maybe Octopii as well, per Otto's information. DGG (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My point was there is really no such thing as a "Giant Squid in popular culture", by definition. If a thing is attacking yer fleet o' pirate ships, or ye olde ocean-going exploration vessels of the middle ages, or any other ships on the seven seas, or Hollywood actors named Johnny Depp or Orlando Bloom under the thumping orders of one Davey Jones, and dragging them assunder or whatever, then it is, by definition, a Kraken, and the reader should be referred to Kraken in popular culture. Any useful information in this article that is not already resident elsewhere should be merged into one or more of the other related articles in the group. Again, this article should not, in theory, exist at all; but on the outside chance someone goes looking for it (or it is improperly mentioned and linked in other articles such as the Pirates of the Carribbean movies), then such intrepid voyagers should be gently sent (redirected) to the proper place(s). --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 03:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Harlowraman 20:57, 23 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. Walton^One 15:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Movement (Ireland)[edit]

No content whatsoever a few links that is all this article contains BigDunc 15:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but this needs sourcing for the claims and attribution of the notability of the phrase. --Dhartung | Talk 16:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced and seems a somewhat arbitrary assignment of organisations excluding Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil for a start Kernel Saunters 16:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. --Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totaly unsourced.--padraig 19:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced --Domer48 22:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - source, add and improve. WP:FIXIT. --Vintagekits 22:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The IRA (of any hue) is the military wing of the Republican Movement; Sinn Féin (or RSF or 32SC) is the political wing. This article is central to the relationship between these organisations. Expand and source. Scolaire 15:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have done some editing, added sources and replaced the "NPOV" and "not verified" tags with an "expand" tag. Scolaire 22:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- Bduke 01:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unless there is already another umbrella article dealing with all the Republican organisations, this article is needed. If it is a bad article, it should be improved, not deleted. Peterkingiron 16:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- This is the only article that lists the completely different organisations within the one movement. Conypiece 20:39, 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 07:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best Worst Movie[edit]

Apparently unfinished documentary film; no sources showing notability. NawlinWiki 15:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reviews, etc are found. I came up empty Corpx 16:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article provideds very little information and is poorly written (uncompleted parenthesis prhrase). I can't see how two sentences can sum up a movie. TheInfinityZero 16:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made some quick improvements, so I say keep if additional improvements can be made and references added. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The phrasing "The documentary will chronicle …" suggests that this film doesn't exist yet, and that's also what a Google search indicates. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Deor 18:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, unverifiable, speculation, provides little information. Mel sa ran 15:15, 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. WP:SNOWBALL. Hemlock Martinis 06:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of books by title: 0-9[edit]

AfDs for this article:

An attempt to maintain a list of all books with Wikipedia articles (over even more?) must obviously fail. If the list has any useful purpose, say for navigation, this would better be served by a category. On the other hand, if I know the title of a book, why not type it into the search bar?

I also nominate the other parts of this 27-page list:

List of books by title: A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of books by title: B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of books by title: C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of books by title: D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of books by title: E (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of books by title: F (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of books by title: G (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of books by title: H (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of books by title: I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of books by title: J (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of books by title: K (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of books by title: L (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of books by title: M (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of books by title: N (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of books by title: O (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of books by title: P (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of books by title: Q (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of books by title: R (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of books by title: S (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of books by title: T (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):
List of books by title: U (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of books by title: V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of books by title: W (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of books by title: X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of books by title: Y (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of books by title: Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: The previous nomination was procedurally closed because of joint nomination with other topics.
See also precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese books by title, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Brazilian books by title

--B. Wolterding 14:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - This is a category masquerading as an article. The books on this list share no connection whatsoever with each other than that their titles begin with the same letter. The list is horribly unmaintainable and will never, ever be comprehensive. Wikipedia is not a directory, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and Wikipedia is not a place for lists of loosely-associated topics. Delete all of these NOW! --Hnsampat 14:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per WP:NOT#DIR, which specifically prohibits "Lists of ... loosely associated topics." And I agree with nom that these lists attempt to serve a purpose much better handled by categories. -- Satori Son 15:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All This isn't the Library of Congress card catalog. This is why we have categories, but there really shouldn't even be categories for the alphabetical entries. Acroterion _(talk) 15:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, this is a textbook case of what categories are for, not articles. Any attempt to catalogue every book, Wikipedia article or otherwise, is doomed to failure as this list is inherently unmaintainable. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot. I've racked my brains bu there is no way I can see that these serves a purpose, plus the maintenance element. Pedro | Chat 15:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - WP is not a book index and listing every book ever published seems trivial and is a list of loosely associated topics Corpx 16:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ALL, per WP:NOT#DIR. This is what categories are for! Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - THis article appears as Listcruft to me. In addition, it appears a huge hassel to attempt to maintain and keep updated. TheInfinityZero 16:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. This is an loose list. Difficult to maintain with any degree of accuracy and the articles would become enormous (they're already really big). These articles also fall under a collection of internal links. Useight 18:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete all As mentioned above, WP is not a list/catalog/index/etc. It was well-intentioned, but it too difficult to maintain, and unnecessary. A Category page would be better for this, but even that would be difficult to maintain as well.
Delete all Wikipedia is not a card catalog. This list is impossible to maintain. Comments for many others above are relevant. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 19:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ALL Dude, there are millions of books that have been created...all the lists cover only a fraction of it. It is simply unmaintainable.--PrestonH 20:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per WP:NOT#DIR ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Ugh. Wasted Time R 21:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Unmaintainable, hopelessly incomplete.Man It's So Loud In Here 22:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Move to Meta or Categories. I created all these pages (and added the first several hundred titles) four years ago when there was no finding aid to serve the purpose. This was before there were Categories to give users a sense of how many articles about books are in the WP database. This was before there was an alphabetical index of the articles in WP so that people who don't know how to spell the title correctly can browse to see if an article already exists. This was before Wikipedia: Notability (books) was written to explain that this was never intended to list every book written, only those notable enough for an article. I agree that they're not appropriate articles for the main namespace any more, but please move them to Meta, or a subpage of Wikiproject:Books, so that the members of Wikiproject:Books can work on assigning all the articles on this useful checklist to Categories. Thanks. GUllman 22:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, the list may have had a good purpose 4 years ago. But with Wikipedia having expanded at an enormous rate, it's about time to remove it, since it has become unmaintainable. You can of course have it moved to your user space (and then move it to anywhere you think it's reasonable). --B. Wolterding 15:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can already see the writing on the wall, and have started moving all the pages to a subpage of Wikiproject Books before the vote is final. In fact, all of the literary lists can have a home there until they have been sorted into categories. Problem is, the hierarchy of the current categories stills need to be better organized. GUllman 17:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. JPG-GR 01:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, far too generic and would be much better maintained through categorization. Yamaguchi先生 04:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmaintainable list(s). feydey 15:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all easier to use categories, I would think. Ealdgyth | Talk 17:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, unmaintainable lists. --musicpvm 04:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Categorization may be done if desired. Singu larity 06:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of multiplayer video games[edit]

Listcruft, pure and simple. From the article: "In general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article. It is very appropriate for the article on Zoology to include a list of important zoologists within it, and for the article on the fictional series character Rick Brant to include a list of the Rick Brant books." Note, however, that this is just a list of multiplayer video games, which cannot optimally include all multiplayer games (essentially every video game today has a multiplayer component. In addition, the list provides no expansion or critical commentary: every one of these game's articles could and should note the multiplayer aspect. Delete, and if desired, categorize into Category:Multiplayer games or something like that. David Fuchs^(talk) 14:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I hope that you don't mind, but I fixed your nomination statement; it was placing this AfD discussion into the category, rather than linking to it. — TKD::Talk 14:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way too loose of an inclusion criteria, thus resulting in a list of loosely associated items. Also think this should be replaced with a category, so we can weed out the not so notable ones Corpx 16:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOT#INFO, could be served by a category, however. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize and delete. I agree that this attribute isn't conducive to a manageable list. Aside from that, there's not really a whole lot of useful annotation that makes a list preferred to a category: Most useful text belongs in either multiplayer game, a general article about a specific genre of multiplayer games, or individual game articles. — TKD::Talk 16:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Listcruft. That list seems useless and difficult to maintain. TheInfinityZero 16:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an indiscriminate collection of information, not to mention a loosely-associated list and a collection of internal links. This list is impossible to maintain, especially with PC games being on the list. A category would be much better. Useight 18:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruft. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unmaintainable. Man It's So Loud In Here 22:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete would be easier to maintain as categories, I would think. Ealdgyth | Talk 17:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Frank[edit]

Of the thousands of professors in the US, no reason given why this one is notable. SolidPlaid 14:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF. This person, based on the article is not regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources. He has also not published a significant and well-known academic work as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per, Siva1979. Jauerback 14:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has published three books through Princeton Univ. Press; Guggenheim Fellow in 1995. NawlinWiki 15:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are dozens and dozens of these Guggenheim Fellowships awarded every year. Are the books for the lay market? SolidPlaid 17:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why on earth would this be relevant? if they were semi-techincal would it make him less notable, or more? DGG (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above and [16]. Subject has had academic papers published in leading journals in his field.--Sethacus 15:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article expanded. Could be more detailed, but should be enough to establish notability. Delete Unless the article is going to be expanded to establish notability, I think it fails WP:N and WP:PROF. bfigura ^(talk) 20:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep Per authorship and professorship. Pedro | Chat 15:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:PROF. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:PROF. 105 scientific publications, including 3 books from Princeton University press. Full professor at respected university. Guggenheim Fellowship. Far more productive as a scientist and scholar than the average college professor. Edison 19:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - None of this alleged notability appears on the page. If no citations appear in a few days, let's delete it. SolidPlaid 19:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Added the books and awards to the page, along with a citation to a review of his first book in Nature (journal). NawlinWiki 20:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if Edison is right then he easily meets our notability standards. — brighterorange (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite to establish notability/ ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article now asserts notability and has some references to demonstrate this. Ante lan ^talk 21:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Bduke 01:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Full professor; over 75 publications on Medline for SA Frank, some in high-impact general journals such as Nature & PNAS, others in high-quality specialist journals, including several recent reviews in high-quality journals eg Nature Reviews Genetics; also three books from a high-quality university press. Google Scholar reveals high citations of several of his papers, eg 366 citations for [17], 318 for his book Foundations of Social Evolution. Seems easily to meet my interpretation of WP:PROF. Espresso Addict 02:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons cited by Edison, this subject meets and exceeds the WP:PROF guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 04:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and WP:PROF. Bearian 19:06, 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 both. Singu larity 06:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camp PALS[edit]

