Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 20

< August 19	August 21 >

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. Writing papers/text books is insufficient for notability for people in academia since it is a regular part of their job. Crucially, this article contains no reliable secondary sources attesting to notability of the subject or his works.

Derek P Auchie[edit]

An academic who is neither particularly senior nor apparently particularly notable. No good reason given as to why he is any more notable than thousands of other university lecturers. -- Necrothesp 23:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PROF, per nom. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see him as primarily a lawyer, though he does hold a post as Senior Lecturer in Aberdeen Business School (The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen). He seems to have published 2 textbooks and an article, and be involved in editorship of a legal series and a journal. I do not know adequately how to judge people in this subject.DGG (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 02:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. --Aarktica 21:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete (nonadmin).. Navou ^banter 01:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan and Charika Corea[edit]

Fine people, working for a worthy cause. Just not really notable, plus the tone of self-promotion is further reason to delete. Merge any useful details into Autism Awareness Campaign UK (itself an atrociously-written article probably worthy of deletion). Biruitorul 23:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability was iffy when it was first brought up, and now the only major addition is that they met Tony Blair. Big deal. fuzzy510 04:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the previous afd closed as "No Consensus. Keep" with minimal participation DGG (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Founding an autism awareness campaign that gets the attention of a head of state is notable enough as people may find this background on the founders useful and interesting. 69.116.170.120 02:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. The head of state of the United Kingdom is Queen Elizabeth II, who is not mentioned in the article. No commoner has held the position since the 1650s.

2. The fact that "people may find this background useful and interesting" is not grounds for retention. They founded an awareness campaign? Great for them. Does the campaign deserve an encyclopedia entry? Doubtful. Do they? Well, no. A line or two in the campaign article (until and unless that too goes) should suffice. This is an encyclopedia, not an advertising service, no matter how worthy the cause.

And 3. — 69.116.170.120 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Biruitorul 03:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nice people. Worth a paragraph on the Autism Awareness page. Oops - it's already there. Redundant entry. MarkinBoston 22:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MarkinBoston. --Aarktica 21:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MarkinBoston. Ivan and Charika Corea don't appear to have any claim to notability outside of founding the Autism Awareness Campaign UK which already has its own article. The Coreas are already mentioned (appropriately) in the campaign's article. There is no reason to have two articles that essentially cover the same material. EdJohnston 00:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 delete !votes present a clear majority but are also based on appropriate deletion topics such as notability and verifiability. The keeps are more centered around precedent (with no proof of solidly-matching precedent given by either side) and comparison (to Cornell School of Hotel Administration which can be reliably sourced with no work at all) as well as apparent conflict of interest. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Hotel Management College[edit]

Delete no assertion of independent third party coverage of notability, has been twice deleted before - but not through afd. Carlossuarez46 23:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a specialized college like this, third party sources are necessary to establish notability Corpx 02:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure we have ever decided that point, or whether it falls under the general presumption of notability for higher (post-secondary) education. It's an accredited full-time school with a 9-month long program , not a correspondence school. I'm undecided myself on this as a general question. DGG (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. --Aarktica 21:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Assertion of independent third party coverage of notability finally added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Studentservices (talk • contribs) 22:05, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Keep - we haven't deleted tertiary educational establishments in the past and it is ludicrous to suggest that we should start now. TerriersFan 22:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the assumption is that we haven't deleted any public tertiary educational institutions before. However, in this case we are dealing with a private institution. A different case. Luke! 23:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Luke! 23:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An accredited tertiary school that is not a diploma mill. For comparison I looked at Cornell School of Hotel Administration, which is also private. Fairly obvious which school is more prestigious and which one has more sources in its article, but 'more sources' is still not very many. I'd say the Cornell school is an obvious keep, so I have to keep this one too. This is under a general presumption of notability for post-secondary education. If we had to prove notability from third-party sources, then Cornell would barely pass and this one not. EdJohnston 00:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not just about sources. The Cornell school article makes its notability plain and obvious, but I don't see any here. I don't think being a post-secondary school is enough to fall into some default general guideline. It reads like a directory entry, not an encyclopedia article, and unlike lots of AfDs, this doesn't seem to be a case of the article just needing some work. I'm also guessing User:Studentservices has some WP:COI issues here, and that this article exists for promotional purposes. None of the sources SS added look like 3rd party independent sources and don't even hint at notability. bobanny 04:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Its just not notable. Aside from the fact that I'm a university student that has lived in Vancouver all my life and never heard of this school, with out additional third-party sources, it looks like another advertisement of a non-notable establishment. Mkdw ^talk 05:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think to be fair, if we were to let this one go, we have to be consistent and delete the many other similar post-secondary listing in BC. Many of them are not even accredited and are merely registered. Ashton College is one, King George International College another. Studentservices (talk • contribs) 06:05, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Comment - that's not really a good reason for convincing others for keeping the article. WP:WAX - just because others exist doesn't mean this one should. Luke! 06:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing notable in its current state and in my search for sources. Luke! 06:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I have taught at this college, I shall stay out of this debate from this point onwards, will let others decide as what is notable is subjective. I have merely added the third party sources as initially requested.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Studentservices (talk • contribs) 06:20, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. There simply is no assertion of notability. We can probably all agree it exists (and perhaps that it is accredited), but that, in itself, does not make it notable. --Evb-wiki 15:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question. An editor above (TerriersFan) suggested we hardly ever delete post-secondary institutions. Does anyone know of examples where we have deleted such an institution? (other than a diploma mill). EdJohnston 15:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this is the first, though I haven't researched it. Decision-making is by consensus here, not precedent, so that's not an argument in itself. I'd be surprised if a public post-secondary institution was deleted because they tend to have more ties to the community (in Canada anyway), being public and all. I also live in Vancouver and have never heard of this school. Accreditation just means they're held to a standard, and I don't see how that's a notability criteria. bobanny 15:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. @pple 17:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crust punk[edit]

I realize that this was previously nominated for deletion years ago, but that debate seemed to focus on whether the genre actually exists. I can say with confidence that "crust punk" exists in the mind of its fans, but I see no indication that the genre is notable or that its Wikipedia article consists anything more than a collection of original research. I can't find a single reliable reference to this type of music. The lone external link in the article points to an obscure record label's website. Some of the bands that supposedly fall under this genre's umbrella might be notable, but the proposition that they can be reliably sourced as being "crust punk" is dubious. If someone can produce reliable sources, I'll reconsider my position; but even then, the music genre would be bettter served by a modest section in the grindcore or hardcore punk article. I expect this will generate a fair amount of controversy among certain fans of the music, but instead of merely objecting, please provide counter-evidence (in the form of references) to my assertion that this is not a notable genre of music.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for obvious reasons:

List of crust punk bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Without a doubt, keep this. Crust punk is extremely influential. They've been covered by thousands of zines. They've also partially contributed to anarchism (this is fact). It should, however, be rewritten, as indeed, many issues addressed previously compromise the integrity of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Groar! (talk • contribs) 20:07, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Keep with major work. The genre does exist, and Google shows more than a million hits. Unfortunately I couldn't find anything verifiable, so I'm afraid it will probably be deleted (which it should if no one comes up with anything). So while I think it "should" have an article, it probably doesn't stand a chance of passing WP:V. Faithlessthewonderboy 00:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a google search as a well, and though the results were immense, I couldn't find a single reliable source among them.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this book published by SUNY Press is the best reference I've found. The all music guide entries for amebix and nausea also mention their influence on crust. If you search lexis-nexis, you can find a few newspaper articles describing non-notable bands as crust, but nothing useful. In theory anarcho-punk would probably be the best thing to merge it into, but I guess there's not really anything to merge since the article is totally unreferenced. Sad.--P4k 01:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'll start citing references and asking more people with an interest in it to start editing. I could post some links to myspaces, but they're classed as punk bands because it doesn't have a crust genre. Ugly you

Keep There are countless magazine articles about crust. the magazines Profane Existence and Maximum RocknRoll, for instance, have both published numerous articles about crust and crust bands. the book "the day the country died" by ian glasper also makes references to crust, although it is primarily about anarchopunk. this article is pretty miserable and needs a complete overhaul but crust punk *is* a notable genre and subculture. i'm sure that reliable information about it is pretty scarce online, but it exists in abundance in print. Sokeripupu 00:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep in mind that Profane Existence and MRR are probably not reliable sources.--P4k 00:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

well in that case i guess the entirety of diy and underground punk is not notable, except for like, fugazi. well, whatever. i agree that anarchopunk would be the best place to put crust if it was to be merged, i also agree that what's in the article now isn't worth merging anyway. i'm not changing my vote though. Sokeripupu 00:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. If we had a decent article written from those sources I wouldn't complain, but I don't know if they really have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."--P4k 08:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I hadn't said this. They're probably reliable for this topic, and I know I've used worse references.--P4k 03:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Page started April 2004 - presumably by fans - and still no references. If those who could be expected to know best can't give proper ref's over three years, we have a problem. Assertions of many - uncited - references on this page does not help the cause. And just to be clear - Bob Dylan was "extremely influential". This is a splinter of a sub-genre. MarkinBoston 22:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given that is has significant mention in both an academic reference and another book by Allan Antliff, and various other less significant mentions, it seems that it should pass V criteria. —siro χ o 22:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 05:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sony Pictures Home Entertainment releases[edit]

No, no, no, no, no. A completely crufty, 30-years-worth list of films that have nothing in common except their distributor, badly disguising an ad as an article. Corvus cornix 23:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, keep, keep, keep, keep. This ain't crufty, even catalogues should feel welcome at the WP, and no, this is not a bad disguise. --Ryanasaurus0077 23:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Ryanasaurus0077 is the creator of the article. Corvus cornix 23:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know bloody well who created the article; if only you'd give catalogues of home video releases a chance. --Ryanasaurus0077 23:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia is not a directory Corvus cornix 23:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, but we shouldn't force catalogues to feel like they're making the WP a directory. --Ryanasaurus0077 23:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure the catalogues will forgive us. Video dealers tend to divide their merchandise into categories like "Suspense", "Action", "Romance" rather than "Paramount", "Universal" and "Sony". If Sony releases are your passion, there's a non-Wikipedia article called www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/index.html. Mandsford 00:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All my twin brother wants is for catalogues to feel welcome, not like they take up space! I wish users didn't think that catalogues are making the WP a directory. --Ryanasaurus007 00:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. Dbromage [Talk] 01:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total fancruft junk. Biggspowd 01:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it ain't fancruft; these releases are the REAL releases on VHS and DVD by SPHE. --Ryanasaurus007 00:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and prior votes, and a major laugh at the thought of the catalogs offering forgiveness. fuzzy510 04:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't say my twin brother didn't tell us all that catalogues have feelings. --Ryanasaurus007 00:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is Bryanasaurus your twin brother? He tried to tell us that catalgoues have feelings, but we didn't listen. I recall, now, that I made a Sears, Spring 1998 Wish Book, cry. In retrospect, we've failed as human beings when we're more insensitive than a catalog. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 12:10, August 22, 2007 (UTC).
- Darn tootin' bout that. And I agree that catalogues have feelings. In case of deletion being successful, I'll move the catalogue onto my hard drive (a DELL Dimension 2400, not my twin brother's eMac) until this prejudice against catalogues stops. --Ryanasaurus0077 20:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOT a directory. -- The Anome 14:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOT a directory. --Oscarthecat 20:59, 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of events at The O2[edit]

Seems more like a catagory - also may not meet WP:NN as it cites no sources - although I'm sure that a list of events could be found. Also WP:NOT#INFO may apply. Guest9999 23:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources can be cited. Although some of the events listed may not be noteable, there are noteable events listed both before and after the development of the Dome to The O2. Some of the events received alot of publicity. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 00:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a category isn't really an option as many of the events don't yet have articles; however many have been covered in at least the regional press.(Metro,London Lite,thelondonpaper).Alternately Merge the most significant events back to The O2. Paulbrock 01:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, the events could all be merged into the relevant sectons of The O2 and Millennium Dome like in the article, Manchester Evening News Arena. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 12:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is appropriate for the venue site, but not an encyclopedia. It is pointless to document every concert/event that was hosted by every arena in the world, because WP is not a "resource for conducting business". Also from WP:NOT, "an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, etc.," Corpx 02:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Corpx is dead on here. The fact that a venue hosted a Beatles tribute night or a musical interpretation of "War of the Worlds" is by no means encyclopedic, it's just a collection of information. Keep any truly noteworthy events (i.e., exclusive to that site and which received substantial coverage) in the main article, and then toss this. fuzzy510 04:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not a gig listing site. Lugnuts 04:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:NOT. Anything really worth mentioning at The O2 can be. Also, this would set a horrible precedent: how long would this article be in 50 years time? Seth Bresnett • (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert. WP is not the new Ticketmaster. --Oscarthecat 21:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see anything about selling tickets. Don't you mean its not an event listings site. The article was originally a listing of noteable, exclusive events at the Millennium Dome but this some how turned into a listing for The O2. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 22:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not withdrawing my nomination but just thinking about it I imagine that multiple secondary sources probably have discussed what's on at the O2, it being a large, very high profile venue that's been reported on near constantly since it's creation (as the Millenium dome. I still think hte content is not worthy of an articel but maybe WP:NN wasn't the best rationale for deletion. [[Guest9999 13:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
- Like I said before, I agree that events at The O2 are not very relevant and should be merged into the main article to prevent it becoming an event listing site. However I believe the events at the Millennium Dome, which was an exhibition space for exclusive millennium related exhibitions, were noteable and exclusive to that venue. The O2 and Millennium Dome are 2 completely separate venues. The only thing they share is the structure of the Dome. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 15:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An encyclopedia should use data selectively. By all means mention some notable events in the main article, but this is overkill. Brandon97 21:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep on the page please KEEP IT UP THEIR THANKS

You should provide an explanation of your position - this debate is an attempt to find consensus within the community, not a vote. [[Guest9999 22:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

I want it kept PLEASE.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.138.90 (talk) 22:38, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not a concert guide. Golfcam 09:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 03:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheri Gaulke[edit]

I do not think that this person is notable. Google search on "Cheri Gaulke" turns up few articles, at least most on the first page not about her. Google search on the sources in the "Bibliography" section usually turned up nothing. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 22:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is much more to the world than what Google can find. It seems overly drastic to leap directly from "I can't find these pre-web resources on a quick Google search" to "Let's delete this article." Citations are provided; they deserve some legwork to try and track them down, they deserve more than some quick Google searches. If you question the validity of the citations, you might instead bring it up on talk, or flag them with {{Verify source}} Furthermore, you might try checking Google Scholar for old citations. In this case it turns up a few dozen promising leads; unfortunately they're mostly behind for-pay walls or otherwise hard to check online. — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep such reference are perfectly acceptable as long as it is clear they talk substantially about the subject. Sometimes on can see enough information. personally I accept "K Friedman - Performance Research, 2006 - Taylor & Francis... in the work of Vito Acconci, for example, and in the work of important American feminist performance artists of the 1970s such as Alyson Pou, or Cheri Gaulke. ... " as a sufficient indication. (and another review at [1] DGG (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Most of the Bibliography listing are in a legit magazine with newstand sales. In the world of artsy-fartsy fakers, she's probably as notable as any. MarkinBoston 22:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the person who originally created the this entry. I am also an academic art librarian. This person is a notable artist with a national reputation. She has received many grants including the National Endowment for the Arts, the State of California, and the City of Los Angeles. She is particulary well known within a certain field, specifically feminist art, but also within the Los Angeles art scene. The bibliography included many reviews of her work from very valid and respected art publications. One additional comment: Wikipedia is particularly weak in the area of art and art history. Being "popular" in mass media isn't necessarily the same thing as being a respected and notable artist. If someone has numerous citations in Wilson's Art Index, they are definately notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Sue Maberry 03:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. A classic case of someone who's on the way to possible notability, but isn't there yet. A few WP:RS based on a couple of incidents doesn't quite cut it, really. Very little coverage outside these minor incidents. No problem with re-creation if she manages to increase her claims of notability. ELIMINATORJR 11:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Prudhomme[edit]

Non-notable. In a nutshell: she ranted at the Clintons, appeared on "many syndicated political talk shows", has some opinions about local and national politics, and heckled Giuliani (in a state where candidates spend a lot of time). Also, no references. She might become notable if her role grew and she garnered more press attention, but not yet. Biruitorul 22:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dahn 22:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost no notability so far. With respect to her role with the Clinton, this article might be thought of as apparently written to support the Juanita Broaddrick article, which is in need of attention with respect to BLP. with respect to Guiliani, it's his answer not her qy which is significant. DGG (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a political activist she has a knack for getting in the news. Going forward, I expect to see her cause more national headlines. Jmegill 17:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Biruitorul 21:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If I see someone's name in the news, I like to get a handle on the person. It is useful to me to have the article. It is a single resource which gives an idea of her history. How would I check up on a commentator's assertion that Prudhomme was a plant? I could google a whole bunch or go to the wiki article. She has held several positions in the local politics. I think that meets minimal requirements. Jmegill 05:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - First, about the fact that she is a local politician: her only elected governmental position is Library Trustee, which falls well short of notability guidelines. See WP:BIO: "a politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists", and that is definitely not the case yet. Second, see here. I suppose we have very different mentalities, but I don't believe articles should be kept simply because they are "useful to me" and help me "get a handle" on someone in the news. For that, there's Google, and from there, the Union Leader and various other local news outlets. How would you check if she were a plant? Not my concern: my concern is with creating a professional encyclopedia with high standards. Prudhomme's article is an impediment to that, as it a) elevates a very marginal figure to encyclopedic stature, and b) manifests the pervasive disease of recentism, due to which some six dozen articles exist about the 2008 election but just four (that I can see) dealing with the vastly more important election of 1860. The case for yet another article on a present-day nonentity (and, let's face it, she is essentially that) is weak indeed. Biruitorul 06:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is getting in the news now. She is a darling of the media without any real substance or portfolio, a professional gadfly, just like Cindy Sheehan. Even though, just like Sheehan, she does not have any real substance or portfolio (no political office, no corporate gig, no celebrity status, etc.), she does have the media attention, which means she has a platform without portfolio.--Getaway 18:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please cite for this claim? I see two mentions in local papers and a brief item in USA Today. I'm not seeing the subject having "been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists". Biruitorul 21:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- (1) The Kansas City Star, Ernest Hemingway's old paper, Keith Chrostowski, reporter; (2) USA Today of Arlington, Virginia, Jill Lawrence, reporter; (3) Boston Globe, James W. Pindell, reporter; (4) Newsday of good ole New York City, Tom Brune, reporter; (5) London Guardian, reprinting the Associated Press article by Libby Quaid; (6) Washington Post of Watergate fame, reporter Alec MacGillis; (7) New York Daily News, reporter David Saltonstall; (8) New York Post of Rupert Murdoch fame, reporter Carl Campanile.--Getaway 22:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but all these sources refer primarily to the Giuliani incident, with a couple giving some rather cursory background on her. That fails the "in depth" requirement of WP:BIO. Also, given that the mentions all sound similar, it seems likely they all originated from an AP press release. If she makes a few more news cycles in more substantive form, maybe. But merely asking a question of a candidate (essentially the reason she received coverage) does not generate encyclopedic notability. Biruitorul 01:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left out at least twenty articles from much smaller newspapers (and, no, I am not going to spend the time to list every single article out there, I provided some citations and if you need more information for your decision then you need to track it down), mostly newspapers in the New England region who DO go into great depth about her point of view. Also, I specifically listed the name of the actual reporter that wrote the articles in these newspapers that have national followings for the specific reason that I believed, accurately of course, that you would reply that each of these articles are only repeating Associated Press work. Now, in the London example, clearly, the London paper is repeating word for word the AP article. However, in the KC Star and the others there was an individual reporter from the paper covering the story. Therefore, your argument that these national newspapers were merely parroting the AP story is inaccurate. I also did not take the time to list all of the articles that either talked about her or interviewed her during the Brodderick scandal. The amount of information out there concerning her is more than enough to meet the demands of notability. Once again, the article should not be deleted and I argue for KEEP.--Getaway 14:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is an Associated Press article, not press release.--Getaway 15:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, article; I stand corrected. However: just because the KC Star happens to have Chrostowski's byline on it doesn't mean he was anywhere near NH recently. He gives no more information than the raw AP news feed did, as far as I can see. She may have been covered during Broaddrick, but the onus is on the keep voters to show that (preferably by inserting citations into the article). Also, note that her entry has drawn ridicule for Wikipedia from a man who apparently is rather influential in his sphere. I still don't see the notability, and retain my "delete" stance. Biruitorul 23:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you, Biruitorul, obviously have a lot invested in making sure that this article is deleted. Fine. However, your criticism are over the top. For example, You quoted the Opinion Journal of the Wall Street Journal to indicate that Prudhomme has no notability. That is rich. You quote most read newspaper in the U.S. to show that she has no notability, but the article you quote mentions her in the article. Talk about spin. This Lanny Davis territory. Soon you will have me believing that I should be deleting the article myself. Also, in the article that you quote you twist the guys words around so much that you make the claim that he is making fun of the Wikipedia article on Prudhomme, but when in fact, when you actually read the article, he is making fun of the Associated Press reporter for not pointing out that Prudhomme IS a political gadfly and it took a bunch of rank amateurs like us to point out Prudhomme's background. He stated specifically that he wished the AP reporter has pointed out Prudhomme's background just like the Wikipedia article did. You clearly attempted to spin that article to your favor, but I actually read it and saw that you were engaging POV spin. KEEP per the comments of the international distributed and known Wall Street Journal reporter.--Getaway 14:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I am Lanny Davis! Seriously, though: we can't tell all that Taranto is implying, given an apparent tendency to use irony, but from what I can infer (ie, my own spin): a) "quite an activist" is a bit tongue-in-cheek, given her 59 Google hits (as compared with 1.76 million for Cindy Sheehan) and b) "nonauthoritative user-written online encyclopedia" is shorthand for saying "She's even on Wikipedia! That silly "encyclopedia" where anyone can write anything he wants and no one fact-checks!" In other words, it's creating yet more ridicule for us. Biruitorul 21:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Prudhomme is more known and more recorded that 97% of the people out there. The least she can get is a damn wikipedia page. What difference is it to you? She made her mark on the conservative politcal activist scene. Leave the page up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.28.58 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 August 2007
- It does make a difference for me, as I'm working to build a serious encyclopedia. No one is automatically entitled to a "damn" Wikipedia page, and as I believe she fails WP:BIO, I urge that her entry be deleted. Biruitorul 01:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator, this person is simply not notable. Burntsauce 17:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Very simple - self-promotion for a political cause does not rise to notability. MarkinBoston 22:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. YOU believe she fails, biruitorul, however the numerous FOX News Television shows and Radio programs she appears on DON'T think she fails. She has appeared in the Daily News (page 3), The New York Post, among many other credible papers. She was quoted in the Daily News as "famous" and was commented on by the likes of George Stephanopolous. When low rank comedians and pages on Vampires are getting Wikipedia pages, biruitorul, a woman whose made a mark on the political landscape (notably Rudy Giuliani's campaign, the Juanita Broadrrick issue), deserves the page. Look at how many hits she gets on the internet. MANY websites and articles have used her wikipedia page as a source for information. It is noticed and used. I can't say so for many other wikipedia pages you allow to slip through the cracks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.28.58 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 August 2007 Biruitorul 01:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Note: double voter.[reply]
- Please provide appropriate citations. Merely referring to "page 3" of the Daily News, for instance, is no good, as that newspaper has had approximately 32,000 "page threes" since it first appeared in 1919. Claims that she's appeared "numerous" (care to be more specific?) times of FOX and "radio" also seems rather vague. Her "mark" on Broaddrick and especially Giuliani is ephemeral at best - good for one single news cycle, and low-grade at that. A Wikipedia page being used by "MANY" sites is not evidence of notability; notability works in the reverse fashion - we find evidence of notability and then create the article, without regard to how often that gets cited. I wish many other pages were deleted, but accusing me of responsibility for them is silly. One man can only do so much, and I've nominated a fair amount of pages for deletion. This one happened to catch my attention, so it too has been placed on the chopping block. May the axe soon fall and end its unworthy existence. Biruitorul 01:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I saved the newspaper article on Prudhomme and If you provide me with an email address, I'll be more than glad to send you the copy (the same article that called her "famous") as an attachment. Furthermore, while your quick Google search of the Daily News' history is minimally impressive at best, it takes no internet nerd to know that to influence the campaign of one of the primary candidates for the Republican Party as Prudhomme successfully did, takes alot of political accessibility. For George Stephanopolous to comment on her, takes alot of notability. You want proof? She appeared on "The O'Reilly Factor" and "Hannity and Colmes" on FOX News for her Broaddrick protest, and again appeared on "Hannity and Colmes" for her Giuliani question as well as on Sean Hannity's radio program. Call up Sean Hannity if you want affirmation. Let's talk about your claims that Prudhomme's page is an example of recentism, shall we? Biruitorul, "recentism" is a relative term. The Phil Spector case is recentism. The OJ Simpson trial was recentism back in the 90's, McCarthyism was recentism. However those pages are righteously maintained on wikipedia because they are notable moments of the past. So your claims of "recentism" aren't as much about ephemeral problems, as much as they are about notability problems worth remembrance on this encyclopedia. And for that concern, see the first half of this comment. But pardon me, I should get back to jousting lest the axe fall on me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.117.28.58 (talk) 03:18, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

No, you don't need to e-mail me; just work on improving the article itself in order to try and establish notability. Oh, come on: she asked him a question in one of the two most important primary states, where any partisan hack (or non-hack, for that matter) is within shouting distance of a candidate for about 18 months before the primary. Not exactly an "influence" on his campaign, especially because her amazing question dealt with an issue of very little substance (ie, no foreign or domestic policy was involved). I'm sure Stephanopoulos has commented on a lot of people in his career. Not every guest of Hannity/Colmes/O'Reilly deserves a page. Yes, I know that taken together these add up a little, but really, it's still pretty thin.

I'm not saying that no current events belong on Wikipedia (though it would be nice to have, say, a 6-month delay on new news stories getting on here), but there is a great imbalance in coverage of new vs. even slightly older events, and keeping Prudhomme's biography only adds to that. The fact is, she's still a trifling gadfly, and until her standing really takes a jump, we'd do best to take her off here. Biruitorul 04:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How much more can be improved? Her appearances in the media, her confrontation with our former Vice President Al Gore, our former first lady and New York City's former mayor are all copiously mentioned on her page. I can't establish notability; only Prudhomme can do that and she certainly did. Look, the foundation of your argument is that she doesn't fit the standards of an encyclopedia because she's not important enough to be on the same "reputable" encyclopedia that has a page for Billy Mays, a man who sells cleaning products. And mind you, the reputation of Wikipedia can't be that great because it is not allowed by any high school teachers or college professors as citable resources. So, you're defending the status of an encyclopedia that can't be used or cited by the majority of researchers: students! How noble can your cause be? And, regardless, she is notable! Cleary she's established some importance or else we wouldn't be debating now and the Wikipedia Gods would have eradicated the page already. You said, also, biruitorul, that Prudhomme's question dealt with "an issue of very little substance" because no "foreign or domestic policy was involved." Now, may I remind you, friend, that Monica Lewinsky was not a foreign or domestic problem, but personal. Prudhomme hit upon an important problem in Rudy's campagin: his turbulent personal life. Any voter will say that the personal issues of a candidate are important in their decision of who to vote for--you and I both know that. And it was an important breakthrough in Rudy's campaign or else it wouldn't have made headlines all over the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RIPKrt (talk • contribs) 04:29, August 24, 2007 (UTC) (Assuming RIPKrt and 69.117.28.58 are the same) -- Note: quadruple voter.

Well, at some point it comes down to differing interpretations of the notability guidelines (and by the way, the Mays article too should probably go, and I'd likely vote for deletion if you nominated it): I guess I set the bar higher than you. Improvement could come in the form of more references (the three footnotes only cover the Giuliani incident). I'm sure not everyone has banned Wikipedia as a source. Lewinsky was more than personal: Clinton was accused of lying under oath in Federal court. Of course personal issues are important, but they can adequately be covered in Giuliani's article - we don't need an extra article on one individual who highlighted those troubles. Finally, I dispute the "breakthrough" nature of the Giuliani incident for two reasons. One, it was a slow news day and the exchange has blown over already. Two, it didn't make "headlines" (page 1) but instead was buried somewhere inside. In sum: I'm not saying she's a complete and utter nobody, but she's close enough that we need not create further clutter. But like I've said, I don't expect any sudden change of heart from either of us. Biruitorul 05:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on one statement you made: that we're not going to change our minds. I beg your pardon, biruitorul, as I don't believe you set the bar higher than me, but merely that you have no realistic concept of what the "bar" is. I have a utilitarian viewpoint with regards to a free internet encyclopedia that has minimal credibility at best in academic circles. Furthermore, Prudhomme is a political activist, no matter how you want to put it. She is quite capable of being mentioned in a college essay, say on "first amendment rights with regards to presidential confrontation" or "the personal lives of politicians" or "presidential sex scandals", etc. The list can go on and on. If I were still in college and I had a paper on one of those issues, Prudhomme and her audacity in the political landscape would be a key point to my essay. It's only a shame that very few colleges and high schools (certainly none that my friends and I were associated with) permit Wikipedia as a valid source. In my high school or college, I'd fail immediately if my profressor saw Wikipedia as a source. Why? Because anyone can edit it? Why? Because it serves the people on the internet for their curiousities... It's not Oxford and it never will be, and while I don't advocate an attitude of non-improvement or lower standards because of this incontrovertible fact that Wikipedia is not highly regarded but ubiquitous for internet folk looking for quick info that is most likely true, I feel that Prudhomme and her activism stretch far enough into the definition of what's suitable for Wikipedia and it's constituency. And that, my friend, aint and never will be "clutter." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.28.58 (talk) 14:03, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

After well over a year registered on Wikipedia (4 total years registered + unregistered), I have a pretty good sense of what should or should not be here, and in this case, my radar says, quite clearly, "delete", for all the reasons I've outlined. It is indeed a shame more schools don't allow it, especially with all the high-quality articles on Wikipedia (of which this isn't one). However, I look at things differently: improvement through deletion rather than throwing up our hands, saying we'll never be reliable, and allowing all manner of trivia on here. I'm not an out-and-out deletionist, but I do tend in that direction. Biruitorul 21:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She has multiple reliable secondary sources about her so she meets WP:BIO. A comment: I don't think its appropriate for editors to bold the word "Keep" or "Delete" in multiple comments. After you've voted, comment but don't vote again.--Dcooper 15:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was inclined to vote delete when I read the intro but by the time I finished the article I changed my mind. Could use some trimming but she's popped up in the news enough to justify this. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm sorry, that was me who has been voting more than once. I didn't know I was voting. I thought that you have to start a comment with your "keep" or "delete" to show what side you're on. Sorry! Won't do it again! :-) But anyway, Biruitorul, see my comment above starting with "I agree with you on one statement..." which is a response to your last statement. Keep Prudhomme's page. For persuasion, see my debate with biruitorul above to make up your own minds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.28.58 (talk) 17:49, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