I believe this article fails to assert notability (according to criteria set by Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)) of its subject, a non-profit 1-week summer camp held at Cabrini College in Radnor every year, by citing sufficient independent sources which cover the subject in depth, mainly relying on media blogs. It appears to serve mainly as a brochure for the camp, and is edited primarily by user accounts which bear names of people who are involved in running the camp. Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 13:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it merely serves as an adjunct to the above, and again fails to justify notability:

Delete both - There are thousands of summer camps in the US, this one happens to be for trisomy 21 afflicted children. We should not be moved by sympathy for their parents and allow this advertisement to remain on Wikipedia. 75.184.84.89 13:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty clearly spammy and written by a WP:COI account. If the activity is notable (and the article doesn't suggest such) then it deserves a better article than this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Wikipedia is not a webhost for non-profit brochures. (Why do these articles always have to have the mission statement? The mission statement assists the NPO board and staff in providing focus. It is not of general interest.) --Dhartung | Talk 16:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both, fails WP:N, WP:RS, WP:COI and WP:SPAM. The page looks like a brochure, complete with pictures, used to promote the camp. Also, the Notability section is an obvious attempt to keep the article. Notability comes from sources, not your explanation. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, notability/spam/reliable sources/conflict of interest. I think PALS meets criterion A7 and can be speedy deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - there are hundreds of camps like this in the US and world, also article is spammed. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Nenyedi said it. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:43, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning[edit]

Listcruft, fails WP:V and WP:RS. Unmaintainable list because of the number of (non-notable) people to die that way Tomj 13:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article asserts that it is a list of notable people who have died of carbon monoxide poisoning, but that being said, unless the people are notable for dying of carbon monoxide poisoning then the list is trivial, and does not conceivably organize the information in any practical way. Calgary 13:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could be a fine category. 75.184.84.89 13:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, although I don't even see this being a valid category. Again, unless someone is notable for dying of CO poisoning, there's no need for either a list or a category. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Best suited as a category. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - no need to categorize deaths by method (?). I'd also think a category would work Corpx 16:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Corpx that categorizing deaths by method is unnecessary (other than for people who have a fixation on death). I'd add that most of these would be suicides, though not all, and I think an article categorizing a particular type of suicide is not something to encourage. Granted, this is not a how-to, but I'd prefer that people aspire to be like John Kennedy O'Toole for A Confederacy of Dunces, rather than because he killed himself. By the way, what's the Roman Emperor Jovian doing on the list? Did they ancient Romans do a convex glass autopsy, or did they find him in his chariot with the horses still running? Mandsford 17:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting, but unmaintainable. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is also not always crystal clear (Zurab Zhvania). Pavel Vozenilek 20:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmaintainable list. Man It's So Loud In Here 22:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is far too common cause of death (frequently suicide) for a list to be valuable. Peterkingiron 15:55, 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 06:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehuty[edit]

Delete - expired prod removed by anon with no explanation. This fictional weapon has no real-world notability and no reliable sources to attest to said notability. The article is also very plot-heavy, raising WP:PLOT concerns. Otto4711 12:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wow, that's a lot of information about a mech in a two-game series. I believe we recently deleted a lot of Gundam mechs - this doesn't seem to be even close to the same level as Gundam, so this looks to be too in-depth - plus, it's unsourced and may be original research. A mention on the game's page would be appropriate, I think. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obscure weapons in video games are usually not notable. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources can be found. Sources like those used in Anubis (Orbital frame) (also on AfD) would help to provide real-world context, but even that's not quite enough. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:49, 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 06:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Primary School[edit]

I originally prodded this article with the reason: "No evidence of notability, no references, and frankly very little substantive information at all, other than that which would be better suited to a school mission statement." The article's creator removed the prod with no reason - I'm assuming that means they contest it. Although information has been added to the article, my reason for deletion remains the same: this is a primary school, and although their aims may be very laudable, there is no evidence or assertion of notability. Additionally, the article is written in a very non-neutral point of view, and I suspect the author may have a conflict of interest (I know these are not reasons for deletion in themselves). I think previous debates have decided that primary schools are not inherently notable. kateshortforbob 12:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The school does not have any widespread recognition, no recognizeable widespread accomplishments, no notable alumni, or anything of the sort, and therefore has no established notability. Also, take note that the text comes directly from the school's website. Calgary 13:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyvio, conflict of interest, spam, POV... but most importantly, notability not established. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 14:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:N or WP:RS. Reads like an ad, and is WP:SPAM. Delete. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in lack of references Corpx 16:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam, COI. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:38, 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 06:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petar M. Mitrasinovic[edit]

This article appears to be autobiographical and references are to the author's own papers. Proposed deletion was disputed by author, which is why this is in AfD. Dr. Mitrasinovic might be a competent scientist but that does not make him notable enough for Wikipedia. Bardencj 11:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a place to post one's CV. 75.184.84.89 13:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF. Moreover, a quick google search shows up only a few hits for this scientist. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this article from reliable sources as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Subject has published scholarly articles in top journals. Article does read like a resume, though.--Sethacus 15:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. Also, with the article now being blanked several times, there may be some real WP:COI issues. --Evb-wiki 15:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, per WP:CSD#A7, no attestation of WP:N. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article This article is not autobigrphical and deserves to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stelarios (talk • contribs) — Stelarios (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Weak delete. Associate Professor with no international awards; no textbooks; Google Scholar finds around 10 articles authored by him: although several are in high-quality specialist journals, they do not appear to have been widely cited. A scientist with a PhD in 2002 would have to have achieved something special to meet WP:PROF, and I do not believe that this is the case at this time. However, this is not my subject area, and I'm willing to change my mind if anyone presents additional evidence. Espresso Addict 17:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF clearly Harlowraman 03:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 14:41, 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 06:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galactica: Anno Dominari[edit]

Apparently not speediable under A7, but this doesn't assert notability, only Ghits are download sites, created by an "independent game developer" without an article. Mel sa ran 11:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Game is not reviewed anywhere. 75.184.84.89 13:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS, and possibly WP:SPAM. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:35, 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. — Scientizzle 20:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine (Madonna song)[edit]

This page should not have been deleted as it is part of Madonna's singles discography and was released as a charity download! It is a single and should never have been deleted.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwad (talk • contribs) 20:52, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Non-notable Madonna single. Obviously the song "Imagine" is notable, but Madonna's interpretation (a live recording only released through Sony's online music store) fails WP:MUSIC. Any information here that's worth saving belongs in the original track's article, not here. fuzzy510 08:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a frickin' cover of Lennon's song. 75.184.84.89 13:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge a few sentences of the most important content to either Imagine (song)#Cover interpretations or Imagine (song), as it is quite common for covers of famous songs to be listed within the article of the original song. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 14:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - merge to Imagine_(song)#Live_cover_interpretations, this version does not warrent it's own article. Irishjp 15:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator, and fails WP:MUSIC. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just went and checked, and there is a reference to this version already listed at Imagine (song)#Live cover interpretations. Merging, therefore, would be unnecessary. --fuzzy510 17:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN cover. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Man It's So Loud In Here 22:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed with nominator, fails WP:MUSIC. Carlosguitar 00:56, 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 03:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tracked Triangular Wheel[edit]

A new vehicle locomotion mechanism written up by one of its designers. Pure original research. No references because no-one has referred to it yet. See the author's website for more pictures. (I do note that the author completely re-wrote the article after a prod. Unfortunately the problem is the subject not the quality of the article.) -- RHaworth 08:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the face of it this is a non-starter without references, paper or otherwise. It might be something one day but right now, as it stands this article is promo material and not much more. Dick G 08:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't know if it's OR but it's certainly unsourced and unverifiable. Thin Arthur 11:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have several different complaints about this article. It seems to be OR. There are no references from secondary sources to this material. There is no historical information about this kind of device, which I do not believe was invented by the gentleman described in the article. Therefore, I believe this article is an example of bad scholarship as well. This article appears to be a vehicle for self-promotion of some idea that is hoped to have commercial potential, which is contrary to some Wikipedia principles and rules. Therefore, delete this thing. If a much much longer scholarly article that included this material with many more historical details, and about 30 or more references, was written, then it might be suitable. But as it stands, it is NOT appropriate for Wikipedia.--Filll 15:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:35, 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 06:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creation and the Roman Catholic Church[edit]