It's OK - I didn't think you were acting maliciously. Biruitorul 21:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, Biruitorul, where do we go from here. We've both made our points and we are both immune to changing our minds. Do we leave this page up and wait for the Wikipedia Gods? Do we let people keep voting? Who's the arbiter of this page's fate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savorist (talk • contribs) 04:14, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
- Are Savorist, RIPKrt and 69.117.28.58 the same person? You normally shouldn't have more than one account. Anyway, quite soon, an administrator should be coming by and making a decision based on this discussion - keep, no consensus (ie, keep) or delete. I predict "no consensus" will be the result, so the page will stay, for now. Biruitorul 16:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Not every Clinton-hater needs a Wikipedia article. MortonDevonshire Yo · 17:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see that notability has been sufficiently established. Many people dislike the Clintons, I don't see why this one is more notable than the rest. Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided Im not sure yet. I lean to delete. I will read more and then come back to change my vote to 100% keep or 100% delete, surely. •smedleyΔbutler• 23:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The question of whether or not she is a crank is not germaine. What is significant is that she has on multiple occasions garnered significant public attention for her allegations against politicians or her significant questions. She has gained significant access to the media, e.g., appearances on the Sean Hannity radio show. In this context, her public statements have had a major effect on how the media treat certain politicians. In summation, she is, then, a significant person. Dogru144 05:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rockingham Mall[edit]

Tagged for references since March with no improvement. Small, non-notable mall, fails WP:RS and WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I doubt sources would actually help anything, as it would still just be an article on a small unremarkable mall. It seems that a common deletion outcome for strip malls is delete. Also appears to fail WP:CORP. If something remarkable had happened at the mall at one time, then it might be a different matter. The article does not give the impression that this is the case, and I was unable to find anything relevant to prove otherwise (though searching is not made easier by the similarly named but apparently much larger mall located a few hundred meters away). --Pekaje 23:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mall not sufficently notable for his proper article but can be mentionned in the town's article.--JForget 00:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Smaller than a regional mall in its present state at least, at 344,076 square feet. All the same, anyone wishing to spend $3 per article could find several of the 104 articles at Google News archive with substantial coverage of this mall (as opposed to passing refs). It apparently hurt the Methuen Mall, and was in turn hurt (in sales) by the larger Mall at Rockingham Park. It is unusual for one to go from enclosed to open, with as much transformation as this one had. Seems to have had an effect on malls across the state line, which is not common for a local strip mall. Edison 15:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete view - simply lacks the non-trivial secondary sources need to establish notability. Bridgeplayer 19:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison, even though he expressed a delete view I believe that this subject is notable to pass our inclusion guidelines. Burntsauce 17:24, 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. Sandstein 17:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milena Leticia Roucka[edit]

nn model/independent wrestling manager. The article was previously deleted in an AFD under Milena Roucka and is now salted. I assumed someone made a page with her middle name to get around the salted version. An attempt was made to speedy delete the page but was denied (although maybe that should be reconsidered). The AFD was about a year ago, and she was managing at this independent promotion at the time, and is still doing that today, so her notability has increased very little in the time span, if at all. There are sources, but they are all deadlinks, results, or merely mention her in passing, nothing from any major publication that shows notability. There is a long line of other failed diva search contestants that have been deleted, as well as other performers in said promotion. Biggspowd 22:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's the previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milena Roucka — Scientizzle 22:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Eventually if she debuts on WWE TV somebody is going to be creating the page anyways. This is seriously stupid look at these articles Talia Madison & Mercedes Martinez they are female wrestlers with alot of expirience and they have nothing on their article and it's fine. So if the page was considered "deletion" there is already stuff Roucka has done so they can make an article I mean even though she is in the developmental still doesn't mean she can't have an article. For example how come the male developmental wrestlers article's aren't considered deletion? There is articles of the male developmental wrestlers worst than this one. Seriously is it the divas only the articles you'll considered "deletion"? Come on, there are the male developmental wrestler article's worst than this one. Art 281 00:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As per AFD etiquette "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article", I would like to point out that the above user has made a majority of edits on the Milena Roucka page. I also would like to point out WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as arguments to this entry. Biggspowd 01:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - sufficient media coverage.--Addhoc 01:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know what your idea of "sufficient" is, but that search is anything but. I checked them all out, and they are all basically press releases that say her name in passing. They just listed the names of the diva search contestants (most of whom are not notable), that doesn't give any notability, it's just her name in passing. Biggspowd 01:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, those are trivial mentions at best, which does not equal "sufficient media coverage". Those articles are about the Diva Search itself, not Roucka. Nikki311 02:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete own web site/ trivial mentions/directory info etc do not confer notability Corpx 02:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She isn't not notable? Are you kidding me? Please what do you want to see if she exists!, her address!. You'll are making a big deal about this, the article has everything it needs. Art 281 03:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Very notable, modelling, wrestling, acting. Notable, WWE Magazine, OVW TV. I Don't even know why is for deletion. AquariusBoy01 21 August 2007
Comment I would like to let the WP community know that the above user recreated the article, and has a majority of the edits on the page. Dannycali 03:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - agree with AquariusBoy01, her notability derives from her wrestling career and her celebrity status. The current version of WP:BIO indicates that "competitors who have played in a fully professional league" are notable, so possibly she could be considered notable even without media coverage, which is admittedly press releases, tabloid journalism and lad mags. Addhoc 22:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: OVW is not a fully professional league. It is WWE's main developmental territory, which is similar to how major league baseball teams have associated minor league teams. — Gwalla | Talk 18:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No increase of notability since last afd. This should have been speedied as repost of deleted material. Just a minor league wrestling valet, many of them have been deleted. All the references and media coverage only mention her in passing, and that does not show the notability needed in terms of multiple independent sources. Dannycali 03:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she's in WWE's farm territory and has been for some time. The article needs a major facelift, though. Delete. Davnel03 14:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you just defeated yourself with your comment there, being in the minor leagues of pro wrestling is not guaranteed notability. She is clearly not notable, and this should have been speedied since it was already deleted in AFD. Also, this afd may be set to close soon, I would like to hear from others who do not have a COI in this article so that a true consensus can be reached. Here's someone on near the same notability level that was deleted [2]Dannycali 17:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you have a look at the civility policy. Addhoc 17:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do know what being civil is, I believe I raise a legitimate point. Dannycali 18:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable valet in a developmental promotion. "Model" means very little (what has she modelled for?). Come back when and if she gets a pro contract. — Gwalla | Talk 18:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nikki311 18:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball? What are you talking about there isn't anything there that is supposed to take place in the future. Art 281 22:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - She was saying that she may or may not be released from her contract before she makes a main roster television debut with the WWE, so policy demands that we not speculate that she will and keep the article on the grounds that she will be notable soon. The Hyb rid 22:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the notability policy at this time. The Hyb rid 22:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - To whoever put what has she modelled for, look at the career section - User:AquariusBoy01 24 August 2007 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:55, August 24, 2007 (UTC).
  - We did look, it just quite simply isn't notable, and lots of models of similar credentials have been deleted. I crossed off the vote part of your comment to avoid confusion when it is tabulated. Dannycali 02:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sandstein 17:02, 26 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 keep. John254 03:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Noronha[edit]

Fails WP:BIO notability criteria. Google search turns up nothing. Cannot improve. VegitaU 22:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the notability criteria is "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." a standard botanical abbreviation is, for a botanist, indicative of a contribution to the "enduring historical record" of the field. Tom Radulovich 22:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, I didn't even realize that. I thought it was just a pen name. I wish there was some more information on this guy, but if this abbreviation is remarkable, how do I go about retracting this nomination? -- VegitaU 22:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added enough references to pass WP:BIO, I think. —David Eppstein 23:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, major historical figure, Head of Museum of the Batavian Society of Arts and Sciences in Jav, in the 18th century.DGG (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, major historical figure, check: Career, Collecting localities, Collections, Literature, Biographical data-Marcus 19:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:BIO as a major historical figure. The nominator is wrong. Burntsauce 17:24, 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. PeaceNT 05:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Alessandro Aparecido da Silva[edit]

Youth players are not notable as per WP:BIO and WikiProject Football standards —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 22:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Delete all per nom - in lacking notability, as well as not even close to playing at the highest level of the sport Corpx 02:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as they have not played in a fully-professional league (WP:BIO). Number 5 7 08:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as failing WP:BIO. Punkmorten 11:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. I've had a look at all these and, yes, they are all youth players who have yet to play in the first-team in a fully professional league. --Malcolmxl5 20:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Eluchil404 17:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanit[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable company. Tagged with {{notability}} since February 2007 with no significant improvements. Hawaiian717 22:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have to potential sources here. [3] & [4]. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Random Editor. --Aarktica 21:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not adequately explain the core business of the company, or what its expertise is. Current references are very weak. I would not object to re-creation of a better article, but this company does not pass any criteria for intrinsic notability. So unless its notability is shown from sources, I don't see why it should be kept. The Random Editor's potential sources are interesting, but (1) there is no mention of any actual contract with the government for SWARM, (2) the concrete nanotube thing is only a grant application. EdJohnston 01:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article simply does not assert the notability of the company. We can probably all agree that it exists, but that, in itself, does not make it notable. Fails WP:CORP. --Evb-wiki 15:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR 11:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lab245[edit]

As currently written, this article does not contain any reliable secondary sources to satisfy the notability guidelines for companies. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 22:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources are found with notability Corpx 02:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete only found one link. [5] Carlosguitar 00:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. --Aarktica 21:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 17:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Football Fans Census[edit]

Was tagged speedy as blatant advertising, but it seems less spammy than that, however there is still a question of notability - fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 22:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps one reason the IP originally tagged the article as spam was the fact that a few days ago, one of the original creators of the article, User:Eddieonline, added external links to footballfanscensus.com on 52 different pages over the space of ~40 minutes, coupled with discussion on the talk page, regarding a possible conflict of interest of User:Footballfanscensus. I don't actually have much of an opinion on whether the article should be deleted. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 22:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Of 15 citations, and eight general references, only one is non-trivial, and about Football Fans Census itself: [6]. However, several reliable publications have cited their surveys, which indicates that it is a respected company within soccer circles. Reso lute 22:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a blatant advert written and regularly updated by the company concerned. 87.127.44.154 06:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as group is cited in reputable publications. Article does need attention though to read less like an advert. Number 5 7 08:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I agree the article needs attention. The difficulty here is that the edits by independent editors are made worthless by the constant edits to the article by the company themselves who have two registered users: footballfanscensus and Eddieonline. 87.127.44.154 08:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users not editing articles they are involved with is mostly just a guideline - even Jimmy Wales himself has edited his own article on occasion, under his username of User:Jimbo Wales. Meanwhile, I thought I would bring this to your (and other users') attentions. That constitutes a blatant self-reference. Also, I don't know if you've got some kind of strong internet filter enabled that tries to remove all telephone numbers posted in forms, but your edits have removed pretty much all numbers in the article, which goes some way to break pretty much all external links, many internal links, and also damages references. See here, here, here, and, most damagingly, here. Perhaps you could avoid editing Wikipedia from your current location, as your edits almost uniformly accidentally vandalise the article. The reason I mention this here is so that if possible, an admin could rollback changes? --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 09:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for the flag - for the benefit of others the stripping of numbers was caused by the JahJah add-on to Firefox, which affected the way numbers were displayed on webpages. I didn't realise it was also having an effect on forms such as this. The addon has now been deleted. I wonder if I am the first person this has happened to, or whether some form of warning about this should be made available somewhere? 87.127.44.154 05:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I feel that it fails WP:CORP and is spam that has been dressed up as an encyclopedic article. --Malcolmxl5 21:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, tricky one but reliable publications cite from them. I've heard of them via these publications. Englishrose 12:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. @pple 17:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stand Up Sit Down[edit]

Delete no 3rd party WP:RSes showing that this movement is notable. Carlossuarez46 22:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant advert of a non-notable campaign. I am a keen football supporter and a member of numerous football message boards and I am only aware of this group from their spam adverts. Fans do not sing "stand up sit down" at football grounds as claimed in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.44.154 (talk • contribs)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasonably well known campaign group in English football (cited by the BBC and Daily Telegraph (by a former Sports Minister!) amongst others) . Article does need a re-write though. Number 5 7 08:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is actually quite a well known campaign that has gained media coverage. Dave101→talk 19:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have heard of this group simply because a couple of the organisers have posted from time to time on a fans forum that I keep an eye on. However, I am not certain that it really is that notable outside a small number of people who attend football matches. The Telegraph article mentions SUSD only in passing, the BBC article is better but is about the issue rather than the group. I would like to see multiple, independent, significant sources about the group itself and a rewrite using those sources, as the article as it stands reads like a promotional page, before accepting it as an encyclopedic article. --Malcolmxl5 21:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. A notable campaign. Englishrose 12:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 03:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan El Mouataz[edit]

prod contested. As written, article doesn't tell me if this guy is a benchwarmer, super star or something in between. As far as I am concerned, simply being a soccer player means nothing. What you do while you are playing soccer is what makes you notable or not. Nothing here indicates notability. The way I see it, if there was something notable to be said about the guy, someone would have said it. Since nothing was said, there must be nothing notable about the guy. Postcard Cathy 21:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to this, he's played on a top level, pro league in Belgium, and WP:BIO says that's enough. Clarityfiend 23:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays professional football in the Belgian league so by Wikipedia policy and precedent is clearly notable. You did research this before nominating it right? Nick mallory 00:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Clarity, Nick: The article doesn't indicate how much he has played, if he spent 99% of his time on the bench and 1% or less on the field, etc. I don't care if he is on soccer's equivalent of the NY Yankees. If he spent most of his time being soccer's equivalent of the bullpen catcher, he is not wiki worthy! Postcard Cathy 04:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nick, my opinion has always been it is not my place to do research before nominating. I should not make the author's argument for him. It would take him one or two sentences to avoid my wishing to see this article gone. Let's say that you were starting an article on Roger Clemens and had no time to do anything more than a stub. All it would take for me to not want the article deleted is to stay he is/was a pitcher on x, y and z teams and was a Cy Young award winner. In a very short amount of time, you indicated clear notability. But being the bullpen catcher for the Yankees is not notable IMO. This article doesn't tell me diddly squat about this guy's accomplishments. As I said before, if his sole accomplishment is keeping the bench warm, I don't want him on wiki until he does something more notable and the article reflects it. Postcard Cathy 04:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly the AfD guidelines say ""You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." You say that's not your opinion, but that's what the rules are. Similarly the Wikipedia notability guidelines say that a player who's played one game is notable, you disagree with that, but that's what the rule is and AfD is not the place to change it. Lastly this is an article about a footballer, not a baseballer. Bringing baseball into it all the time simply suggests that you know 'diddly squat' about soccer articles and perhaps, as the overwhelming consensus on this and the other articles shows, that you shouldn't be nominating such pieces for deletion. Nick mallory 03:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- But we have a long established policy that states he should be kept whether you happen to want him kept or not. Your casual attitude to putting other users to the trouble of disagreeing with you shows a lack of respect for wikipedians. Brandon97 14:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies WP:BIO but urgently needs expansion!!!! ChrisTheDude 07:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays in a fully-professional league and is an international! Number 5 7 08:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please bother doing some research before nominating an article. The player is capped by one of the strongest African national teams. -- Ban Ray 09:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays in professional league so meets WP:BIO. Davewild 09:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it already asserts notability, but I'm not particularly fond of the mass substub creation of the article starter. Punkmorten 11:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professional international footballer. Also WP isn't exactly drenched with articles on african football. Quickly deleting every stub won't help WP to expand on the subject. It's entirly possible someone comes along and add some much needed expanding. Sebisthlm 12:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep International footballer. Clears WP:BIO very easily. Brandon97 14:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, your logic is extremely flawed. "Since nothing was said, the guy must not be notable". Take a look at 1957 European Cup Final for example. I count 7 players who played in the final of the most important club competition in all European football who don't even have an article! In addition, doing 5 seconds of research (otherwise known as doing a Google search and clicking the second link) would show you that this player made 26 appearances in the Jupiler League last season, which satisfies any notability criteria you could possibly think of. :) ugen64 17:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quite apart from even looking at Google, the link in the inforbox indicates an article for the team DGG (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Snowball?) per above. The nom should refrain from nominating articles for deletion if he is not prepared to abide by WP:GD [7]. --Malcolmxl5 21:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Notable footballer that meets WP:BIO. Dave101→talk 12:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Just WP:SNOWBALL this one already, everyone here is in agreeance that this should be kept. Burntsauce 17:25, 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. John254 03:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Munyaneza[edit]

prod contested. As written, article doesn't tell me if this guy is a benchwarmer, super star or something in between. As far as I am concerned, simply being a soccer player means nothing. What you do while you are playing soccer is what makes you notable or not. Nothing here indicates notability. The way I see it, if there was something notable to be said about the guy, someone would have said it. Since nothing was said, there must be nothing notable about the guy Postcard Cathy 21:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This says he's played on two pro Belgian teams. Clarityfiend 23:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays professional football in the Belgian league so by Wikipedia policy and precedent is clearly notable. Nick mallory 00:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Clarity, Nick: The article doesn't indicate how much he has played, if he spent 99% of his time on the bench and 1% or less on the field, etc. I don't care if he is on soccer's equivalent of the NY Yankees. If he spent most of his time being soccer's equivalent of the bullpen catcher, he is not wiki worthy! Postcard Cathy 04:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're supposed to look for sources yourself Cathy and if you can't find anything then bring it to AfD. A moment's googling would have shown that this chap not only plays in a fully professional European league but has international caps for his country. You might not agree with the notability requirements but they are what they are. Also relating every soccer player to baseball isn't really helping the debate. Nick mallory 03:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BIO, if he has a played a game in a professional league he can be considered notable. Dave101→talk 19:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies WP:BIO but urgently needs expansion!!!! ChrisTheDude 07:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fully pro team and six international caps, what else do you need? -- Ban Ray 09:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays in professional league so meets WP:BIO. Davewild 09:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it already asserts notability, but I'm not particularly fond of the mass substub creation of the article starter. Punkmorten 11:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professional international footballer. Also WP isn't exactly drenched with articles on african football. Quickly deleting every stub won't help WP to expand on the subject. It's entirly possible someone comes along and add some much needed expanding. Sebisthlm 12:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These thoughtless nominations of people who clearly meet policy requirements show a lack of respect for the valuable time of your fellow wikipedians. Brandon97 14:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:BIO. Dave101→talk 19:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:BIO. This is yet another frivolous nomination by nom. who appears not to be willing to follow WP:GD [8]. --Malcolmxl5 21:43, 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. John254 03:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frederik De Winne[edit]

prod contested. As written, article doesn't tell me if this guy is a benchwarmer, super star or something in between. As far as I am concerned, simply being a soccer player means nothing. What you do while you are playing soccer is what makes you notable or not. Nothing here indicates notability. The way I see it, if there was something notable to be said about the guy, someone would have said it. Since nothing was said, there must be nothing notable about the guy Postcard Cathy 21:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I encountered an article almost exactly like this yesterday. I requested a speedy on it, so I guess a speedy for this one too. Jonj onbt 22:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article gives the team SC Lokeren and the league Jupiler League. I need the football people to tell me if membership on a team in that league is notable. If it is, we dont delete for the article being a stub. DGG (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - While the article could read as being A7 speedily deleted, I actually think it satisfies WP:BIO, specifically for athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis. Since the Jupiler League is a fully professional league (the top Belgian football league), I think it qualifies. But as a stub it falls somewhat short IMO. --Pekaje 23:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This shows he played in a pro league. Clarityfiend 23:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays professional football in the Belgian league so by Wikipedia policy and precedent is clearly notable. There's nothing wrong with an article which starts as a stub. Nick mallory 00:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nick, Pekajje, DGG: The article doesn't indicate how much he has played, if he spent 99% of his time on the bench and 1% or less on the field, etc. I don't care if he is on soccer's equivalent of the NY Yankees. If he spent most of his time being soccer's equivalent of the bullpen catcher, he is not wiki worthy! Postcard Cathy 04:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Cathy. Wikipedia policy and precedent mean that if he'd played just ONE game in a fully professional league then he's notable. This is a long established policy and it's easy to check if a player has played before nominating it for AfD. The number of keep votes on this AfD show where the community consensus lies. Nick mallory 03:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is at odds not just with the conventions for football but the entire policy behind N:sports, which is that participation at a sufficiently high level is enough, regardless. Personally, though as a total non-expert, I think this sensible, for otherwise we would be here discussing each individual's particular career. With over 100 afds a day, I think the practice of having clear-cut bright line distinctions based on obviously sourceable criteria is very sensible, and could well be extended to as many other fields as possible. I look forward to the day when we will have about 50 a day here, the ones that really need attention. DGG (talk) —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:52, August 21, 2007 (UTC).
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BIO guidelines but urgently needs expansion!! ChrisTheDude 07:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the author has created loads of articles on similar lines, and a fair few have been speedied, prodded or AfDd, when they shouldn't be, so it's worth watching out. They all need major expansion, though. ArtVandelay13 07:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "if there was something notable to be said about the guy, someone would have said it" So should we automatically delete all the short stubs now? if this one gets deleted, we might well delete thousands of others. Has played more than 20 games in a fully pro league, clearly meets WP:BIO requirements. -- Ban Ray 08:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays in professional league so meets WP:BIO. Davewild 09:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These thoughtless nominations of people who clearly meet policy requirements show a lack of respect for the valuable time of your fellow wikipedians. Brandon97 14:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Ahem, that was really uncalled for (please AGF). The article really didn't look like much, so it's understandable that it got nominated. Anyway, I'm tempted to call WP:SNOW on this one, unless someone comes up with an argument for deletion that is supported by policy or guidelines. --Pekaje 14:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professional international footballer. Also WP isn't exactly drenched with articles on african football. Quickly deleting every stub won't help WP to expand on the subject. It's entirly possible someone comes along and add some much needed expanding. Sebisthlm 12:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:BIO. I would suggest finding out whether the player fails WP:BIO before nominating an article for deletion in the future. Dave101→talk 19:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:BIO. Will nom. please read WP:GD [9] and follow the guide before nominating an AfD in future. --Malcolmxl5 21:47, 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. Navou ^banter 02:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cream (software)[edit]

A pile of Vim scripts with no assertion of notability. —ptk✰fgs 21:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ptkfgs has undisclosed bias in recommending deletion of this article, his own Wikipedia user page bears a banner for the Vim text editor. (The whole point of the article for deletion in question is that it is a working commentary of the Vim user interface.)

I'd also like to add that Cream has been referenced by a third parties unknown to me for at least 5 years and countless references to date. Given the state of the Editor War, I'd like to propose that the Cream article remain in lieu of being merged or deleted, especially by someone without Neutral point of view. -- Digitect 01:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never used it and have no opinion on the software. The Vim article is on my watchlist, and after noting a discussion of Cream on the talk page, I examined the article and found that it contains no assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a software directory and we must limit our coverage of software to those items for which multiple non-trivial reliable sources attest notability. This is not the first software-related article I've nominated for deletion, and my nomination should not be misinterpreted as a judgement on the quality of the software itself. Thanks. —ptk✰fgs 14:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 22:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm confused, wouldn't a user with an emacs (not a vim) button have a POV problem? But I guess, you are saying there is an "editor war" between vim and cream just like between vi and emacs? Anyway, as long as this won't help with WP:N, it shouldn't matter. The articles on itworld.com and linux.com ([10][11]) mentioned in the article are both non trivial, reliable sources, as far as I can tell, so no reason to delete the article because of notability concerns. There's also quite a few somewhat more trivial mentions turning up in google, e.g. [12] lists it as one of two possible linux alternatives to notepad and describes it a bit. Likely more can be found. Of course, the article is just a stub and could need some work, so I'd also see no big problem with merging and redirecting this to the vim article - no AfD needed for doing so though. --Allefant 11:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found the information useful, especially the external links. There is no point in deleting it. (B.Meerdink) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.87.25.180 (talk) 12:20, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to gain better consensus Computerjoe 's talk 12:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep informative Fosnez 15:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - or merge per Allefant. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Allefant. --Aarktica 21:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten 17:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe Martin[edit]

prod contested. As written, article doesn't tell me if this guy is a benchwarmer, super star or something in between. As far as I am concerned, simply being a soccer player means nothing. What you do while you are playing soccer is what makes you notable or not. Nothing here indicates notability. The way I see it, if there was something notable to be said about the guy, someone would have said it. Since nothing was said, there must be nothing notable about the guy. Postcard Cathy 21:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." WP:GD. You have haven't done that. As it happens, he plays for a team in the First Division of the Belgian Football League and therefore fulfils WP:BIO, has played in a fully professional league. --Malcolmxl5 22:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. --Malcolmxl5 23:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It only takes one pro game, and he qualifies four times over. (Hey, I don't make the rules.) Clarityfiend 00:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Clarity, Malcolm: The article doesn't indicate how much he has played, if he spent 99% of his time on the bench and 1% or less on the field, etc. I don't care if he is on soccer's equivalent of the NY Yankees. If he spent most of his time being soccer's equivalent of the bullpen catcher, he is not wiki worthy! And Clarity: I don't care about that rule. It is a stupid rule. In that case, a guy who gets called up from the Pawtucket Red Sox and pinch hits in one game/pitches for 1/3 of an inning/etc., gets taken out, and then is returned to the minor leagues can then be listed on wiki cause technically he was in one pro baseball game. Under those circumstances, he ain't wiki worthy at all. And this article doesn't tell us if he is this kinda guy or Curt Schilling! Postcard Cathy 04:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't particularly like that policy either, but you're in the wrong place if you want to change it. Until then, he's a keeper (in both senses), and so are the others. (Viva la Cathy revolution!) Clarityfiend 05:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has played in a fully-professional league. Number 5 7 08:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays in professional league so meets WP:BIO. Davewild 09:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep can nominator actually read WP:BIO before putting clearly notable articles such as this up for deletion. Mattythewhite 10:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These thoughtless nominations of people who clearly meet policy requirements show a lack of respect for the valuable time of your fellow wikipedians. Brandon97 14:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did about 10 minutes of work and hopefully it seems notable enough now, regardless of the notability guideline (which the article met anyway ;)) ugen64 17:12, 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. Eluchil404 17:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randal Haworth[edit]

delete Lack of particular notability in either plastic surgery or art Droliver 21:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I knew the name sounded familiar (me and him sharing the same last name). He was the plastic surgeon on The Swan (TV series). I am not totally sure this asserts notability, but if the article was given a good rewrite/cleanup, it could be good enough. Tinkleheimer 04:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Borderline WP:BIO material; should only be kept if article is overhauled. --Aarktica 21:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR 11:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Bitar[edit]

deletenon notability in our field (plastic surgery). Strictly a superfluous wiki bio Droliver 21:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 23:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A Medline search only gives three peer-reviewed papers for GJ Bitar, of which Google Scholar finds only moderate citation (2-10), so I'd agree that notability as an innovative surgeon isn't proven. However, the Man of the Year from the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society for fund-raising seems to have been covered in the press eg [13],[14], so he might perhaps be weakly notable for that alone? Espresso Addict 02:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The award is not for notability as a surgeon or physician. It's an altogether trivial award for fundraising a not very significant amount of money: "Local plastic surgeon sets the national fundraising high mark by raising $145,000 in contributions."DGG (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG and Droliver. --Aarktica 21:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. MastCell ^Talk 17:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of American Whose Line episodes[edit]

Unnecessary list. If each episode had its own page, which they do not, then a category would be warranted. As it is, this page serves no purpose at all. Delete Man It's So Loud In Here 21:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Almost every TV show article has a list of episodes...but then again, not every episode has an article, so weak delete from me. Jonj onbt 21:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I understand it, there is consensus that notable TV shows should have an episode list. This seems to be a work in progress, but I see no reason not to give it time to allow it to be completed. I do note, however, that the two episode articles have been redirected to the main article, with no apparent effort to gain consensus for such an action. If this list is kept, these redirects should be undone. JulesH 22:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Honestly I think that lists of episodes of top level, in terms of popularity, series should be kept. Just slides under for me. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to follow WP:EPISODE clearly enough; as the guideline points out, the list does not need to be populated. In fact, it probably shouldn't be without good articles. --Haemo 00:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete unless sources are found to confirm the air dates, because that's basically all this adds Corpx 02:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, and a very weak one at that. I love the show to bits, but I'm not sure that this is the kind of episode guide envisaged by the guideline cited a few comments above mine. Whose Line episodes don't have titles or anything like that, so all this list would ever show is the air dates of shows known only by number (and don't anyone ever think about renaming the episodes as "The One Where X Happens"), which doesn't strike me as a particularly encyclopedic thing to have - in contrast to a show like Frasier or The Simpsons which actually does have episode titles. There is or was a Whose Line Wiki floating around the web, and this information may be better off there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless episode guide, not necessary for own page, putting number of episodes is sufficient. Dannycali 03:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Branigan[edit]

Gsearch does not come up with this drink in the first several pages. No claim of notability in article. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 21:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:A7. Snowball candidate. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No sections, not encyclopedic, and not notable. Jonj onbt 21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence that this is anything other than complete nonsense. Man It's So Loud In Here 21:24, 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. ELIMINATORJR 11:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House of Munsö[edit]

I propose to delete this article. Although the term is common on google, this seems to come mostly from here. I did some searches on the academic parts of Google:

books.google.com("House of Munsö"): 0 (zero) hits;
scholar.google.com("House of Munsö"): "did not match any documents."

The Swedish term is sv:Munsöätten. Also this term is not found on scholar.google. However, on books.google this term occurs. In just one single book, on three pages in "Fornnordisk ordbok" (1975) by sv:Åke Ohlmarks. Conclusion: this is bordering on WP:HOAX. It should not be an article. /Pieter Kuiper 21:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the lineage chart, it seems like there are a good deal of real people involved, which just on the surface leads me to believe this isn't a hoax, then again, I can't be sure. Oy, I feel like I'm reading Beowulf again...
- Sweyn Estridson was real, but the lineage to Sigurd Ring is either original research, or WP:SYN, or from an outdated book. The other thing is that no academic historian uses the term "House of Munsö". /Pieter Kuiper 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep don't know anything about the context of this article, but seems to show some notability, most of the names in the tree have articles, although it does need some cleanup, such as what is the reason behind the list of names at the bottom?--Jac16888 22:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This dynasty would be notable if it had existed. Although most of the entries in the pedigree are notable, the tree-structure itself is not - WP:SYN, nor is the name of this article. Compare this with a search books.google.com(Ynglinga dynasty"), which gives 23 hits (154 on Ynglingaätten). /Pieter Kuiper 22:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I think the question is whether there is any documentation for the name of the dynasty.If so, it's notable, But what I can see of the source gives me no great confidence. It appears to be a biographic dictionary without references. DGG (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletionism run amok. The swedish name gets over 800 hits[15];, one of them is the Historical Museum in Stockholm.[16] The name is used as shorthand for this family among genealogists.[17][18][ Plantagenet was not the name that family called itself either until quite late.

--Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- That is exactly what I say: hobby-genealogists use the term on their web pages. You succeeded in finding one single mention of "Munsöätten" on all the pages of the Swedish Museum of National Antiquities. If I too might adduce a non-authoritative web site, Örjan Martinsson says that "the term House of Munsö should be avoided because it is ahistoric and takes position for a controversial interpretation of history." Contrary to the Plantagenets or the House of Stenkil, the people on this page were not a dynasty. /Pieter Kuiper
  - We can still have articles on terms that should be avoided and controversial interpretations of history as long as they report the relevant controversy in a neutral manner. Haukur 16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly. This AFD is improper because it is, in fact, a content dispute. What Pieter should do, if he wishes, is add information regarding the controversy. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Concerning Pieter Kuiper's edits, it may be worth noting that he considers being called a "vandal" to be an award on his user page[19].--Berig 19:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Briangotts and Haukur.--Berig 19:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the name itself and very existence of the dynasty is challenged, I dont quite see how to discuss it on the talk page. --Supposing it were concluded it was not valid, what would the article then say? "This is an rarely-used but invalid name for a dynasty that doesn't exist" ? DGG (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fictional or not, the topic is notable. Heck, just the debate over whether this house existed or not makes it notable. I think this is more an issue of what to say in the article than an issue of whether to have an article. Blueboar 17:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedykeep per Briangotts. There can still be a {{merge}} debate based on WP:NOTABILITY. dab (𒁳) 19:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the question is if there are enough references to support a minority view point on the mythological history of area. Also, I thought I recalled making a comment on this afd a couple days ago, but it's not here. The Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard has a long discussion on this article as well that might be helpful. It comes down to reduction in WP:OR and increase in WP:V. --Rocksanddirt 15:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Here's a valid genealogy. The page should be rewritten to make it clear that the first dynasty of Sweden does not have a well-established name. It may be referred to as "Uppsala Ynglingar dynasty", "dynasty of Björn Ironside", and whatnot.[20] --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If this whole thing were Gothicismus, it would still be notable and sourced. -- Petri Krohn 03:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight on the Mountains[edit]

Delete nn album by nn group on nn label, fails WP:MUSIC Carlossuarez46 21:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, band article has been deleted. Punkmorten 21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Dead[edit]

Delete nn album by nn band on nn label, fails WP:MUSIC Carlossuarez46 21:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, band article has been deleted. Punkmorten 21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Band isn't notable, as Blitzkid has been deleted (3 times). Giggy ^Talk 23:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hollow Bodies[edit]

Delete nn album by nn band on nn label, fails WP:MUSIC Carlossuarez46 21:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, band article has been deleted. Punkmorten 21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trace of a Stranger[edit]

nn album from nn band on nn label(s), fails WP:MUSIC Carlossuarez46 21:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, band article has been deleted. Punkmorten 21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let Flowers Die[edit]

Delete another nn album from nn band, fails WP:MUSIC Carlossuarez46 21:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, band article has been deleted. Punkmorten 21:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrifying Tales[edit]

Delete another self-released album by nn band, fails WP:MUSIC Carlossuarez46 21:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, band article has been deleted. Punkmorten 21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Five Cellars Below[edit]

Delete nn album by nn group on nn label, fails WP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 21:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, band article has been deleted. Punkmorten 21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, band article deleted, and it was not charted. As fas as I can tell, if a band is not notable, then its albums are not notable. Neranei (talk) 20:22, 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 17:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basic process[edit]

The author admits this is original research.[21] The article is so general and abstract it isn't even clear what field the material is drawn from. Alksub 20:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, this page has survived for 5 years (although I'm not sure how... for two of those years, it was a cross-site redirect, which also should have been deleted). That doesn't mean it should be kept. JulesH 21:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meaningless article.DGG (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Leibniz 12:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. @pple 17:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob 3[edit]

Delete this non-notable future game. The sole editor seems to have a conflict of interest: Alex Gilbert (non-notable school kid)[22] and user Alex436. Its sister page Bob 2 has already been deleted by ProD on Aug. 19. This one was Proposed for Deletion, but the sole author tinkered with the page and removed the ProD. There is already a completely different game called "Secret Agent Bob 3",[23] but no third party Google hits that I can find for this one. Hu 20:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N. Even if the COI/NPOV issues were resolved, I don't see any proof of notability. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry about making this Artice but Im not a school boy and Im a 20 year old person and Alex Gilbert is a famous person in NZ and this is his new game out soon and I thought that this would help support him and with his Studio that has been around for 5 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.71.52 (talk • contribs)

Strong Delete Even if I ignored WP:CRYSTAL for a moment there'd still be enough conflict with WP:N to warrant deletion. First of: The "Studios" Website is hosted with a free-hoster to begin with (not something a known developer would do or even had to do - a real domain cost ~0.50$ a month. Secondly: I also develop software and judging from the only screenshoot given in the article, Bob 3 was build using a simple ready made game toolbox. I've been writing software for about 10 years now and still you won't find a wikipedia article about any of them as I know none of them are notable. Yes when I was younger (like 14) I also had "my own software studio". I can't help but to point out this, sorry [24]. 20 years old eh?

1redrun 08:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author's website has linked to the wikipedia article about his game. Free add[25]? 1redrun 08:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Alex reveals that his purpose is promotion: Please dont delete my Bob 3 Page cause i have been working on that game for over one year and I really want to sell it over the net and all. Its being sold here in NZ and why dont you check out the Demo... http://www.archive.org/details/Bob3Demo You can help me with the game if you want PLEASE?? I still need a soundtrack for the game so mabey you can help.. Please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alex436 (talk • contribs) 06:12, August 21, 2007 (UTC). ... message left on my Talk page. Hu 09:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article created, and game created, by amateur game designer. Probably won't be released, certainly won't get independent coverage from reliable sources. Giggy ^Talk 23:42, 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. ELIMINATORJR 11:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MyGRAIN[edit]

Delete only one release after being signed fails WP:BAND, was tagged speedy but I delcined because this was closer call. Carlossuarez46 20:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One album doesn't cut it.--Sethacus 20:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spa toss 20:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Aarktica 22:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desiree Summers[edit]

Looks like ads and the references link back to her talk page. Only a SPA [26] seems to have an interest in the article and that was only over three days back in March 2007. In any event, there is not enough reliable source material that is independent of Desiree Summers for this article to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Without such source material, the topic fails Wikipedia:Notability. I'm also adding Vessel Fitness -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both non-notable and spammy.--Sethacus 20:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag for verification. There is verifiable information here, but it needs sorting out from what isn't. I'd guess this article is the work of a PR company (it certainly has the look of their kind of work) but that doesn't mean the subject isn't notable. There are, for instance, the two linked radio interviews. The existence of the TV programs can presumably be determined with reference to TV guide publications. The magazine articles are published by an apparently independent publisher. This certainly seems like the kind of person we should have an article on. JulesH 20:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. However, content from magazine articles written by Desiree Summers is not independent of Desiree Summers any more than information from her website is independent of Desiree Summers. If Desiree Summers added bioagraphical material about herself in those articles, it really doesn't show that others find such information important enough for their publication. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm primarily basing my reasoning about her notability on the grounds of the radio interviews. These seem to be adequate to substantiate her notability. Respected radio stations don't give non-notable people 7 minute interviews. JulesH 21:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced myself. What we have: the first six external links are inadmissible. Either they're for her website or are somehow connected to the station that carries her show OR are straight PR. Of the next two, we have a probably passable conference and a disputable one. The problem is, neither website makes even a trivial mention of her, odd for a "mainstage speaker". The only evidence she was at either seems to be more PR drivel. I'll give you ESPN radio, but the other seems to have only been set up to promote her appearance at one of the aforementioned conferences, which was local to the station. I'm still unclear as to why the link to the President's Challenge is there.--Sethacus 01:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am influenced somewhat by the following on her web site home page [27] "Read More About Desiree Summers on Wikipedia. Click Here Now!" , and "Read More About Vessel Fitness on Wikipedia. Click Here Now!" . She's clearly trying to us us for advertising a not really notable program. DGG (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per DGG MarkinBoston 22:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Brandon97 21:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. The "keep" votes do not address any relevant policy or guideline; see WP:ATA. Sandstein 17:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Eazy-E[edit]

Rapper with no albums—only one non-hit single and a mixtape. His only claim to fame is his famous father. Also nominating his non-hit single, as-yet-unreleased single and album, and the mixtape. Precious Roy 20:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moved to I Got That (Lil Eazy-E Song) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Precious Roy (talk • contribs) 14:20, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

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}}.

Redirect to his father's page. Fails WP:MUSIC but may be worthy of mention. Faithlessthewonderboy 00:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in reply to Precious Roy's statement - His only claim to fame is his famous father - there are many people like that, that no doubt have pages here. he is actually doing something in the music business, though, and i don't think the article should be deleted. there are loads of other pointless pages on here, and none of them have been deleted, so what's your beef with this one? this is an encyclopedia and really nothing should be deleted, no matter how mundane it is. 194.221.133.211 14:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You should familiarize yourself with WP:MUSIC, which lists the criteria for being notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. That articles exist that could or should be deleted is not a valid argument for keeping any other article. There is no beef. Precious Roy 18:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No point in removing, he is a future rapper that should have his own article and it looks pretty good currently. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Football97 (talk • contribs) 18:10, August 21, 2007 (UTC).
- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Precious Roy 18:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Roy but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. I don't think it should be delated at all. Like Football97 said, Lil' Eazy-E is an up and coming rapper, whose future looks bright in the the rap game. I am a huge fan of Lil' Eazy's Mixtape "Rebirth of Gangsta Rap", which I bought online when it was first released, and am really anticipating his upcoming album, "Prince of Compton". I truly believe Lil' E will make it big soon, so if Wikipedia does decide to delete it, it will most likely eventually come back. Please Keep the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SameAsItEverWas (talk • contribs) 02:28, August 22, 2007 (UTC).
- Comment If the article "eventually comes back" as the above user suggested, that will be fine; provided he is notable. But currently this article does not pass the notability guideline set by WP:MUSIC, and therefore should be deleted. As I suggested above, it could redirect to his father's page, and mention of him could be made there. But this is a pretty cut and dry issue: he is a musician who does not pass WP:MUSIC. Until he does, he can't have his own article. Faithlessthewonderboy 04:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow why would you remove he has an album coming this year and he just dropped a single SMH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JFizzle9191 (talk • contribs) 17:17, August 22, 2007 (UTC).
- If his last single failed to chart, why should one expect the new one to? If the single (or album, if/when it comes out) manages to chart, I would be in favor of resurrecting the article. Considering how short and poorly researched it is, rewriting it shouldn't take very long. Precious Roy 17:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He "has an album coming this year?" So? Familiarize yourself with WP:CBALL and, more importantly, WP:MUSIC. He can't have his own article yet. Faithlessthewonderboy 00:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, especially the non-notable singles and albums, all of which fail WP:MUSIC miserably. The remainder of these "unsigned comments" are nothing more than WP:CRYSTAL ball gazing. If Lil Eazy-E does ever become notable, we can write about him then. Burntsauce 17:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No crystal ball, no page. MarkinBoston 22:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In that case every page has to be deleted because they have the bullshit "crystal ball" violation. You all saying delete are fucking kidding me. please.... --Football97 16:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you explain that, please? For instance, how does Eazy-E violate WP:CRYSTAL? Also, using unnecessary profanity isn't the best way to get your point across. :) Faithlessthewonderboy 00:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; but the singles should be deleted and the article should be cleaned up.--Tasco 0 23:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definetly keep, he is a bright prospect in the rap game who is signed to a major label, so if the page was deleted it would almost definetly be created again in the future - Real Compton G 14:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A common argument from the "Keep" crowd is that he will one day be notable, therefore this article should not be deleted. This is not a valid argument. A person has to be notable before the article is created, not become notable afterwards. He's a musician who hasn't even released an album! He is not yet notable! WP:MUSIC sets the threshold for notability at two albums released on a major (or important indie) label. He simply doesn't pass notability guidelines. Faithlessthewonderboy 22:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Now will he have two albums, Prince of Compton and Rebirth of Gangsta Rap. 50 Cent had his own article before Get Rich or Die Tryin' were even released. But it never nominated for deletion. Huh? --97 Football 14:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 50 Cent had a hit single and much notable press before Get Rich came out. Not so the case with Lil Eazy. And mixtapes are not the same as actual albums. Precious Roy 14:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-There is nothing wrong with stubs. The article will develop after the release of his albums etc. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 14:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not that it's a stub—it's that he fails the notability guidelines for music; it's that simple. "After the release of his albums" he may meet notability (if the record charts or if he gets a hit single, for example). Then, and only then, should the article be re-created. Precious Roy 14:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It'll make a good placeholder for when he does become more worth writing about. That in itself I think is fine. The problem arises only if it doesn't follow the guidelines.
-- Python (Talk to me!) 16:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Based on what What Wikipedia is not, and the fact that at this point in time he does not fall into the guidelines for artists to deserve a page, I agree with those that say this deserves deletion. When his album comes out and if it pushes him into the guidelines, then he can have an article created about him that will then have more content.
-- Python (Talk to me!) 17:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israel and racism[edit]

This article, created five days ago, is a content fork as it duplicates other articles - specifically, it would appear to be a POV fork because the article is written with a definite point of view and as an alternate version to more neutral articles discussing similar subjects. Further, much of the body of the article is original research, as is demonstrated by Israel and racism#Zionism racism against some jews. I was initially going to suggest the merger of anything useful into Human rights in Israel, but on further review I don't see anything which matches that description. Israel and racism should be deleted because it does not and will not be able to conform to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Picaroon (t) 20:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just anti Israeli (and frankly anti semetic) propaganda. Nick mallory 00:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH - Clear example of taking a bunch of not directly related incidents and tying them together using synthesis Corpx 02:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP. I've just provided some excellent documentation on the article's talk page. --Shoshoni 03:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious POV fork meant to insult Israelies. No way could a neutral article come from this.--Sefringle^Talk 03:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious POV fork. Thin Arthur 08:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP. This topic is related to Zionism and racism, which was the basis for United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379.^[1]The subject of the article is valid, even if the POV is under dispute. Shoshoni has taken the time to establish at least some of the quotations appear genuine, please retain the article to allow editing of the text to establish a neutral POV and further examination of the validity of the quotations made. Dean Armond 11:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Per nomination--Shrike 12:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see that there is already a Racism by country article. The title for this new article seems inflammatory. Unless this artilce can stand on its own as does Racism in the United States, what is the point here? Anyways, --Tom 12:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. Jtrainor 07:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nomination. 1redrun 08:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP IronyValue These are real quotes, and I think this article, while poorly written in spots, provides some balance to the overwhelmingly pro-Israeli stance of most articles on Wikipedia. Yes, it was very anti-Semitic for Barak to call Palestinians crocodiles, but I see no justification for deleting the article just because some Israeli leaders are bigots.
Delete per WP:SYNTH, invalid content fork to boot. Burntsauce 17:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously POV synth and irredeemable. MarkinBoston 23:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep probably needs to be redirected & merged somewhere though. Eleland 22:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Compiling a long list of quotes like that is OR. The article title encourages non-neutrality. --Coppertwig 17:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

References[edit]

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FXstdf[edit]

Non-notable software. Alksub 20:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Software establishes no notability and has very little references to suggest as much. Article creator seems to only have edits focused on article - WP:COI. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now rewritten — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aseire (talk • contribs)

Comment Nothing has changed in the way of references or establishing notability, which is the main reason why it's up on AfD. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we wnt to the trouble of creating a unique name and a valuable program and feel this subjective "non notable" policy is too much - when was the last time you saw a "non notable" message from GOOGLE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aseire (talk • contribs)
- Aseire, this is not a vote (see WP:AfD). — Indon (reply) — 22:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NOTABILITY, no independent reliable sources. — Indon (reply) — 22:53, 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. Sandstein 17:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Club Penguin trainer[edit]

Non-notable software. Alksub 20:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep-It is noteable (It has quite a few hits on google) and needs some celaning up, but i don't know how much more it can be expanded. 76.110.198.70 21:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources giving coverage & trainers for video games fall under WP is not a game guide Corpx 02:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable software. Absolutely no coverage whatsoever by reliable, third-party published sources. Google News search for "Club Penguin Trainer" produces 0 hits. Google News Archive search also produces 0 hits. Yahoo! News search produces 0 hits. LexisNexis search produces 0 hits. AltaVista search produces 0 hits. -- Satori Son 18:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. At the very most it's a merge into Club Penguin, but certainly not its own article. --Oscarthecat 21:03, 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 narrowly delete as WP:OR. The text is available for improvement if anyone wants it. Sandstein 17:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Left and war[edit]