Needless POV fork from Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church. Material here is already covered in that article, this one seems to exist solely to emphasise the ambiguity in the churches current support for theistic evolution. ornis (t) 08:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. Onnaghar ^{tl | co | @} 11:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge; no need for ~~two~~ articles. Kablammo 12:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now three articles. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Theistic_evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church. Kablammo 23:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This fork is just a mess. I fear that it will never make sense, since it confuses at least three separate different ideas, creation (origin beliefs), creationism (creatianism) and creationism (anti-evolution). This sort of disorganized forking without community consensus just leads to complete chaos.--Filll 12:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The Catholic Church has nothing much to say about the topic, so how can we? This information, barely worth a couple of sentences, is covered in other articles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, maybe even per WP:CSD#G1, because the page makes no sense. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OrangeMarlin. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another POV fork. I suppose, given their propensity for creating fork, no one can accuse the creationists of coming from a tree that doesn't fork much. Jim62sch 21:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should stay within the parent article Ealdgyth | Talk 17:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect both articles aren't needed, so this should redirect to the other one.--Sefringle^Talk 04:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I don't know about that, currently nothing outside of afds and the talk page of the parent article links here, and they don't seem like terribly likely search terms. ornis (t) 04:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 04:08, 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 06:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kom Do Kwan[edit]

This appears to be a single school not very long established (maybe with a branch). Very few ghits. The references given seem to be about TKD in general than this school which I find a bit disingenious. I call WP:NN and advertisment.Peter Rehse 07:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 07:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per advert. Onnaghar ^{tl | co | @} 11:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed this appears to be a single school system, thus not notable. IMHO, when martial arts systems exceed 100+ schools they start to become notable... this one is a long ways away from that goal.Balloonman 15:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:SPAM. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:33, 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 06:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sara macdonald[edit]

Contested prod (no reason given). Biography of a non-notable person. She's the girlfriend of Noel Gallagher of Oasis (band), but notability is not transferable. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNo assertion of notability on her own. i ^said 06:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Entire article is about her and her husband pretty much. -Icewedge 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This met A7 criteria minutes ago, and I don't see that changing any time soon. ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about when she becomes the mother of Noel Gallagher's child? No? Never mind ;) Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 07:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like more of a Closer article rather than an encyclopedic one. Onnaghar ^{tl | co | @} 11:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NN. Fails WP:BIO. No WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 12:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, notability is not transferable. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Notability is not one of the things that transfers through the naughty bits. --Dhartung | Talk 16:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not even convinced there's enough to be said about her to redirect her to Gallagher's article. Fails WP:BIO, sources not reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Notabilty is not transferred. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Generally speaking, notability is not inherited by being intimate with another notable individual and this is no exception. Yamaguchi先生 04:36, 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 06:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eco-evolution[edit]

fails WP:NEO. RucasHost 05:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Onnaghar ^{tl | co | @} 11:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its a neologism Sasha Callahan 12:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Twelve leverage points, the article discussing her paper where she coined the term. Or, redirect to the notable creator, Donella Meadows. I wouldn't merge any information, as it's not sourced. There are a number of google hits for 'eco-evolution', so I'm open to some sourced information that this is a notable enough neologism to warrant its own article, if someone can dig up reliable sources. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 14:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOT#DICT, and WP:NEO. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The term is not used in academia. SolidPlaid 17:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:32, 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 04:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paludis[edit]

This software has no use in being in Wikipedia at this time. It is unfinished software and used by a very small section of the community (mostly developers). There are other portage replacements and add-ons that are not in Wikipedia. The article is an attempt to try and gain publicity. Cokehabit 09:16, 3 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}}.

Keep - Paludis is a very relevant topic for the Linux, and more specifically, Gentoo community. And I can't see how the Paludis article fits into any of these categories. Also, the fact that there are other portage replacements and add-ons that are not in Wikipedia is not a valid justification to not have the Paludis article. dave 19:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If you're upset the others aren't in Wikipedia then add them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.34.129.204 (talk • contribs).

~~— 74.34.129.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Carlossuarez46 18:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)~~This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Seems fine to me. As mentioned it is definitly has a major role in the gentoo community, especially since its inspired the PMS, which is going to define ebuilds so different package managers can use them. Also if its unfinished, at most a tag should be placed on it. Most software (especially in OSS) is never finished, for example WINE : but that doesnt mean it shouldnt have an article. Thothonegan 01:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Not noteworthy enough yet to qualify for a wikipedia article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.200.93.67 (talk • contribs).

~~— 68.200.93.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Carlossuarez46 18:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)~~ This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - This deletion request is more a stealthy personal attack than an objective opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.205.26.21 (talk • contribs).

~~— 72.205.26.21 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Carlossuarez46 18:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)~~This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Paludis is an actively developed open source software project. There is no particular reason for it not to be included in WP, and none of the arguments presented are in the least convincing. Djiann 01:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Paludis is completely relevant. Moreover, the user who proposed it for deletion is doing so to make a statement outside of the Wikipedia community (in particular, the Gentoo community, or even more particularly, a point for the subset of the Gentoo community which outright hates ciaranm). As such, I recommend that all people participating in this debate keep that fact in mind, and keep Wikipedia's interests first over personal interests in an external project's politics. --nenolod (talk) (edits) 10:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is very revealing to me... with all of the redlinks here, it would not surprise me if we have an outside source sending people here to vote on this subject.Balloonman 06:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is very relevant to Gentoo and deserves to be in Wikipedia. I see no good reasons to get the article deleted. All indicates that this request is only about personal issues, not about the article itself. 1. No software is ever "finished". That is totally bogus argument. 2. Paludis already has a strong and growing userbase consisting both normal users and developers - users are mostly non-developers. This can be seen easily by reading Paludis support threads at http://forums.gentoo.org. They all are very active. 3. Cokehabit is free to add articles about other package managers if he so desires. 4. Any article on Wikipedia can be seen as "an attempt to gain publicity". There is nothing special in Paludis article in this regard. Someone mentioned quality: I agree, we can always try to improve the quality of this and other articles. This article is definitely a keeper. Paapaa125 10:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 18:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looks to me like we have a case where folks don't know to read the notability standards but instead are relying on us believing their personal words. Sorry folks, but the key to avoiding deletion is to use third-party reliable sources providing coverage of this software. The nominator really should have made this clear, but oh well. FrozenPurpleCube 18:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless independent references can be shown. There's a lot of red ink on here voting to keep. Please show us some sourcing for this claimed relevancy. Cap'n Walker 19:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Independent reference - Here is one independent article on Paludis in LWN.net: http://lwn.net/Articles/240399/ I'll try to find more if needed. Paapaa125 20:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More are going to be needed, as LWN is a single website, and not quite on the top end of reliable sources. In addition, I can't find any real biography of Donnie Berkholz who wrote the page, but I do see he's a Gentoo developer. That might lead to a COI problem. I suggest you keep looking. FrozenPurpleCube 23:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the link posted. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that more sources exist. Also think this could be construed as being something that'd appear in a "specialized encyclopedia" (WP:5) Corpx 06:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say keep for now, though the article has some problems which edge it towards promotion of its subject ("See the Paludis website for a more complete list"). It needs more in the way of sources demonstrating notability. — BillC ^talk 13:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article deletion is motivated only from personal reasons. I would advise readers to look at the history of this article, see here. Though the deletion proposal was submitted anonymously from the IP address 81.79.237.61, this blog post clears things up a bit. Killsound 01:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - This article (in it's current form) is bias, incomplete, and spamish. Wikipedia isn't about Gentoo politics, it's about providing useful information to the majority, so either update the article to confirm to wikipedia guidelines or retract it. --Aidanjt 20:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - content doesn't have to be useful to the majority, there's a great deal of stuff on wikipedia which is of no use whatsoever to most people. The point is that the subject of an article needs to be notable, the information veriable, NPOV, and not original research. I make no comment as to whether that is true or not for this subject and article. SamBC(talk) 16:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you couldn't base your package management research on it, and that's basically what I mean. --Aidanjt 14:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Until it has widespread use then the notability will always be in question. As a young project it should be worth waiting until the time that it's inclusion benefits wikipedia. Cokehabit 20:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment how widespread the use is is irrelevant in itself. Notability is determined through coverage in reliable (third-party) sources. SamBC(talk) 14:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Update Right now the article only seems to be a list of features of paludis over regular portage. Nothing wrong with that, but it makes the article in question look like nothing more than cheap advertising for the project. At the very least someone should add information to the article about other portage replacements and the motivation behind creating something like this in the first place, that is to say, put actual content in the article. Jyujin 21:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep and Update~~ I agree that the quality of the article is very low and as such it is not worth much. The article should objectively try to tell about the major differences between Portage and Paludis - features, performance, usage and design. Also the PMS (Package Manager Specification) is very relevant to this issue as it is the thing that makes it possible for Gentoo to have multiple package managers.Paapaa125 07:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that there have been updates I've expanded the article somewhat and reworded to address much of the above criticism. I'd also like to point out that the criticism coming from Cokehabit and his sockpuppet User:81.79.237.61 should be taken with a large pinch of salt, given his previous attacks on Paludis. Trollup 16:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)This Keep !vote was struck through by administrator hu12 has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I would like to point out that Trollup only registered today (14 August) Cokehabit 20:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone finds evidence of notability from reliable sources. Gentoo pages aren't, and LWN doesn't appear to be. Is there any actual media coverage of this? The tech media tends to find and write about such things if they're worth it - even in print, like Linux Journal or Linux Format or similar. SamBC(talk) 14:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—the abundance of redlink usernames and IPs is extremely concerning. — Deckill er 20:20, 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. The abundance of redlink usernames and IPs which have made few or no other edits outside this topic is extremely concerning Hu12 05:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment.The abundance of redlink usernames and IPs which have made few or no other edits outside this topic is extremely concerning --Hu12 05:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the notability of this package manager is made apparent using reliable and independent sources. (The nomination is poorly argued. Neither being unfinished nor having a small audience are criteria for deletion, and the presence or absence of other topics has no bearing on a particular topic's fit within the guidelines. Finally, whether or not the article is an attempt at publicity (By whom?, it must meet notability requirements, in particular those for software. In the future please make a deletion argument based in a policy or guideline of Wikipedia.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page is pure spam with no reliable independent sources.Balloonman 06:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no assertions of notability. It's written like an advertisement at any rate. i ^said 06:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Onnaghar ^{tl | co | @} 11:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply per WP:N and the reasoning of Dhartung.Pedro | Chat 12:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N and reads like WP:SPAM. Jauerback 14:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, and the lack of outside coverage on the subject. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SamBC hit the nail on the head: there are not independent, reliable sources discussing this product. Without them, notability cannot be demonstrated. —C.Fred (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If LWN.net alone doesn't qualify (as seems to be the case), then I agree, the notability at this point can't be demonstrated sufficiently. I couldn't find any other proper references, so in this case I agree with the (latest) majority. The funny thing is that the original nomination didn't have a single valid reason for getting the article deleted. Wikipedia needs a "Nomination for deletion" feature :-) Paapaa125 17:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The LWN source gives only slightly more than cursory coverage to the subject. Suggests that notability may be possible to demonstrate in the future, but not seeing any other non-blog secondary sources outside of the Gentoo project. MrZaius^talk 20:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If LWN and Gentoo Weekly News (note that this is not a Gentoo project under discussion, so GWN is an external source) aren't sufficient to establish notability then there are an awful lot of articles that need to be deleted. ATrollope 21:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LWN would be adequate in the company of other notable third party sources. Calling Gentoo Weekly News a secondary source is stretching things, however. Give me LWN + Linux Journal or something of the sort, and I magically switch to Keep. MrZaius^talk 13:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That goes for me, also. The subject seems to be one "major" tech news source away from notability, IMO. SamBC(talk) 15:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet it's one "major" tech news source better than most other articles in the Gentoo category... ATrollope 19:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally considered a bad argument. Other articles that are poorly supported should probably have sources added (where possible), or otherwise be considered for deletion. SamBC(talk) 20:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs better sources to be kept. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The software is not well know enough to be included in an encyclopedia. The article is only being used as an advertising tool. BalanceRestored 09:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep — sources added, as well. --Haemo 02:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Makers[edit]