It was AfD in 2005, with no consensus, but with all those voting keep arguing that the article could be saved by a major reworking. This has never happened, and I thus believe it is time that this article is finally deleted, due to all the POV and centricism problems noted upon in the first AfD nomination Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - here's the diff between the article when it was nominated the first time, and as it stands now.[28] --Bookandcoffee 20:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH - Bunch of not directly related actions knitted under a big broad topic Corpx 00:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Actually, as Bookandcoffee shows, there has been quite a major re-write since the last AFD, with most of the problems addressed to some extent, although room for considerable improvement. The article is now fairly neutral and informative, and the topic is important. There are two reasons to delete, I think: (a) the general wikipedia caution around "and" articles (which often start as forks from main articles, e.g. this I think originated as a section of Left-wing politics; (b) the lack of inward links (I think only Left-wing politics links to it) which might suggest that the topic isn't actually important. However, re (b) there are probably pages that could usefully link to it, e.g. the pages on opposition to the various wars. BobFromBrockley 12:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It has received a major rewrite, but it is still inherently problematic to view a complex and heterogenous as "The Left" in a single article on how "The Left" sees war. As Corpx says... Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, its information that can't fit in the Left-wing politics#War and revolution section but gives important further context to the material there. If it is to deleted then information should first be merged into Left-wing politics article.--JK the unwise 16:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYN.--Aldux 17:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research, and connects a lot of "leftist" movements together that have little real connection. SolidPlaid 17:53, 16 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, Sandstein 20:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I don't think it is necessarily to be viewed as POV. It describes a real historical tendency. But it obviously needs sourcing--and it should be sourceable, for there are a multitude of books written about the general question or major aspects. DGG (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I admit to only skimming the article (which is why I'm not "voting"), but this article seems to be arguing that X is both black and white. What is the point of the article? To show that the left has had an opinion on war? Faithlessthewonderboy 00:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment X is both black and white is actually quite a useful thing to have an article about, if it is generally believed that X is only black or only white. As the issue is complex, doing justice to it (which the article doesn't yet, but could) would not fit into existing other articles. BobFromBrockley 12:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this were done right, it would be an endless article, and, at any stage, would simply be redundant to other articles. Dahn 10:05, 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. Eluchil404 17:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Malloys(band)[edit]

Up-and-coming band, borderline notability re WP:MUSIC. As stated at the article, they "are set to captivate and shock all audiences"; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Oli Filth 19:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This line is taken from The Malloys band bio, and is basically a quote... if i were to put the line in speech brackets, would that be ok for approval, and thus, result in the article not being deleted? Matthewearly 20:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments first, in answer to the above, nope. Please read the appropriate guidelines Oli laid out. Second, this is both marked for speedy and AfD. Which is it?--Sethacus 20:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the CSD tag. Oli Filth 20:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, first it was PROD'd, then removed by Matthewearly; I CSD'd the page afterwards, and then Oli AfD'd it. Looks like the CSD has been rescinded, but I think this page is going to get deleted anyway. GlassCobra 20:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, in that case, delete non-notable band that fails WP:MUSIC.Sethacus 20:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:BAND. Faithlessthewonderboy 00:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Aarktica 22:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The channel is notable. Non-admin closure. --Boricuaeddie 00:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gala TV[edit]

Completing unexplained and incomplete nom by anon user. Given no cause for deletion, I say speedy-keep. DMacks 01:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not the greatest article in the world but ticks enough boxes to keep its place. Author and existing editors should take the prod as motivation to wikify, source etc. Dick G 02:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, lack of reliable sources. Realkyhick 03:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be a notable channel; it is available through Sky Digital. --musicpvm 06:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to log in at present. Thanks for completing AfD entry. No sources, suspect edit history - IP trace suggests it is significantly contributed by the company involved, and as already mentioned no independent sources cited. As such the whole thing is unverifiable, and skates the borders of advertising. 213.48.248.3 09:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC) (aka Cain Mosni)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As notable as most minor TV channels. There has been a great deal of coverage of television gambling in the major UK media recently, and a Parliamentary enquiry I believe, so independent sources are certainly available. Brandon97 14:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Musicpvm. Porterjoh 22:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Common deletion outcomes, which states that "Licensed radio and TV stations are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios." Thus, by that criterion, it is notable. Neranei (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete by User:WilyD as spam. Non-admin closure. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 21:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra mega awesome show[edit]

Radio show with no assertion of notability. Oli Filth 19:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merge (really, just mention it) into WAPJ. Exobyte 19:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 18:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soner Ersen[edit]

Non-notable musician; spam; conflict of interest. The Evil Spartan 19:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:AUTO with no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 19:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Sethacus 20:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete; defaulting to keep. There was a balance of views with no over-riding policy reasons to delete. TerriersFan 23:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of home computers by video hardware[edit]

Such a list is hard, if not impossible, to maintain. It seems to focus on older computers, but there may be a distinction between "home computers" and "personal computers" that I'm unaware of. Overall, categories would work better for the article, and lists like this aren't particularly notable. Exobyte 19:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is a well fleshed out article, though the name needs to change to better reflect the scope, such as '1980's Computers' (as an example, and I haven't checked that that is accurate). "List of home computers" implies it is going to keep track of every home computer from the first PC until, what?, we stop having computers in our homes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cander0000 (talk • contribs) 20 August 2007
Keep and clean up - Some of the introductory part isn't at all written in an encyclopedic style, and the work-to-be-done section should go to the talk page, but the information is definitely worth having an article about. And yes, there is a distinction: home computer is generally used to refer to machines of the era from 1977 to the very early 1990s, after the advent of non-kit computers for the home but before everything but IBM-compatible PCs and Macs died out. That should probably be made clearer in the article, though, as this AfD shows that the term isn't understood by all readers to mean something other than a computer in your home. Pinball22 16:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should have an up to date article that discusses the relevant issues in prose. A table that goes into minute detail about defunct computer models - and is never going to be close to complete - just doesn't have any encyclopedic characteristics. Brandon97 21:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can be browsed to pick up general industry trends, even if not complete. I would not object to renaming to clarify the scope, as suggested above. This is not undigested random info, which is properly deplored by WP:NOT. It's broken down by video hardware type, a thing which I've never actually seen done for PCs before. Information is chunked into bite-size groupings. Also there are lots of blue links here, so this can be used as a navigation aid for earlier computers, for those specially interested in graphics issues. The 123 notes seem well-written and appropriate. EdJohnston 22:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete with no prejudice against an article on the topic when we have multiple, independentreliable sources about the topic. JoshuaZ 20:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Made Software[edit]

This appears to be a non-notable movement. The Evil Spartan 19:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising, lack of reliable independent sources; possibly brief mention at Swiss Made. Sandstein 19:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletions. -- Sandstein 20:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement. Jakew 21:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as you can see at the swissmadesoftware.org homepage, the "swiss made software" label has already been adopted by 15 Swiss software companies. The usage of the label is open and free for any Swiss software company. The entry is not for advertisement but simply to unify the "swiss made" label in the software sector.

please reconsider carefully. Haldimann 14:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here has much less to do with it being an advertisement, than with these problems: a) notability, and b) verifiability. Can you provide any third party reliable sources for the claim that 15 major software companies are using the tag? The Evil Spartan 17:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Made Software revived[edit]

A year ago, I have put this page online. The label has now been adopted by 70 companies. "swiss made software" has become a notable movement and label for good software, made in Switzerland. Please google "swiss made software" for references.

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

Thank you for your response. I can understand your point and will provide proof in a couple of weeks. --Haldimann 07:43, 27 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 delete. Sandstein 17:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiian canoe[edit]

Article is about Canoe paddling in Hawaii; probably not notable enough for an article on the topic and would most likely be hard to write about without putting any original research in the article. Aqwis 18:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. My understanding is that it is a significant sport there and references could probably be found (according to Canoeing, Outrigger canoe racing is the state sport there). However, this article is so short as to be useless, and if such an article were ever created it would be just as easily started from scratch. Any references would include the events listed if they are notable. If anyone adds any of this stuff before the AfD closes, though, I could easily change my mind. Rigadoun (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of the article would seem to be the same as the subject of the article Outrigger canoe racing, so that this one is superfluous. If the specific competitions it mentions are worthy of note, they can be discussed in the latter article. Deor 22:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kissy Road Church of the Holy Trinity[edit]

Non-notable church, no claims of notability, zero Google hits (although I'll admit that a church in Sierra Leone is probably not going to have much of an Internet presence). I put a db-nn tag on it, but it was removed. Corvus cornix 18:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename It can probably be expanded, and should be given a notability tag so that it may be so. Only after having such a tag for a period of time, allowing editors to expand it, should it be considered for deletion. The article should be renamed, however, to something like Holy Trinity Church (Freetown) or something. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- How can it be expanded if there are zero Google hits? Corvus cornix 20:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete being burnt down in a war-torn country does not make it notable Corpx 00:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. A google search on "Holy Trinity Church" kissy brings it up in the following sites: Human Rights watch ([29]), Sierra Leone Web ([30], University of Illinois - Chicago ([31]), and the United Nations ([32]). It was visited by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 2003 ([33]) It seems to be in the process of being rebuilt, although it's not clear whether it would on the same site. How about Holy Trinity Church (Kissy)? Or since Kissy is a neighborhood of Freetown, Holy Trinity Church (Kissy, Freetown). Novickas 16:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Those links do not give "significant coverage" as required by WP:N Corpx 18:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 18:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is not inherited, and there are only trivial mentions of this institution. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a rewrite at User:CaliforniaAliBaba/Holy Trinity Church (Freetown); IMO the church referred to in those sources is notable ("largest congregation", "most important church in the colony", etc.). However, I'm not sure the article we're discussing here is about the same church; see this diff [34] from Kissy, Sierra Leone. cab 00:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources cited in this AFD do not appear to give substantial coverage to a church that is clearly the subject of the article under consideration. Fails WP:ORG and WP:N. There is no notability guideline specific to churches and religious congregations, since the rejection of WP:CONG. Edison 16:53, 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. Sandstein 17:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ches Smith[edit]

Tagged as nn-bio speedy, but playing with a whole bunch of bluelinks and other stuff in the article means that it does not qualify. However, the impact and nature of those performances probably requires investigation. Splash - tk 21:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As its stands, without sources or a notable discography, it doesn't fly with WP:MUSIC in my opinion Dick G 03:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Above seems inconsistent with entry on fellow Xiu Xiu member Caralee McElroy, which is more of a biography.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.159.148.121 (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only because it has slipped through the AfD net I suspect. Should probably be up for deletion as well for same reasons Dick G 04:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As per above I am also nominating the following related pages:

Weak keep as a hot mess of an article, but he passes notability under WP:MUSIC. He is the member, or former member, of a major band. I know... it's not inherited.... Bearian 00:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did he play with those bands as a member or just a guest? The notabiliity requirement you're using (WP:MUSIC musicians #6) is if he was a full-fledged member. Nonetheless, with that many close calls I'd lean towards keep as well. Rigadoun (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to All Music Guide he is a member of Xiu Xiu, making him notable. --Bruce1ee 08:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a few external links and expanded the discography. --Bruce1ee 11:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you do that for Caralee McElroy as well, the other person considered here? It might help establish her notability in this discussion. Rigadoun (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...done. As she is also a member of Xiu Xiu, that should make her notable as well. But where is her afd discussion page? The link on Caralee McElroy points here. --Bruce1ee 09:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 18:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A musician is notable if WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles 6. "was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" as a member of Xiu Xiu. dissolve ^talk 00:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - He does meet WP:MUSIC criterion #6, as a full fledged member of Xiu Xiu, as shown by the article's infobox, which lists him as a current member. Neranei (talk) 19:10, 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. CitiCat^♫ 19:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gladys Swetland[edit]

Non-notable biography. At no time was she ever more than the ninth-oldest living person in the world or the fourth-oldest person living in the United States. Also, WP:PSEUDO says that "In most cases, as noted above, a person who is only notable for one event does not merit a full biography under their name." I believe that this biography falls under that spectrum, as she is only known for her position among the world's oldest. Only two pages, Emma Tillman and Deaths in 2005 link here.

Notice Though it hasn't affected the discussion that I can tell, I would like to point out a possible use of Stealth canvassing to a possibly partisan audience (you need to register to be a member of the forum, which likely means you have an interest in gerontology at the least) here. Cheers, CP 17:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice User Canadian Paul's nomination of this article may be in bad faith, in violation of WP:POINT [[35]]:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Canadian_Paul

[edit] Too many supercentenarian permastubs Yeah. Well, some of these pseudobiographies could do with a merge to "List of supercentenarians from country X", or similar, although people may object to that idea and consider it listcruft. I suggest you try nominating the article for deletion to see what people think.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You should nominate Gladys Swetland as a trial, since it's not current, I think. We'll have to develop a more precise set of rules for determining the notability of supercentenarians. Also, I may have said this before but I recognise you from deathlist.net.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that 'not current' means 'easier to delete without others noticing'.

Ryoung122 08:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defense Against Accusation I think you should be very careful about accusing people of bad faith, especially since I've noted multiple times on your very own talk page that I wanted to get rid of supercentenarian permastubs. First of all, "not current" was said by HSR NOT me. It doesn't mean that I wanted to sneak it under the radar, it just means Shitsu Nakano is sitting on the recent death pages with every Tom, Dick and Harry who edits Wikipedia. That means if I nominate someone like Swetland, the discussion can focus around people who actually contribute to longevity articles and have a better foundation on the topic. If I thought it would be "easier to delete without other noticing" why the hell would I have picked an article STARTED by Mr. Young, a gerontology expert who will likely fight tooth and nail to keep the article? People who create the articles have it added to their watchlist by default. If I was trying to be sneaky, I did a terrible job of it. I was NOT trying to just make a point by nominating Swetland, I had a true belief that the article did not meet notability guidelines, as laid out in the arguments on this page. Given the amount of work that I have done references and improving longevity articles that I DO find important for Wikipedia, I actually find this accusation quite insulting. Cheers, CP 14:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given the amount of work I've done on Wikipedia, I find your accusatory tone insulting. Pot, meet kettle.74.237.28.5 05:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also note that it is linked to from List of the oldest people, which, per WP:PSEUDO, should be satisfactory given her claim for notability. Cheers, CP 20:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Read WP: PSEUDO again. This is NOT a case where a person was mentioned in passing in an event (i.e. murder crime victim). This is a case where the woman WAS the story...and was covered several times over a 3-year period. Hence, your argument fails. Whether others consider her 'still not notable' or not, this particular line of reasoning is an incorrect application in this situation.Ryoung122 14:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree, but I suppose there's nothing to do but bow to interpretation of the closing admin. Cheers, CP 15:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article existed BEFORE the list article was created. Also, anyone perusing the list will want to know more about each case on it...is it true? What more can one find out?Ryoung122 23:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well in that case, now that the list exists, there should no longer be a reason for this page per WP:PSEUDO. Cheers, CP 23:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Hitting an arbitrary age does not automatically make one notable for WP purposes Corpx 02:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How about we merge all these permastubs into lists of supercentenarians by country? If any of the articles we have currently are larger than a stub (like Henry Allingham or Jeanne Calment), we can keep the article and provide a summary with link to the main article. How does that sound? It's encyclopedic information, but these don't merit individual biographies.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Gladys Swetland article is NOT a perma-stub. Check this one-liner out:

Anna Ringier. That looks more like a perma-stub to me. Note with all the articles referenced, this article 'can' be expanded. One reason I haven't is because I believe in the 'collective contribution' concept...let the article grow naturally as those who take interest in it add to it.Ryoung122 05:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one of the top one hundred oldest people in the world ever. That is quite a feat. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia'']] 17:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also a dynamic feat, meaning that in 10 years she may no longer be one of the hundred oldest people in the world ever. Even still, per WP:PSEUDO, unless a full biography can be written, the person doesn't deserve an article. In fact, if this article can be expanded to reasonable length and content, I will withdraw my request for deletion. (unsigned comment)

Comment As already discussed in 'surviving veterans of WWI', being a 'dynamic feat' is NOT a reason for exclusion right now. I note the World Almanac lists the tallest buildings in North American cities. The 1960's editions had a minimum cutoff point of 250 feet. In the 1970's, it was about 300 feet, and about 350 feet in the 1980's. Now it's at 400 feet. Thus, as the number of high-rises has exploded, being '350 feet tall' is no longer good enough for inclusion.

However, in regards to age, we find that much of the 'increase' has already occurred. In the early 1980's, being 109 or 110 was a rarity. Note that if Gladys had been her age in 1986, she would have been the world's oldest person. Ok, while the 'dynamic conveyor belt' is raising the age bar, it should be noted that the process is slowing down. We see only 4 of the top 100 people currently living. Given that Gladys is not at the bottom of the list, she should remain in the top 100 for at least several more years. I suggest if you are 'not happy' with this article, come back in 5-10 years from now. But age 113 years, 240 days is significant in its time...as noted, if she were alive right now she would be 4th-oldest in the world.Ryoung122 05:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First off, we have lots of people creating articles for mere 110 and 111-year-olds (such as Florence Reeves). This woman was older than Shitsu Nakano whose death warranted mention on the Wikipedia deaths list.Ryoung122 23:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First off, Other crap exists is not a valid argument. Secondly, many entries on recent deaths are removed if their articles do not past AfD (think Stack Bundles or whatever that rapper's name was). Thirdly, if this AfD passes, I plan on nominating many of those other articles on the same premise.

Comment. Other crap exists is an inconsistent 'policy' and I have no respect for it; it actually weakens Wikipedia.

In this case, this woman ranked among the top-10 living persons and top-100 all-time. That alone should be enough to keep.Ryoung122 14:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIt would only be enough to keep if it could be if a substantial biography could be written about her. My offer still stands; if someone brings this article up to an acceptable level, I will withdraw the nomination. The time you spend arguing could be used to take the easy way out - improve the article to a full biography. If it can't be done, then all she needs is a mention on the top-100 of all time and maybe a reformatting of the table to include blurbs for those who do not merit their own articles. Cheers, CP 15:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No one appointed you official arbiter of bio-worthiness. Even making an 'offer' is not ethical. An article shouldn't be 'saved' for making a deal; neither should it be deleted for 'not' making one. Also, Stack Bundles or no, Wikipedia is 'not paper' and an individual article can offer more than a simple list (and unlike Stack, reaching 9th-oldest in the world is a uniqueness factor of about 1 in 700 million...I'm sure there's far more articles on rappers and high school football players than the world's oldest people). Given the fact that these cases are cited for their age being verifiable and documentable, it makes sense that for future generations, we produce referenced material so double-checking can occur. Also of note, if the media chose to cover someone BEFORE their death (and over a year-plus period) and if the articles extend beyond a local to a national focus (i.e. seniorjournal.com) then that is a reason to keep.Ryoung122 09:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion.

So Wikipedia has an article for the top 10 living and a list of top 100 ever. And what happens when they die? The top 10 living list is changed, leaving them delinked from the oldest people page. I think it comes down to voting whether being a minimum of the 10th oldest person in the world is substantial to have an article. If yes, then this article, yes. If no, then all other deceased 10th oldest person in the world, goes bye-bye, unless they have some other notable fame, but then you have to draw the line of the minimum rank at death. Ever deceased oldest person in the world has an article and I strongly support that. Such a vote likely shouldn't be in this article, but something for Wikipedia admins to decide.

Here's what I nominate, my opinions are as follows:

Strong views:

By rank: The oldest person in the world, whether deceased, should have an article.
By geography: The oldest person by country, whether not 10th oldest, should have an article.

Not so strong views:

By rank: Down to the 5th oldest person in the world.
By geography: Down to the oldest person in a state, province, etc., of a country.

Weak views:

By rank: Down to the 10th oldest person in the world.
By geography: Down to the oldest person in a city..

The above can be split also by gender, so the oldest man in a country, could be 10th oldest in country, and 100th oldest in world.. Anyone else? Neal 16:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I simply can't see how you could compare a top-1O in the world to the 'oldest in a city.' Last I checked, we have a list of all the cities in America with 100,000 or more people (top 250 or so). Thus, 'oldest in a city' is NOT significant. However, one of the 'ten oldest in the world' IS significant---unless there are no facts about a person other than their dates of birth, death, and nationality...which is why I supported the deletion of Tsuneyo Toyonaga the first time around (the article was later re-created and Toyonaga went on to become Japan's oldest person, and a few additional details about her emerged). The 'top-10' ranking system is a way to include 'otherwise notable' persons who might be overlooked simply due to 'bad luck.' For example, Clementine Solignac is just the second-oldest person in France but she is older than the oldest person in nearly every other country (i.e. the UK, Germany, Spain, Italy, Australia, etc).Ryoung122 09:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, when I said city, I didn't mean town or village, despite you using a legal/official definition. I guess I forgot to mention the population requirement size, etc. Neal 18:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

(Continued)

Okay I added a "longevity" section in WP:BIO. I put "was the oldest person in the world" as they already have their articles. And I added an entry in the discussion page. Please go there to vote for a landmark decision. We can come back here if a decision is reached. Neal 16:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think we should disregard the above statement. First off, it is a bit crass to 'insert' a special 'longevity' category when the only three categories listed are quite huge (i.e. politicians, entertainers, etc). Two, while this topic certainly could be discussed, we first have to discuss what 'criteria' to vote on...not simply have ONE person write two sentences and have everyone vote, and then play 'dictator' and go on a deletion rampage. I note that 19-year-olds and 21-year-olds often lack the comprehensive maturity that comes with age. Wikipedia is already biased toward youth; we shouldn't make it worse. I note in the 'surviving veterans of WWI' discussion, several formats were proposed and extensively debated BEFORE something went to a vote. Does a jury decide a trial before hearing the evidence?Ryoung122 10:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hence why I called it "opinion." Neal 18:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Being the ninth oldest living person in the world isn't really an event as much as it is an achievement. If she had only gotten stories due to her death, that could be an event, but she was interviewed during her life. We certainly do and should have articles on the oldest, the tallest, the shortest, etcetera people in the world. I added half a dozen references to the article, between them she meets the primary criterion of Wikipedia:Notability. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since it appears this article nomination is less about Gladys Swetland and more about a whole category of articles, I suggest we focus on the 'point'. The 'point' that some are trying to make is that unless you are Einstein or Galileo, you shouldn't have an article on Wikipedia. I note a few rebuttals:

1. WP: BIO is a 'guideline', not a rule. Ultimately, 'consensus' of the Wiki community determines notability.

2.Criteria for notability of people A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

Assessment of notability should not be a technical decision. Instead, it's like trying to choose which baseball players belong in the 'Hall of Fame'. Certain minimum standards are considered 'automatic' inclusion (barring scandal): 300 wins, 3,000 hits, 500 home runs.

In addition, other players who do not meet these standards but nonetheless demonstrated 'peak' talent (such as Sandy Koufax) are also voted in.

I note that standards 'do' change over time. Bruce Sutter was, in my opinion, dubiously elected based on a mere 300 saves, a standard which is less impressive now that Trevor Hoffman has over 500.

However, this is not (yet) the case with this article. If we check the List of living supercentenarians we find that, were Gladys alive today, she would rank fourth-oldest in the world (instead of ninth). At the time of Glady's death, several unusually long-lived persons were alive at the same time. Hence, standards are 'fuzzy', not concrete; a ranking alone should only be one variable. Other variables to consider include actual age and news coverage. If a person remained anonymous and was only known through a statistical records search and their age was not a recordbreaker, then perhaps they should not be included. This is not the case here.

Also, I disagree that the 'oldest person in a country' should automatically be included. Some nations are micro-states; others have huge populations. Being the oldest person in France means a lot more than being the oldest person in Monaco. Even in Belgium, the current oldest person is a mere 108 years old. Although first in the nation, I don't think Marcelle Droogmans yet warrants an article. If she is alive three years from now, her case may be on the cusp.

In the big picture of things,

Therefore, I propose the following general policy guidelines, not rules:

--the person's age should be accepted as validated by an established authority (i.e. Guinness, GRG, IDL) (and not a newspaper or nationalist source) and should be at least 110 years old (supercentenarian status). This would exclude the 'oldest living person' for places like Norway or Belgium in an 'off' year (i.e. age 107 or 108 isn't enough to establish worldwide notability). Exceptions could be made, however, to early historical age cases.

For those that meet the first condition (age 110), I note the raw numbers I have (for data through March 25, 2007):

age 117 and above:5
age 116 and above:10
age 115 and above:23
age 114 and above:63
age 113 and above:132
age 112 and above: 278
age 111 and above (subset of below): 550
age 110 and above: 1054

Before I go further, I might ask: how much coverage is too much? True, just about every major league baseball player ever counts as a 'notable' biography to some. However, this might be a case where I agree with the 'other crap exists' argument. The fact is, for better or worse our society as a whole values sports figures far more than elderly icons. Perhaps 'supercentenarians' are better to compare to a lesser-known sport (perhaps tennis). We know the top-10 players, maybe top 20 but that's about it.

Basically, we can say that age 110 'alone' is not enough to establish notability. However, a line at age '114' (just 63) is too small (not even a top-100). Therefore, I propose that anyone who has reached the verified age of 113 should be considered notable and warrant an article, UNLESS that person's age came only from official statistics and their identity remained anonymous to the public (i.e. Adelheid Kirschbaum) and they did not attain a first-position rank (i.e. Matthew Beard). Dropping these cases would reduce our tally from '132' to perhaps 100.

However, if we set the bar that high, it would exclude many cases that received extensive media coverage (such as Antonio Todde). Germany's national record is under 113. Sweden's national record is more than a year below Ms. Swetland's age (113 years 240 days vs. 112 years 150 days). Also, since only 10% of supercentenarians tend to be male, we could perhaps lower the bar to age '111' for males.

Also, I don't like to make 'strong delineations' based on numbers alone. I feel that age "113" should be automatic inclusion. However, we see that often there aren't even ten living 113-year-olds in the entire world (currently we have seven). Thus I would prefer an age-merit cutoff of about 112.5 years. Why? This is halfway between age 110 (lots of cases) and 115 (extremely rare). Age '112.5' or 112 years 180 days would be enough to assure that anyone in the 'top 10' would be included.

Ok, but what about persons such as Irmgard von Stephani? She is just 111 currently, but Germany's oldest person, and a strong personality with lots of media coverage. Germany (with 80+ million people) is an important nation. Thus, I suggest being the oldest person in nations with 50 million or more persons (and remember, since cases must be validated, this basically means the USA, Japan, Germany, France, the UK, and Italy). But then what about Spain? Australia? Is Portugal enough? Is Switzerland too small? Where do we draw the line? Why do we have an article on Anna Ringier...Switzerland's oldest person?

To me, there are simply too many intuitive calculations to simply make arbitrary checklists. However, to review, a general guideline for inclusion:

--the case must be validated by a reputable, independent authority --the person's age --the person's national ranking status --the person's world ranking status --whether the person received significant media attention outside their local area

In summation, I consider age 112.5+ to be a 'definite' for an article, unless there simply is no material available. For those aged 110-112.49, I suggest inclusion of those that were the 'oldest living man'; the oldest person in a major nation; and those that were vaguely famous for something other than age.

Always keep

World's oldest person titleholders
World's oldest man titleholders
Persons 113 and over whose life garnered significant national media coverage
Those in the 'top 100' all-time (and if they drop out, nominate them for deletion to see what the consensus is then)
Those who attained a top-5 world ranking

May Keep

Oldest person in a major nation
Anyone 112.50 to 112.99 whose life garnered significant national media coverage
Those notable for other reasons (i.e. WWI veteran, painter, etc).
Those who attained a 6-10 world ranking

Might or Might Not Keep

Those aged 112.00 to 112.49
Oldest in a U.S. state (major states yes; minor state no)
Those who attained an 11-25 world ranking
males aged 111

Might not Keep

Females aged 110 and 111 not known for something else (i.e. 'Canada's oldest person)
Those not national recordholders and not known for something else (i.e. Ida Fraboni-Saletta is *Italy's second-oldest person and aged 110)
Those for whom no biographical material is available (i.e. Yasu Nishiyama other than what would appear in a list or chart
Those whose top ranking is less than the top-25 (my GRG list gives the ranking for EVERY supercentenarian at death)

So, with Gladys Swetland, we have a top-10 living, top-100 all-time, aged 113+ with significant media coverage. Hence, I say keep...and I've suggested where the bar should be set for other cases.

Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 10:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Brandon97 21:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I read the points from both sides and I have no idea why anyone would want to delete this article. Wikipedia is a tremendous resource and public discussion forum. There are articles concerning topics, events and individuals on Wikipedia of which I am not particularly interested, but it doesn't mean someone else isn't. My philosophy is that the more information we have available to the public concerning our slice of time, the better picture future generations have of our culture. Gladys Sweatland may not have been the "World's Oldest Person" at the time of her death, but she was important in many ways. To have lived on her own until age 110 is extremely rare and few even "world's Oldest" have ever achieved this. She is also clearly an example for all humanity that a person well past 100 can have a happy active life. How many people do you know are still enjoying their lifelong activities at age 113? Many of the "supercentenarians" are bedridden, blind or deaf or a combination of these so she was significant even among this group of people. We, at times, look upon the Middle Ages and Dark Ages with a sense of gloom and doom. Wars, famine, plagues, short life spans are all hallmarks of those eras. Yet it is in the personal stories that we are given more of a clear picture of the era itself and the day to day life of the people. Why delete the stories of all these people in our time just because they weren't the oldest? It's not logical. For those with an interest in Gerontology research alone, Mrs. Sweatland is remarkable. For those of us who have a sense of "Knowledge is Power" keep her article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakfpk knight (talk • contribs) 12:28, 25 August 2007
Keep per Ryoung122. 113 is notable. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 15:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep as per Ryoung122 and AMK152. Extremely sexy 20:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted-Mania??? Statistician 20:53, 26. August 2007 (CET) —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:53, August 26, 2007 (UTC).
Keep as she is notable by being among the 100 known oldest from among about 10? billion people that have ever lived? But if this debate results in firmer criteria, that is a good thing.--Rye1967 00:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wayf[edit]

Clothing label may or may not be notable. Also seems to be spam. -WarthogDemon 18:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spammy, and it doesn't appear that there's any reliable sources indicating this is a notable line, despite being sold in several stores. If someone turns up substantial coverage, I'd be happy to reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Unless sources can be provided to show notability. It appears moderatly notable, but unless sources provided, delete it. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:29, 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. — TKD::Talk 01:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Hutchins[edit]

Fringe performer; no references apart from blogs and listings - I can't find anything relevant myself either. ELIMINATORJR 18:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minimal mentions in the David Tennant sphere of influence (on his site, a couple of fan sites), but nothing in the media to indicate anyone's picked up on the show. Fails WP:BIO. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper Tony Fox and not a single review of the play. Even the Tennant Wiki article says this is being performed in "small venues".--Sethacus 20:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet minimal WP:N of two reliable independent sources. The article's creator removed a prod and attempted to find better references, but I do not think the results are good enough by a long shot. -Arch dude 01:39, 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 01:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Kwong[edit]

No evidence of notability. Has made two crossword puzzles, sang in a school band. Deprodded. Weregerbil 18:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing indicating notability, fails WP:BIO. Only sources cites are a blog (fails WP:RS) and a trivial mention. Hut 8.5 18:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:A7. Faithlessthewonderboy 00:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. - TexasAndroid 15:41, 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 – the community seems split down the middle, with good points made by both viewpoints. - KrakatoaKatie 04:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

2nd nomination, a year after concensus was not reached. Article seems to be an indiscriminate list --Oscarthecat 17:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mention of this at Clear_Channel#September_11.2C_2001, with external links there to relevant sources, suffices. --Aude (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not an indiscriminate list. It's a specific list based on a leaked internal communication that has been reported in external sources. --Darksun 18:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable list, reported in independent press. Inclusion is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "indiscriminate". JulesH 20:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I like the list, but is there really any encyclopedic value to it? When we get down to brass tacks, it's just a bunch of songs loosely grouped together with nothing in common. The real content of merit here is the Clear Channel "ban", and as Aude said, it can go into the Clear Channel article. The list itself can be linked to externally, or maybe go into Wikisource. --UsaSatsui 20:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The banning appears to be notable and the list itself seems to be somewhat fundamental to that. I see no reason to delete. -Chunky Rice 22:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This list is a classic in radio broadcasting history, as well as a classic example of overreacting to a crisis, trying to avoid offending anybody, or of corporate bumbling. There was nothing remotely similar on the strange day that was 9/11. Although most people recall hearing about the list, and reading some of the examples of temporarily banned songs later, there are few sources that show the entire document. And it IS a document... these were indeed directives sent out to Clear Channel stations. Even now, less than six years later, there will be people who doubt that there really was a "no play" list (or that there were no planes in the skies for a few days)... but it was real. Mandsford 23:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The event is notable and encyclopedic (and covered in another article). The list itself, however, isn't. --UsaSatsui 00:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stupid as it shows them to have been, it is still not a major event. If it were as notable as claimed, there would be better sources. DGG (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. It's not an indiscriminate list in terms of the WP article (although it may be indiscriminate on the part of Clear Channel). It's an actual list compiled by Clear Channel at the time. The event is notable and was covered by RS at the time. Suggest additional context about the ban and the reaction to it, and rename the article so it's not just a list. The actual list can remain but needs to be annotated to explain more clearly the official reason why each song was included, and any public reaction about individual songs. This article can be made more encyclopedic. Dbromage [Talk] 01:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list of songs not to be played by a parent company is trivial information. If the sources are reliable, just link to them, instead of copy/pasting the list with minor additions Corpx 02:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The list isn't trivial. It appears to meet WP:LIST and WP:LISTV on its own, but it can be improved into a well sourced article about the ban.