Notability, Advertising. Also Conflict of Interest due to article was created and heavily edited by Heritagemakers and multiple single-purpose users who may be resellers. Clubjuggle 05:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that, while Clubjuggle has had an account since 2004, s/he has had less than 80 edits in that time. About 1/3 of them have been AfD related. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we be debating the nomination on its merits? I'm not personally invested in this at all. If the community consensus is that this article is encyclopedic, I'm fine with that. We need to determine that on the basis of the article, though. I don't believe ad hominem arguments are useful here. --Clubjuggle 07:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's common practice to point out accounts with low edits participating in AfD discussions. The closing admin is welcome to ignore the information, but pointing it out happens very frequently in these discussions. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as company is small, but meets WP:CORP regardless of any COI of some of the editors. The article is remarkably free of POV for being as extensively edited by possible COI accounts. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Nihonjoe. This is cited fairly well, but the external links is kind of spammish though. --H irohisat ^Talk 06:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I disagree with the above. This is just another little company that is not notable. The article reads like a solicitation to get more members.Balloonman 06:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's well sourced by reliable sources and relatively NPOV. Can be cleaned up a bit but that's not a reason to delete. Thin Arthur
Keep, doesn't read like an ad, and passes WP:CORP. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite Notable, but an ad. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In looking at the article the only reliable, nontrivial secondary source I saw was this Herald Extra article. The rest appeared to be press releases or the company's own site. Is a single reliable source really all that is necessary to establish notability, or are there other sources I'm missing? I'm not criticizing, just seeking a better understanding of the process. --Clubjuggle 20:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I just added four more general refs which should push this article solidly over the minimum for reliable sources which can be verified, thereby firmly establishing notability. This article absolutely meets WP:CORP with the new refs. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Fair enough, and thanks for that. Is there a procedure for withdrawing an AfD nomination? --Clubjuggle 11:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can post that here, and then ask on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion for someone to come close it early as long as no one else objects. You can also just let the discussion wait until five days have passed, and then someone will likely happen along and close it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:48, 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. The article can be created again when the company becomes notable. Singu larity 01:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blazing Lizard[edit]

Contested speedy deletion (as spam), I don't think it qualifies there, but I also don't think it's a notable company at this point. CitiCat^♫ 05:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Not notable at the moment. --H irohisat ^Talk 06:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again a non-notable little company that hasn't proven itself.Balloonman 06:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are some google results, but they look to be mostly press releases. Possibly once they release a game notability will be established. --Chuck Sirloin 12:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, four-month-old company that hasn't actually released a game yet. NawlinWiki 15:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:N, more specifically WP:CORP. Even though it is contested, it would still consider speedy deleting it, per WP:CSD#G11. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It won't be notable until it releases a game. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a developer started by three veteran employees of established developer Volition, Inc., and its first game's (Pirates vs Ninjas Dodgeball) page on Gamespot indicates that Microsoft is publishing it. I feel the game itself also has some cultural significance, though I'm sure you'll disagree. --RoadDoggFL 02:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is an up and coming company that will soon have more notariety it has alredy recieved press interest from big gaming magazines and the article will simply be created again in the futre when the game is released.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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^♫ 14:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ernies[edit]

Notability concerns are addressed on the talk page. As I feel it has shaky grounds for notability, I want to see if it'll survive AfD before I do any more work on it. For the record, my vote is Keep, citing WP:IAR and the laundry list of "almost" meets.. but I'll accept whatever the community decides. spazure (contribs) 05:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also User:Spazure/Current_Sandbox_Project for more notability sources (and a very ugly, incomplete sandbox version of the article in no way meant for the "real" article yet). spazure (contribs) 05:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you are selling yourself and the article short. I would recommend withdrawing the nom and finishing the article. I think there is enough there to make a case for keeping it, but it is neither fair to you or your article to judge it now.Balloonman 06:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the notability of the article won't change by me finishing writing it -- all the sources I could locate are already in one of the versions or the other. My biggest concern is I keep avoiding doing more work on it because I'm afraid somebody's going to turn around and delete it.. as it'll end up with more work (in terms of hours) put into it than anything else I've contributed to, but if the sources aren't good enough -- then I'd just be working past my writer's block to ultimately, no gain for myself or the community. Sure, I'd love for it to be kept, but if it's going to be deleted -- I'd rather it go now than unexpectedly later after I put several more hours (and better paragraph organization, etc) into it. spazure (contribs) 07:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think you are doing yourself and the article a disservice to bring it here. It might not be a clear cut case, but there is definitely a strong argument that can be made for keeping this. Withdraw this nom and make the argument in the prose of the article. Can I promise you that it won't be nominated at some future point? No. Spend the time and energy that you would be spending here defending the article on writing it.Balloonman 08:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason to close it is because even if it passes this "AFD" there is no guarantee that it won't be nominated and deleted later. The key is to establish notability within the article and make it such that people go "Yes, they have notability."Balloonman 06:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC, they have released two indie albums.Nen yedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, passes WP:MUSIC by means of several reliable sources if nothing else. I would also recommend closing this discussion, seeing as the nom himself has even voted keep. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - especially if the nom gets the sandbox version into the main article sometime soon. Lots of good refs, and the movie and video game song use would give it a pretty good nudge above the notability level for me. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per TPH. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I'm mostly playing devil's advocate, but I don't really think this band meets WP:MUSIC. They released three albums on minor labels, but only one seems to be a notable minor label. That appears to be the strongest case for their inclusion, but I think it falls just short. Faithlessthewonderboy 01:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In all honesty, I kind of agree. But I think when we combine the major indie album plus the commercials, that a case can be made. I don't think it is clear cut---but if the article is well written (and it is starting off good) then I don't think it'll have a problem. I still think the Nom is doing himself and the article a disservice by having it here.Balloonman 06:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*SUPER MEGA STRONG DELETE because nom is an idiot and should spend her time on something that matters, like trying to delete more computer programs because computers aren't notable in her eyes, lol. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.97.182.82 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 17 August 2007.Striking uncalled for personal attack, please read WP:NPA and WP:CIV▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 08:39, 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 keep. Singu larity 01:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of islands of the United States[edit]

Article is redundant. A category exists that serves the purpose of this article -- to list US islands -- and a majority of the links on this list are essentially dead. crtrue 05:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the purposes of a list such as this is to show which items still need an article. Red links can be very useful to writers. Nick mallory 06:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Nick mallory. bfigura ^(talk) 06:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Nick mallory. I got a great help from a list close to this. --H irohisat ^Talk 06:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List guidelines suggest that being a holding place for redlinks is one purpose of a list since categories cannot do that. This is a finite list (there is a USGS definition of island) and thus maintainable. --Dhartung | Talk 06:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's huge but a useful resource nonetheless and, as per above, cat pages can't do all the work Dick G 06:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was going to vote delete, but dhartung convinced me otherwiseBalloonman 06:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need lists just to hold red links. There are other venues for such things. -Icewedge 07:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What other venues? Not all islands have articles, and the category for islands will of course only list islands with articles. Per WP:OUTCOMES, islands and other geographical locations tend to be per se notable for inclusion. Wl219 08:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - even though there are red links doesn't necessarily mean to pull the plug. Onnaghar ^{tl | co | @} 11:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does a good job of organizing information that is of common interest, and is easily maintainable. The fact that there are red links is simply a justification as to why the list is not superceeded by the category: The list includes information that is of value, but does not have it's own article, and thus is not listed in a category. Calgary 13:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per reasoning W1219. Karbinski 15:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per t he reasoning given above. I dislike lists that are primarily populated with redlinks - many of which can never exist as an article above substub level - nevertheless, just because I don't like it means it should be deleted. As far as the size is concerned, the list can be broken down into smaller lists, perhaps individually by states, but that is an editorial matter and not one for AfD. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the list seems to have good coverage, and editors with information about the islands can quickly find which ones need coverage because of the red links. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the fact that most of these are red-links shows why a Category is not enough, by definition. Mandsford 17:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists are useful. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - to vote to keep as a respository of redlists is to assume the notability of each island in the US; I don't seem able to convince myself of such a notion. I suspect that 99.9% of the islands have nothing of value to offer in an article and thus to keep the article is to vote to keep a list of nonnotable, redlisted, items that serve no purpose. Maybe an alternative is to have an article that simply states the number, type, etc. types of islands in the US. That would actually be useful to readers whereas this seems to go too far into the mundane. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Verifiable, natural things, such as islands are not generally considered to be subject to WP:N. Wikipedia should aim to have information on all natural islands. This list helps in this development. Expand to cover all islands internationally. --SmokeyJoe 12:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a category is not redundant. This information is better presented in an organized list, which can include islands that do not have articles and also additional information on these islands. --musicpvm 04:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the number of red links inducates that the article is serving a useful purpose, though how many of the islands deserve articles, I am not competent to judge. In some cases, it would be useful if a few words were aded as to size and location. Perhaps it needs to be trimmed of NN islands, or to have these converted from red links to text. Peterkingiron 16:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List appears to be maintainable as well as listing islands not in the category. I would suggest keeping all the islands in the list (possibly de-linked if NN) as WP:WIAFL suggests that non-notable items can form part of lists. Suicidalhamster 21:37, 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. While the advertising could have been overcome, we still came back to an article that didn't demonstrate notability under WP:MUSIC. Speedy criterion A7 applied. —C.Fred (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Youth Orchestra[edit]

Article is about a mostly unremarkable youth orchestra and is incredibly spammy. Claim to fame pretty much rests on a local competition title and some foreign concerts, which is standard fare for an advanced youth music group. The end of the article features - a first for me, at least - an open call for auditions. fuzzy510 05:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, A7 or G11, take your pick. Spam article on non-notable group. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 05:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sounds like spam. --H irohisat ^Talk 06:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it sound like spam, and looks like spam, it spam... DeleteBalloonman 06:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. -Icewedge 07:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete miles away from WP:MUSIC, borderline speedy. Desperately attempts to connect themselves to The Beatles in the very first sentence just because they live in the same town... disgustingly pompous and ridiculous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. As per the hammer, take your picks; WP:CSD#A1, or WP:CSD#G11. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete (no new citations presented). — Scientizzle 20:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune Technology Group[edit]

Fails the corporate notability guideline, and probably the soapbox guideline as well. The only external link is to the company's website, and the page chiefly consists of information on the company's products. -- bfigura ^(talk) 04:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards Keep, but only if it can get citations.Balloonman 06:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N, and WP:CORP. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, (just to register my vote officially, if possibly redundantly). My reasons are above. bfigura ^(talk) 17:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations are found. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:27, 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 Close, article has been deleted, WP:DRV is more appropriate here. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 04:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ProjectPier[edit]

This page was initially deleted as a candidate for speedy deletion because of lack of content and lack of asserting the notability of the topic. It was then reposted with a much expanded content and with better discussion on notability. There was also a discussion on the talk page regarding the notability of the topic, and it was successfully resolved with the deletion and hold tag being removed. It was then marked for speedy deletion again, without any further discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcrossvs (talk • contribs)

No need to make an AfD then, if the article doesn't exist anymore. Take it to WP:DRV instead. I'm closing this discussion. And please sign your posts too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 04:12, 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 Delete. Walton^One 15:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references to the Rosenbergs[edit]

Most of these are non-notable mentions in TV shows and films, the few notable references could be detailed in a couple of sentences in the main article. Either way, this list can be deleted, it still exists in the edit history of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg if anyone does want to re-add anything. Crazysuit 02:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing particularly new or enlightening about the listed references to add anything to our understanidng of the Rosenbergs or the cultural impact of their trial/execution. The historical and cultural ramifications of the pair can more effectively be addressed in the main article Dick G 04:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge back because this is a list of loosely associated topics as most of these are trivial mentions Corpx 04:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge. Trivia, and a list of indiscriminate information. Resolute 04:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One of these series again? The information are all trival. --H irohisat ^Talk 06:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - directory of loosely associated topics with nothing in common past an appearance, in most instances extremely trivial, of the name "Rosenbergs." Otto4711 13:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge, or if that meets with resistance, keep. At least parts of this — the parts that refer to The Bell Jar and Angels in America — ought to be mentioned in the article in chief. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, but in either case, please add references. Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is indeed a list of cultural references, with a few books, films and poems, and a lot of wisecracks and bits of dialogue. Mandsford 17:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge notable references. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major historical event with major cultural repercussions from then until now. The usual arguments are being given, that some of the content is not worth including--an editing question. I am seriously concerned to see no let up on the attack on this sort of content. I am going to ventured a prediction: that 6 months from now all the recently deleted articles will be back, and generally accepted. If it was thought necessary to get people to improve them, I'd think it were adequately done by now--though it takes months to improve what takes 5 days to delete. Presumably they think we're too tired to continue defending them. Agreed it is very much easier to write a sentence or two repeating the same catch--phrases than to mount a reasoned and adequate defense--this is true for any article. I see the continued listings as a continuing effort to reorient Wikipedia in a much less comprehensive direction, incompatible with the basic goal of being a general encyclopedia.DGG (talk)

You forgot to sign your post, DGG, although it was obvious without looking that it was yours. Sorry if you think that Wikipedia's becoming less of a trivia dumping ground is a bad thing. Me, I see any move toward concentrating on serious content with encyclopedic value to be a positive move for the project as a whole. The less time editors spend on cramming "lookie there, somebody said 'Ethel Rosenberg' on TV" nonsense into articles under the deep misapprehension that such trivia illuminates the topic of the Rosenbergs, the more time they'll have to maybe work on something worthwhile. Otto4711 21:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Six of the 14 have the Rosenberg case as the principal plot element. Only two deal with TV at all, and yes the use in those two is trivial, as is in my opinion most TV. I don't therefore wish to eliminate coverage of TV, though I certainly wish to neither write nor read the articles. I read two of them to write this note and that is quite enough. I leave them to those interested, and I advise Otto to do likewise. DGG (talk) 01:57, 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 Merge and redirect to Northwest Airlines Flight 255. Walton^One 15:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cecelia Cichan[edit]

Non-notable except for being sole survivor of a plane crash. The last paragraph indicates that her ~~ten~~ 15 minutes of fame are up - she isn't a public figure anymore. Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Resurgent insurgent 04:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article about the crash. The fact that there was a sole survivor, a four year-old girl at that, is certainly worthy of inclusion, but not of its own article. fuzzy510 04:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - The one line mention in the plane article seems sufficient Corpx 04:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree per Fuzzy and don't you get 15 minutes of fame rather than 10? :) Either way, I think the pertinent information can easily be sectioned off in the main crash article. This stand-alone can then be deleted.Dick G 04:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Ehhh, I don't know. She got quite the media storm, judging from what Google News cares to remember; her name pops up in the news every now and then since the year 2000; and Detroit Free Press just published this yesterday, an article of which she is the subject. Ichormosquito 04:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still not sure of her notability even after reading the DFP's article. It says there has been no public appearances of her since 1988. Resurgent insurgent 05:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page clears up several things mis-reported in the media at the time, and is current on her progress thru life. Regardless, she is a public figure, and merits a page. Check-Six 05:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:BLP says "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." This actually dictates against morbid curiosity in an injured child creating notability. Her doctors in 1987 said that her "fame" would interfere with her recovery. Her relatives shielded her from publicity. Wikipedia is not a tabloid to satisfy prying eyes. Let her get on with her life as a private individual. Edison 20:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment on Comment Hence - you proved my point - the article on WP about her clears the line between fact and fiction. And you must realize, there is also a line between "notability" and "fame". She is not famous, but she is notable... And that is the whole point.Check-Six 05:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I do not see any sort of expansion to this article in the near or any future. However, a complete deletion doesn't seem appropriate. KyuuA4 05:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Notability does not expire. Being the sole survivor of a huge airplane that crashed and burned is very notable in my opinion. Fighting for Justice 06:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Northwest Airlines Flight 255. The current mention in the article could be improved, but there is no need for a full biography of someone known mainly for this type of tragic incident, especially when they have not sought publicity in any way. --Dhartung | Talk 06:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per dhartung. Ohconfucius 06:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Delete ~~to article about the accident.~~ She is known for only one thing. If she becomes famous for something else, she is just finishing college now, then she can have her own article. (Till then the article on the crash can just mention that only one person survived, a four year old child.) Steve Dufour 11:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dhartung. Thin Arthur 11:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. Notability doesn't disappear with time. By having a separate article more detail can be found out about her. If it is merged back into the main article then detail will be cut out. Is our disk space full? Gillyweed 12:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, WP should not be in the business of "finding out" information about people. Steve Dufour 14:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since she's the sole survivor of a terrible plane crash. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 12:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dhartung. Lindsay 13:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, then create a redirect - Her surviving, and the media flurry, exist solely due to the crash.
Keep - As a reader, I was glad to have this here since I was curious about what happened to the notable sole survivor of the airplane crash.
Keep - "Non-notable except for being sole survivor of a plane crash." But surviving the crash made her notable. Being the only survivor of a crash is notable, even if it was a while ago. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dhartung. There's plenty of room in the accident article. Single-event notability doesn't merit a separate page. Clarityfiend 19:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT#NEWS. Note the part which says "After the crash Cecelia Cichan lived with relatives in Birmingham, Alabama, who shielded her from public attention." The NY Times article in 1987 said "the psychiatrists said that the huge outpouring of support for the child could itself hinder her emotional recovery, Dr. Salk said her celebrity could distract her from the introspection she needs to move toward recovery." No evidence that satisfying peoples' morbid curiosity at this time will help her in any way. No indication she is seeking publicity at this time. She is already mentioned in Northwest Airlines Flight 255. She was not a notable four year old at the time of the crash, her actions in no way affected the event, and she has led an ordinary life since then. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. No need to merge the rest of her life story into the crash article, because it is unrelated to the cause of the crash. Going to college is not a notable accomplishment. If she gets a bio article for surviving a plane crash, then every other survivor of a plane crash should get an article, which is also contrary to WP:BIO. Edison 20:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable due to crash. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. wikipediatrix 21:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Keep her as a footnote to the actual crash page. Jmlk 1 7 22:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being the sole surviver of an air disaster is pretty notable. N. Harmon 16:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow, I remember Cecelia Cichan without even looking. Odd that the nomination got posted like 20 years to the day after she survived that plane crash in Detroit. Mandsford 03:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for that is that the anniversary of the crash was mentioned on WP's main page and so drew the attention of lots of editors. Steve Dufour 02:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not saying this to hurt anyone's feelings, but I can see from some of the comments here that lots of WP editors don't really get the concept of WP:N. Steve Dufour 02:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself, I believe I do know the concept of notability. Perhaps the nominator was very young, at the time of this accident, but I remember this girl gaining lots of significant coverage in 1987. I believe people would like to know what became of her beyond just being a footnote to the crash. Her notability should not expire just because it's been 20 years. From a historical perspective she is notable as the majority of victims from a huge airplane crash die. Fighting for Justice 02:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that only one person survived the crash is worth mentioning. Ms Cichan herself is not notable. The same thing if a meteorite fell and killed someone. That would be worth mentioning in the article on meteorites, but that person shouldn't have his own article. Steve Dufour 16:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, received press coverage in reliable sources. Also as stated by Fighting for Justice, notability does not expire. --musicpvm 02:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOT#NEWS, a topic must have "historic notability" Corpx 02:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This one was notable, in that it was a baby who was the lone surivor of a jet crash, and she escaped almost unscathed. As with Jessica McClure, the kid who fell in the well later that year, people still wonder about whatever happened to her, especially 20 years later. Unlike you or me, people wonder what ever happened to a person who had, shall we say, an unusual childhood. See, if you walked away unscathed as the lone survivor of a plane crash, you'd be on the Today show and you'd be famous for a day, but nobody would remember your name after a week. On the other hand, a child in the same situation is memorable. The same with Baby Jessica. If I fell in a well, and was rescued, people would say, "What an asshole, look how much money he cost everybody by falling in a well." But it was different with a small child. Not all survivors are noteworthy: adults are lucky just to have survived, but the media did focus on little Cecilia and with good reason. I think anybody who remembers the 1987 Northwest crash might have forgotten her name, but most remembered the story. Mandsford 17:11, 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 01:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tarkhans[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of famous Tarkhans

Articles for deletion/List of Tarkhans (2nd nomination)

Previously discussed on AFD in Oct/Nov 2006; nominated for deletion via WP:PROD in Aug 2007. Outcome of prior AFD was 'keep', but looking at the discussion suggests the actual outcome was 'no consensus'. Current re-nomination for deletion (by PRODing) was "like List of Rajputs"; the 'List of Rajputs' article is currently on AFD here, which sports the following reason for nominating for deletion "Appears to be yet another virtually unsourced and verifiable caste list. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. This is practically the same as List of Nairs, which was deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nairs." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 02:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Famous Tarkhans might be notable, but I get the distinct impression that this is something better handled by a category. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the tiger. This would be better handled by a category. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
D better as a cat actually. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a cat, but most of the names are "black". --H irohisat ^Talk 03:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yup better as a cat, that way we can guarantee that only notable individuals are there. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as list of loosely associated names - Category should suffice Corpx 04:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced list. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. utcursch | talk 04:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Punkmorten 09:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tarkhan Mandsford 17:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Turn into category. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:24, 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 but clean-up and add sources. The nomination was based on this being unsourcable, but the consensus seems to be that it is; so demonstrate that is by sourcing it, or it's going to get deleted. Articles can only survive so many AfD's under the "it's sourcable" assertion; sooner or later it becomes apparent that they can't be. --Haemo 02:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flip tricks (skateboarding)[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}}.

Article cannot be attributed to reliable sources. This article may be improved if sources are come across, but as it stands, there is no particular reason to keep it. -- VegitaU 02:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is decent context for the different moves, should be listified if it can be reliably sourced. This is something the author could work on in userpace if the deletion goes ahead here. Deiz talk 02:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree: As taken from the talk page, I have no vendetta against this article or rancor against the authors, but there are policies and guidelines that must be followed and, from the comments I received, I have little confidence that they will be followed. -- VegitaU 02:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, and WP:NOT#INFO. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 02:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I noticed you prodded the article, which another editor removed, then you warned them for vandalism for doing that. You can't give editors vandalism warnings for de-prodding an article, they're entitled to remove a prod they don't agree with. Anyway, delete it unless sources can be found, which may be unlikely from the talk page. Crazysuit 02:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. These tricks MUST be sourceable. They have been around for years, every kid knows them. - Dean Wormer 02:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-Weak Delete. This is kind of unique. WP:NOT#INFO is forefront in this case, no question, but this article also has the very distinctive flavor of a howto document, if only slightly. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:OR, and WP:NOT#INFO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirohisat (talk • contribs)
Delete - i'm not certian, but when tricks for skateboarding get that specific is it even possible to have a universally held name for each one? Even if we could find verifiable sources, there seems to be a good chance that they may end up contradicting eachother. Ageofe 03:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is simply a list of all the different skateboarding tricks. There's tons of lists on Wikipedia. Someone please tell me how this is different from all the other lists? --Liface 05:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. We're discussing this one. i ^said 03:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I see it there is no problem with the content, with the rationale for deletion being that there are a lack of sources. Still, there is a diference between something being unsoured and being unsourceable. The nominator's statement that the article "may be improved if sources are come across" contradicts his statement that the article cannot be attributed to reliable sources. I would be very, very surprised if there are not any easily accessible reliable sources for this article. Calgary 05:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: And yet all attempts to persuade the authors to cite said sources have been for naught. -- VegitaU 06:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response I don't mean to sound too critical here, but if sources are both confirmed to exist and are readily available, I don't think it's a good idea to nominate an article for deletion simply because no one has added them yet. The issue (attribution) seems to be a matter of verifiability as opposed to original research, and if we know for a fact that the information is verifiable, yet is missing citations, the best thing to do is to find some sources and cite them rather than nominate the article for deletion. It seems that your argument is based around the idea that if the article is kept, it is unlikely that the article's main contributors will attempt to attribute sources. That being said, deletion is not conditional. It's generally not a good idea to delete an article that can be easily be improved simply because no one else has improved it. In these situations I'd say the ideal thing to do would be to fix it yourself. As I have said before, the problem is not that the content cannot be verified, but simply that the article has not been verified. As such, I see no conflict with Wikipedia policy, and I don't see how the idea that the article's main contributors don't seem willing enough to improve the article is a rationale for deletion. Calgary 12:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete but if citations are added, then I fully support a keep but only if citations can be found.Balloonman 06:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Many sources can easily be found for them. [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] and alot more. All that is needed is to cite these sources. --_Hdt83 _Chat 08:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Innocent, sourcing problem will resolve itself over time, not too many tricks named. 75.184.84.89 13:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with 75-184-84-89. Sourcing is not that big a deal on this one, which is a pretty well written article about the difficult maneuvers that thousands of people across the nation are mastering. Skateboarding is, arguably, the fastest growing sport in America, and this article is a good start on describing what we non-boarders don't know, yet. Mandsford 17:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#HOWTO. If you want to learn how to skateboard, ask someone or take lessons. (Do you do that?) Don't come here, this is not the place. i ^said 03:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a how-to article. It simply explains what these tricks are. Believe me, there is a lot of technique involved in doing ANY skateboarding trick, and if I wanted to make a How-To Wikibook, I could go WAAAAAY in-depth. The lack of citations are simply a function of the article being immature and having so few editors on it. Probably 90% of the edits on this and all the other skateboarding articles are vandalism. Shreditor 00:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This article contains information that is true. It explains what the tricks are.
Keep, the article may need sources, but this category of tricks is notable. --musicpvm 04:43, 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 as spam. CitiCat^♫ 05:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Design matters[edit]

Delete as non-notable book. Amazon puts it at #53,915 and there are 66 unique Google hits for the name, all of them sites selling the book. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 01:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:SPAM. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 02:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 (spam). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. Oyster guitarist 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 keep. Singu larity 01:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TuneCore[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Appeared on AFD in July/August 2006; introduced into WP:PROD workstream August 2007 with the notation "Advertisement, Self-promotion." Previous AFD started with the notion the article was advertising and closed with 'no consensus'. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Slightly self-promo, but not so much as to be spammy. Notability shines. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the tiger. Passes WP:RS, doesn't seem overly spammy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 02:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like WP:SPAM, but passes WP:N and WP:RS, so keep. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 02:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The article's subject has received significant media coverage, thus its notable. Sasha Callahan 04:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It could maybe use a once-over to make it sound less like an advertisement, but it's received enough attention in my book to make it worth keeping. fuzzy510 04:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because an article is bad doesn't necessarily mean it should be deleted. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. If it seems like and advertisement, fix it. i ^said 03:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is notable, if promotional language has crept in {{sofixit}}. Yamaguchi先生 04:43, 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 G4. Recreation of deleted material. I'll also protect the page from recreation. Sancho 01:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Brothers Mixtape[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The band would not meet WP:BAND; but no speedy criterion appear applicable to an "upcoming mixtape". — Coren ^(talk) 01:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; I hadn't noticed this was already deleted per AfD. Will tag speedy just in case. — Coren ^(talk) 01:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It might be a good idea to ask that this be protected from recreation now this has been deleted five times, or they'll just keep recreating the article. Crazysuit 01:39, 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 00:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Hinckley, Jr. in popular culture[edit]

One of the worst IPC lists left, mainly a list of non-notable songs that happen to mention Hinckley, plus a couple of trivial mentions in TV episodes. Non-notable trivia collection. Crazysuit 01:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOT#INFO. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 02:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:IINFO. Pitiful "pop culture" list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 02:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge any reliably sourced, notable entries to John Hinckley, Jr.. Article doesn't pass WP:NotInfo-trivia. Dreadstar † 02:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Oyster guitarist 03:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per list of loosely associated topics Corpx 04:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge at bestBalloonman 06:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Punkmorten 09:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge what can be sourced. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is bad even by IPC standards, with one-liners from various media as the main content. Yes, we've all heard that somebody did something "to impress Jodie Foster", and it was funny the first 200 times. Mandsford 17:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per all above. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Postlebury 19:17, 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. Hu12 03:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uniquephones[edit]

Completely non-notable company; cites no sources to assert notability. _TheIslander 01:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Per nom and WP:CORP--Hu12 01:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, per ~~WP:CSD#G1~~ WP:CSD#G11, WP:SPAM, WP:N, and WP:CORP. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 01:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. James Luftan ^contribs 02:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Wikipedia isn't a phonebook. Not even a unique phonebook. -WarthogDemon 03:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speeeeeeeedy - per the policy cited by Nenyedi. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:12, 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 Delete. Hu12 03:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Reddick[edit]

Semi-professional athelete doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. No sources either. — Coren ^(talk) 01:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7, subject fails requirements set forth in WP:N.--Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 02:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. The only hit on the name in google news archives is a one line quote from a teenager of the same name. - Dean Wormer 02:54, 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, WP:SNOW, WP:NFT, WP:V. NawlinWiki 15:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Hearts (Upcoming TV Series)[edit]

I could be wrong, but I believe this to be a case in point of WP:NFT. This is about a TV series created... by the author of the article. The Evil Spartan 00:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as almost certainly a hoax made up in school one day. To quote the article, "It is created by Iggy A." The author of the article is Iggy A. Coincidence? I think not. —Travis ^talk 00:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lack of details surrounding the series, and simply an arbitrary and over-simplified plot summary lead me to believe it is a hoax. In any case, the lack of citations for something that has recieved apparently no media attention is a dead giveaway, and even if it were true, would still qualify for deletion per a lack of verifiability. Calgary 00:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious hoax, fails WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not one reference found to this so-called show. If a network was mentioned, which it is not, then perhaps it could stay. Zchris87v 01:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails: WP:V, WP:N, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:MADEUP, and sounds to me like a WP:HOAX. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 01:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax, made up in school one day. Oyster guitarist 03:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Nenyedi - Dreadstar †
Delete unsourced article. a show which may or may not see the light of day is also in breach of WP:CRYSTAL Ohconfucius 06:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only hit I could find resembling this would be Carrie Underwood's album...Balloonman 06:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:MADEUP. Thin Arthur 11:55, 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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 00:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Musabaliyev[edit]

Probable failure of WP:N - Google brings up nothing. Oli Filth 00:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently the Mafiya got to Google first.. jk, Delete per WP:N --Nucleusboy 00:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, and WP:BULLSHIT, Also, I wouldn't be suprised if the article is a WP:HOAX --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 02:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and would also suggest yanking Garachop while we're at it, which looks fictional, has been {{prod}}'ed, and was mentioned in Musabaliyev as part of the latter's assertion of notability. Both pages were created by Selanik4400 (talk · contribs), so it's even more likely that both are hoaxes. --slakr 03:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAppears to be a hoax. The author also has another article up for deletion. --_Hdt83 _Chat 08:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a hoax, nn if not. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:08, 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 per clear precedent and WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki 15:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Macari[edit]

Notability is non-transferable. The only claim of notability is "...for being the son of Lou Macari." –Animum 00:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article clearly shows that he played a few games for league teams, including Stoke City and Huddersfield Town. This makes him notable in his own right. Nick mallory 01:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though he has played some games, without his dad, would that make him notable? Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED, notability is not inherited. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 02:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete playing with his dad does not make him notable, notability is not inherited. Oyster guitarist 03:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete at 30 years old without any major exposure in the professional leagues or even junior representative status at international level he is not notable enough for a dedicated article. If he has other records - eg. disciplinary - or has scored notable goals then interested editors should find them and list them. He may go on to greater things as a manager so there is always the possibility for resurrection down the line.Dick G 03:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a subject fails our notability standards if they arre only notabel for being related to someone. That is the exact case at hand. Sasha Callahan 04:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My point is that the article says he HAS played in professional leagues. Stoke City and Hudderfield play in the English Football League and by wikipedia policy and precedent, which the preceeding commentors seem unfamiliar with, this makes him notable regardless of who his father is. He doesn't need 'major' exposure or to have played at international level. One appearance in a fully professional league is enough. Nick mallory 04:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:::Comment If there's an established policy on this, let's see the relevant WP guidelines on every English pro footballers having their own article. Precedent doesn't of itself green-light an article's inclusion. See WP:OTHERSTUFF Dick G 04:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the policy that states that any player who has played professional football is notable ChrisTheDude 07:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The player in question played on a second teer team (minor league for my fellow Americans). Here an American minor league baseball players article was deleted. So by the precedent established, this needs to go too. Sasha Callahan 04:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but you are all quite wrong. English league players are notable, just as all first class cricketers are notable. The Championship or League One and Two are not the equivalent of baseball minor league players. Nick mallory 04:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we're invoking American comparisons, then Macari's case seems on a par with that of Mel Stottlemyre, Jr. He played at a professional level but his career seems to have been comparatively insignificant and he seems much better known for his family connections - do the American editors above think he should be deleted? ChrisTheDude 07:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Championship a "minor league"? I advise you do some research, as it has the fourth highest attended football league in the world. Dave101→talk 08:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the team he plays for states its a tier two team, and not in the Premier League. Therefore, he didn't play at the top level of of competition. Mel Jr, played with Kansas City of the American League. The precedent has been established where American Baseball player who do not play at the top level of competition generally do not recieve their own articles (unless they are touted prospects). ~~Soccer players who do not play at the top level (A Tier One League) shouldn't get articles either. Sasha Callahan 11:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

In that case what you are requesting is a major change to the WP:Notability (people) guideline. The guideline currently states that athletes have to have played in a "fully professional league", and the top four levels of the English football league system are all fully professional, therefore Paul Macari satsifies that guideline easily. If you feel the guideline needs to be changed, then that should be taken up at a much higher level than a single AfD.... ChrisTheDude 11:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I see your point. Sasha Callahan 11:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - From WP:Notability (people) in reference to athletes. Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis. The subject of the article played for Huddersfield which was (and still is) part of a fully-professional league. --Scottmsg 04:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 04:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment Nick and Scottmsg, I hate throwing WP guidelines in people's faces but the above professional league criteria WP:Notability (people) is not referenced in the more specific WP:FOOTBALL. Given the numbers of existing and former professionals, we are talking about (several thousand). You can't use that argument that each English league player is notable and/or warrants their own article. WP Guidelines frequently conflict and most importantly (1) WP is not an almanac and (2) this information is easily found on any number of player directories - it is not notable or distinct. Finally, If David Seaman is an example of a Mid Importance article then how is Paul Macari worth an article? Dick G 05:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOOTBALL is a project, not a guideline like WP:Notability (people). I can't see how that's relevant...... ChrisTheDude 07:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He'd have a 'low' importance article. It doesn't mean he's not worth an article at all. Wikipedia is not paper, so it doesn't matter how many articles there are and the WP:Notability (people) guideline takes precedence over anything an individual project comes up with. You will of course find that the WP:FOOTBALL project agrees with the wider notability standard, it's not in conflict with it. This issue has been debated many times before and you seem almost willfully ignorant of the standards which everyone else has long agreed to. Paul Macari is clearly notable because he played in the English Football League. Feel free to put up other English league players for deletion if you think this is wrong or that the community agrees with your position rather than mine and Scottmsg's. Nick mallory 05:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:::Trust me I am not trying to reinvent the wheel but I think it's worth adding a dissenting voice in AfDs, particularly where a 'keep' or 'delete' decision is made on the basis of a long-standing practice that has not recently been challenged. The criteria for deletion must be dynamic - particulary where the cited guidelines frequently butt heads. I am not about to trawl the thousands of entries on footballers just to make a point but you have to admit, as a general reference work, we lose a bit of credibility listing every single player ever to trot out in a professional league match since the 19th century, regardless of their individual impact or achievement. Dick G 05:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is an encyclopedia, which means we lose credibility when we don't have an article on a notable person or thing. I agree that criteria should be open and subject to criticism and change but this is just a waste of everyone's time. Every time your argument is refuted you simply post another, even weaker, argument for deletion. Arguing that because his information could be found elsewhere, it should be deleted here is ludicrous, for instance, as all the information on wikipeida has to be drawn from third party sources and not be original research. The criteria for inclusion are not 'butting heads' here. This person doesn't need to meet all the criteria, just one of them. He's played in a fully professional league, he's notable, that's the end of it. Nick mallory 06:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable per nom, best case redirect to Lou Macari Ohconfucius 06:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the WP:Notability (people) guideline doesn't apply anymore? When was this decision made exactly? Once again, 'Competitors who have played in a fully professional league' are notable. Nick mallory 06:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As clearly meets WP:Notability (people), which states that athletes who have competed in a fully professional league pass notability guidelines. I can't see what the argument is, frankly. Most of the delete !voters seem to be suggesting that the notability policy should be disregarded in this instance, or wholesale amended, which is surely a discussion which should take place at a much higher level than this AfD. And in addition, suggesting that Huddersfield Town is equivalent to a US "minor league" team is ludicrous. Huddersfield have admittedly fallen on hard times in recent years but in the past they won what is now the Premier League championship on three occasions, so it's the equivalent of suggesting that the Chicago Cubs should be considered to be a minor league team on the grounds that they haven't won the World Series since 1908 ChrisTheDude 07:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as stated above, Huddersfield still play in a fully professional league, therefore any player who has played first-team football for them satisfies the requirements of WP:Notability (people), in exactly the same way that any player who has played foe the Chicago Cubs does ChrisTheDude 07:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sportsman who had played in a professional league, therefore meets WP:BIO. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 07:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per enormous precedent. FL appearances make him notable. ArtVandelay13 07:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and note my previous input struck-through on basis that professional sportsman guidelines exist in WP:Notability (people) (notwithstanding such guidelines are a fluid concept).Dick G 08:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:BIO. Has played in a fully-professional league. Number 5 7 08:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep played for Stoke and Huddersfield, therefore easily passes WP:BIO. Dave101→talk 08:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is blatant. In addition he happens to be the son of someone famous, but that's not the claim of notability here. Punkmorten 09:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has played for Stoke and Huddersfield in a fully professional league. To delete on the misguided notion that what Stoke and Huddersfield play in is a "minor league" would be a precedent which would cause the deletion of many articles, some of them very well developed. Robotforaday 12:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hazard a guess it could theoretically lead to the deletion of at least 2,000 articles including at least two GAs..... ChrisTheDude 12:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep it would be nice of nominators would know the notability guidelines before putting articles like this up for deletion. Mattythewhite 12:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Close per comments already mentioned. Davnel03 13:58, 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 00:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

County Fair Mall (Thunder Bay)[edit]

Non-notable shopping mall and no reliable sources to be found. Tomj 00:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete view. Existence is not enough. Sure it's a mall and sure folks shop there but notability needs something more: The biggest in Ontario? A major fire or heist? Anything newsworthy, really, to go significantly beyond just being a mall. Bridgeplayer 00:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete A7, very small, non-notable mall, makes no claims to notability. ~~(Other malls have been A7'd before so I assume that speedy rationale is valid.)~~ Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly does not meet the requirements of WP:N. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 01:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this mall is not notable and is in a serious decline. It would not be particularly notable in Thunder Bay. --Stormbay 02:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete small mall, no notabillity. Oyster guitarist 02:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

declined speedy, let the afd run. Malls cannot really be speedied as A7, in my opinion at least. The article will go soon enough. DGG (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Malls are not inherently notable. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small local mall, seems to be in decline, with stores going from 40 down to 17. No signs of notability. Edison 20:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion I'm surprised it took this long before the article was tagged. It has existed for some time and is included in some lists but if you wish to remove it by all means, have your fun. I've saved an external copy should it ever become notable in your eyes, O Great Lord of Relevancy of Stuff. Vidioman 11:30, 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 Speedy delete, hoax article, author blocked indefinitely for hoax articles. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partrick Moore[edit]

Prod was removed. Probable hoax - can find no Google hits for a Patrick Moore that won an Oscar. Oli Filth 00:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Who is this guy? Obvious hoax, never heard of him before. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 00:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No GHits, simply a hoax. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 00:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Not only no Ghits, but a search of filmsite.org's Academy Award winner list also comes up negative. Probable WP:HOAX. —Travis ^talk 00:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that the bulk of the author's other edits are on his other article, which has also been {{prod}}'d as a hoax. Oh, and there's his other {{prod}}'d creation. —Travis ^talk 00:34, 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 Redirect to Playstation 3. If there's any content to merge here, then the article's history will support it. --Haemo 08:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation 3 technical problems[edit]

Pretty much all the "references" are blogs and forums, which do not qualify under WP:V. In any case, most of the claims in the article are speculation, and even if they weren't, I would say that this is verging on an indiscriminate collection of information. Oli Filth 00:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. This information isn't notable, and isn't even worth merging into Playstation 3. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 00:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references, no salvageable content. jddphd (talk · contribs) 00:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Delete. Not wanting to violate WP:ILIKEIT or WP:LOSE, but I think the information is quite notable and important to keep around. But again, those are bad arguments. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 00:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem is notability. If these "problems" recieved widespread coverage or recognition there would be less of a problem, but they do not, and therefore do not meet the notability guideline. Calgary 00:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Common problems may be included in some briefness in the article, but an entire page seems more like something that tech help should create. Additionally, I highly doubt that no other electronic devices have technical problems, and those that do most likely do not have an entire page dedicated to problems. Nothing is flawless. Additionally, as stated above, I too agree that these are just user defined problems. Could be a single faulty unit. Zchris87v 01:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect, The problems have references, and the issue of rushing colsoles does seem notable enough to be mentioned in PS3 article. The first intro paragraph (with cleanup), and some of the problems listed (with sources) should be mentioned in the main article. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 02:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per Nenyedi. Any bug in the system that can be sourced might be worth a "Technical problems" header in the main PS3 article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 02:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make into a new section - in the PS3 article. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a better sourced version into the main PS3 article. The information would do more damage there, anyway. Down with the man! Ichormosquito 04:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH - Bunch of unrelated issues tied under a big umbrella Corpx 04:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --RucasHost 05:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or mergeBalloonman 08:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, because information seems notable, concerns a major entertainment device, and is referenced. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - This article is unreferenced and confusing. I believe it should either be deleted, or a new, rewritten version should be merged with the main PS3 article. TheInfinityZero 16:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - should be part of PS3 article. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to all those who suggested "Merge", please remember that it can only be added if it is properly cited; the current references are all blogs, etc., and cannot be used under WP:V. Oli Filth 18:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge anything with reliable sources. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect THis is useful info for the PS3 but it lacks verification. Maybe redirect to Play Station 3 if necessary.--PrestonH 20:18, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Wars[edit]

This article has been speedy deleted in the past for CSD A7. The article was rewritten and reposted and the author has already contested speedy deletion that hasn't been requested yet. In my opinion, this article does not satisfy notability guidelines and is not properly sourced. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 06:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Give it a chance, only created today. Uniqueness of project and existence of Open Source Pictures article tends to give it notability. Wl219 08:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy at best... In other words, write the article in a sandbox, and after it is finished and sourced, then you can try to bring it back to life. But as is, this article should be deleted.Balloonman 08:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt, borderline speedy but probably best to give this a full debate if only to establish precedent. A fan film, not yet released or even in production, but pre-production! Patently unencyclopedic and grossly unsuitable for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - this page has been deleted at least FIVE times in the last two weeks, and more under another name. Already been userfied for another editor with a suspiciously similar editing pattern. Film is unmade, utterly non-notable, and based on another non-notable fanfilm. MikeWazowski 16:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even after this film is made, I still don't think it will be notable. Jauerback 18:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although its title and story are similar in all ways, it is no relation to another non-notable fanfilm of the same name. As you said earlier, its uniqueness and the Open Source Pictures article's existence tend to give it notability, but this article needs to work out to establish full notability, as well as adding proper, verifiable, and reliable sources, until this film gets into full production. Starkiller88 18:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Open Source Pictures link just goes to a script, not an article, as the previous editor claims. Since the link is user-generated content posted without any apparent editorial oversight, I see nothing there that confers any notability to the link, or the the article up for AFD. MikeWazowski 19:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete recreation ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt, per Andrew Lenahan and Mike Wazowski. Film is a LONG way away from ever being notable. TheRealFennShysa 22:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even if the film is a long way away from ever being notable, I'm appear to be familiar with the subject matter, I have to expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability. I think the best way to address this concern is to have published, third-party sources about the subject. Starkiller88 03:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Come back when there it is notable. Man It's So Loud In Here 16:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But this article is tagged with a {{notability}} tag since this month days ago since its creation. There is no reason for you to keep this page unless its notability can be established by referencing reliable sources. Take note of this, its uniqueness of project and existence of its script on the Open Source Pictures website tends to give it notability because it has meet at least one definition of an open content film. Starkiller88 17:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Delete and fails WP:FICTION as a fan film with no reliable third-party coverage and by extension WP:MOVIE. --Farix (Talk) 21:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with no prejudice against eventual recreation if the film acquires notability through third-party coverage. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The film is my own work. I've created it. I still need to provide its reliable third-party sources and by extension WP:MOVIE. Starkiller88 09:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, that's precisely the point. The AfD was begun because of the lack of reliable third-party sources, and the reason why people have been advocating deletion is as a result of the fact that these have not been provided. I don't think anyone doubts that it's your work. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can't keep an article because "it will eventually have reliable third-party sources". It needs to have them now. --Farix (Talk) 12:13, 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.