- "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources" passes

- "articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources" passes

The historical context of Clear Channel questioning the appropriateness of these songs is notable and the article can be rewritten as such. The songs can still be listed if the company's rationale for each is explained. Note that Clear Channel did not actually ban any songs, they just questioned the appropriateness. Dbromage [Talk] 03:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, it is just something a corporation decided to do. WP:NOT#NEWS also comes into play as I see very little historic notability. I guess snopes does in a way verify the contents, but I still do not think WP needs to make a copy of such a list Corpx 05:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If it received substantial news coverage at the time (which it did), then it meets WP:N. Dbromage [Talk] 06:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything receiving substantial coverage is not automatically notable. Examples would be "one event celebrities", reality show contestants and anything else that's appropriate for wikinews, who all meet WP:N, but have no historic notability Corpx 06:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inclusion of this list runs into several problems: (1) Most importantly, it is impossible to verify the items on the list as being the same ones on the real list produced by ClearChannel; (2) the list is already available in full from other sources, so a neutral discussion of the list is all that is required to be on Wikipedia; (3) inclusion of the entire list may constitute a copyright violation; and (4) the article is repeatedly altered to include songs that are not on the source list (ignoring the verifiability issue). Recommend merging the commentary at the top of the article into the article Clear Channel, linking to third-party sources as appropriate, and deleting the rest. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 07:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per Darksun. Thin Arthur 08:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is extremely trivial. At most it merits a one sentence reference in one of the 9/11 subarticles. Brandon97 14:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic trivia. Eusebeus 15:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge (shorten and merge) to Clear_Channel#September_11.2C_2001, including a link to the list at an external source if desired, and the Snopes discussion of it, and examples which reliable and independent secondary sources have pointed out as noteworthy in the list, such as Louis Armstrong's "What a wonderful world." That a major corp over-reacted and circulated such a wierd "bad list" is encyclopedic and an important part of the history of the broadcasting industry response to 9/11, but little point in reprinting verbatim a lengthy list. After Pearl Harbor, some patriotic Americans wanted the 3000 Japanese cherry trees around the tidal basin in Washington D.C. chopped down [36]. That fact could go in an article about "response to Pearl Harbor attack," but we would not print a list of each of the cherry trees, with its location and picture. Edison 16:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Offer a Transwiki to Wikisource (I couldn't find anything relevant there), then delete. There's enough about the incident in the 9/11 section of the Clear Channel article. Since there were multiple versions of "the list" and the CC office's initial list isn't what the cited sources present for attribution, this level of detail doesn't add enough understanding to justify a standalone article (or an extra 13Kbytes stuffed into the main article). Barno 00:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This topic was the subject of countless non-trivial articles in all sorts of news media. It is still informative today. It is in no way "indiscriminate" based on the sourcing. Croctotheface 07:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-encyclopedic 9/11-cruft. There is no need for a redirect, either. Burntsauce 17:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little historical significance, very trivial. Dannycali 03:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge onto another page more appropriate. It doesn't need it's own article. — Moe ε 17:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge for reasons described above. 9:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.6.119 (talk)
Delete. A perusal of the Snopes commentary on this list indicates they don't believe the rumor. They indicate there was a more complex story, and that *some* Clear Channel program directors sent out some emails. Their commentary cites mainstream outlets like the NY Times, the LA Times and Slate, indicating that our references for the article are incomplete. The sources found by Snopes seem unlikely to justify a specific list, so the exact listing we have now is most likely bogus, just an internet rumor. I question the belief of some editors above that there is a specific 'leaked internal communication' that is faithfully reproduced on the various web sites that now host the list. A made-up internal communication seems just as likely. EdJohnston 02:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in Guitar Hero II[edit]

Appears to be gaming cruft indiscriminate list, much like the "list of cars in ridge racer" type articles Oscarthecat 17:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't know why this is being nominated at this time, as presently we're discussing over at WP:CVG Talk the merits but (best that I know) haven't taken any action on deleting lists of car articles. I brought up this article as a hypothetic "devil's advocate" case to compare against (eg via WP:N) for the discussion. If this is unrelated to that discussion, then its still keep because the list of songs in GHII define the depth of what the game covers, and the information was already moved out of the main article per recommendation of getting it to a GA.--Masem 18:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Oscarthecat seems to be confused over what an 'indiscriminate' list is. There are very specific, unarguable criteria for inclusion on this list - that is, it must be included in Guitar Hero II. How it could be said that the list is 'indiscriminate' is beyond me. Darksun 18:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list of songs in a game where the entire activity is playing those songs seems extremely relevant. Sometimes these lists can be hard to manage as part of the main article, but they certainly don't qualify for deletion unless they go into excessive and unnecessary depth (which this one doesn't). --Slordak 19:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I disagree with all of the above keep voters, as their arguments could be applied equally to lists of weapons in shooters, and lists of units in RTS. Both lists with specific unarguable criteria, of games where the entire activity is focused around these things (as much as Guitar Hero is focused on playing songs). My reason for voting keep is that it is an important characteristic of the songs - being featured in Guitar hero. Many of the songs (not only the artists) have their own articles, and because of that, this list is a valid instrument for not only the pure "collection of information" value, but also for navigation. It is also important to make a distinction between lists of purely fictional items, and lists of things that do exist, and are notable enough to have their own article. User:Krator (t c) 23:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree that this is similar to cars in ____ or maps in ____ and is game guide content Corpx 02:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per consensus above. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. Lists of vehicles, items, weapons and songs aren't notable for inclusion here. RobJ1981 05:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see the difference between this article and other fancruft like lists of cars. --MrStalker ^talk 17:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per User:Krator above --Naha|^(talk) 17:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible Keep - this article exists because of advice on the main Guitar Hero II article's GAC reviews, which specifically suggested that, while the content is important to the article, it took up too much screenspace in the main article. Due to the nature of the GH games, the song listings are crucial to a properly encyclopedic article on each game, but they do take up a lot of screenspace, and are best kept in a separate "list of" article, akin to television show episode lists, which, last I knew, were not considered listcruft. Rdfox 76 22:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rdfox 76. This article only exists due to the GAC review suggesting that the GHII article was too long; hence the song list was split out. Daggoth | Talk 01:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A suggestion by a person that did a review, doesn't determine what articles are made. Suggestions aren't facts, or things that must be done. Sounds more like an excuse of why the list exists, not a reason. RobJ1981 06:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a useful guide, and removing it won't exactly benefit anyone. Budtard 11:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Guitar Hero II article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MalwareSmarts (talk • contribs) 15:57, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Pointing out that originally this list was completely within the GHII article and moved out per suggestion. However, if having this article stand on its own makes it deletion-worthy, while being contained within the article is reason to keep it, that's a perfectly acceptable solution. --Masem 03:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Keep per Rdfox 76's well-voiced reasoning. Discgolfrules 23:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep i think it has a place in wikipedia 202.156.11.1 09:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Very feeble reasoning for a very useful list brought about by a GA review. Agent Blightsoot 21:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. @pple 16:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Forde[edit]

Contested prod. My rationale was

Likely autobiography. Promotional tone and despite lengthy article, still unclear that this person passes WP:BIO.

I still stand by that evaluation. The article was created by single-purpose account Cyberjohnboy (talk · contribs) and developed by him and two IPs from London, UK where Mr. Forde resides. Pascal.Tesson 17:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete unless there are some sources. Claimed notability is his essays on a web site on the filming of LOTR. Possibly they are notable, since the article says they were widely commented on, but it is necessary to show that.DGG (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. John Forde did unquestionably write about Lord of the Rings for E!Online, but Google finds limited info (~100 hits) about the combination "John Forde" + "Lord of the rings" and from what I could find, none give to Mr Forde the kind of glowing credit that is found in the present article (in fact, the fourth hit blasts him for his perceived incompetence). Pascal.Tesson 17:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MastCell ^Talk 17:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ftbm plugins[edit]

Non-notable game mod. Deprodded. Weregerbil 16:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources are found Corpx 02:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. --Aarktica 22:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no context given, not even an effort to establish notability ALTON .ıl 08:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 03:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World's largest airlines[edit]

AfDs for this article:

there are two possible reasons (1) WP:NOT#STATS which states "Statistics. [...] In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic.[...]" (emphasis mine) (2) another user on the previous deletion (where I failed to fill in this reason text) discussion page claimed that the article was well cited to one source. If the source's primary copyright regards this same list, I don't see how this isn't copyright infringement. Pdbailey 16:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize the above, it's a great article for Wikisource, assuming that license is allowable. Pdbailey 17:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment In the first pass at this deletion nomination it was suggested that the article be renamed (see top), A problem with this is the existence of the highly similar List_of_largest_airlines_by_category, for more on this, see the talk page of the nominated article. Pdbailey 15:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the list would certainly benefit from more explanatory text, I believe it currently has enough to avoid being purely a page of stats which is "confusing to the reader". The section By fleet size in 2007 appears to reference other Wikipedia articles wihch should be corrected, while referencing elsewhere seems reasonable. Suicidalhamster 22:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a sentence from the excerpt in the "reason" which was unrelated to the reason I gave but contained the above quoted text. Pdbailey 22:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some lists are encyclopedic, and this is a good example. The information is presented in valuable ways that could not be done in a category, one of the basic considerations, and the material is important. DGG (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, can you give an example of what might be "primarily comprised of statistical data" and you would say is not encyclopedic? Pdbailey 12:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and possible split. Appears to be encyclopedic but needs additional references showing how up to date the numbers are. Re the split, there are "List of largest airlines in X" for Africa, Asia, Europe and Oceania. Perhaps North, Central and South America could be split off and this main article becomes "world + disambiguation". Dbromage [Talk] 01:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable from multiple sources and of wide interest. Wikisource is obscure, so if it was there, hardly anyone who come across it, and it would most likely not be regularly updated. Brandon97 14:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All verifiable and encyclopedic. This is the kind of article that makes an encyclopedia stronger, not weaker.--Oakshade 16:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Oakshade. As one wise philosopher once said "Perfection is not achieved when nothing more can be added — but when nothing more can be taken away." Not that I'm using this as a basis for inclusionism, but it fits the mood here. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 18:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have discovered that there is a very similar article under the name, List of largest airlines by category. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 18:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which Pdbailey already mentioned. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 18:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that article has already been redirected to this one as a result of a deletion request. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 22:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree that it is multisourced and verifiable. It is also encyclopedic. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Harry. - TomKat222 17:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename - The article is a list and should be identified as such. Also, the "The World's X-est Y" naming format isn't really Wikipediaesque. --Agamemnon2 22:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — My reasons: * You cannot copyright facts. This includes numerical facts * If the article is lacking explanitory text, this is a request for improvement, not deletion * It summarizes useful factual information in a way not easily located elsewhere * I like this page; :) * Fudoreaper 00:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to NSW HSC Advanced English ELIMINATORJR 23:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Journeys Stimulus Booklet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Journeys Stimulus Booklet

Not notable - The stimulus booklet is basically something we're tested on in the English exam. I would say merge with NSW HSC Advanced English, except, Journeys Stimulus Booklet looks like it's an exact copy of NSW HSC Advanced English anyway. — *H ¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 16:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically a student's essay or notes. Any content should go on the English page Recurring dreams 01:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Recurring dreams and nom. --Aarktica 22:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NSW HSC Advanced English. Not really anything to merge, but deletion not required. Eluchil404 18:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:N and it is about learning English for an exam with is again local to one state in Australia.Harlowraman 19:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Harlowraman since this fails notability as described by WP:N. P.S. to the nominator, if you felt this should be merged you could've just done that on your own. Burntsauce 20:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eagle Island, Maine (Penobscot Bay). — TKD::Talk 01:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Island (Penobscot Bay)[edit]

This is an absolute orphan. I did it, and then needed to ask admin help to get disambiguation et cetera, and now there is a page Eagle Island, Maine (Penobscot Bay) which is the REAL one. There are two user links to this page, which should be 'fixed'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumarest (talk • contribs)

Comment Fixed the nomination. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 16:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect AfD is unnecessary, just redir to Eagle Island, Maine (Penobscot Bay). Wl219 17:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, till somebody has the time to expand Corpx 02:05, 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 Article is substantially changed following the delete arguments, resolving both the copyvio and COI issues resolved. No deletes following relisting. Reso lute 02:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Microcosm Ltd[edit]

Copyvio of introduction paragraph on main page. Bushcarrot ^Talk _{Please Sign!} 15:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spam/conflict of interest, fails WP:CORP. FiggyBee 16:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC) May meet WP:CORP based on Silicon Disk System /Microcache. FiggyBee 07:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no secondary source mentions or to be found. --mordicai. 17:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:COI: Page created by MicrocosmLtd; initial copyvio; no outside sources that aren't related to the company; Wikipedia is not a sales catalog; No Google news hits on the company. Main Google hits are either company's site, or blogs/tech pages. ^Ariel♥Gold 20:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the attempt at company promotion per FiggyBee and ArielGold. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 21:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article updated to comply with Wikipedia policies MooseMatt 15:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Secondary sources to comply with WP:CORP and WP:COI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_Control

http://www.qbssoftware.com/publisher_info.aspx?current=PRODUCTS&publisher=MICROCOSML

http://www.zappersoftware.com/copy-protection.html

http://www.fmpro.org/search/Software/7/

MooseMatt 11:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:MooseMatt has no edits except to this article and this AfD. Also, MM, no-one's doubting that the company exists and that it sells those things. Commercial directory entries for the company are not valid secondary sources, as they are "merely trivial coverage" under WP:CORP. However, I find the claims about Silicon Disk System and Microcache interesting; if they can be sourced (and I'm sure someone must have written something about them at the time?) that might swing it. FiggyBee 13:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — see: Peter Cheesewright, Microcomputers Come of Age. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 32(10):932–933, October 1981. I have added this as a reference. — Jonathan Bowen 17:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Couple of articles about the Silicon Disk System, MicroCache and CopyControl:

Article in Practical Computing magazine from 1982 reviewing Silicon Disk System and MicroCache

Article in Practical Computing magazine from 1982 reviewing Silicon Disk System and MicroCache
Article in PC Plus Magazine from 1995 reviewing CopyControl 1.63

Article in PC Plus Magazine from 1995 reviewing CopyControl 1.63

MooseMatt 15:10, 16 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, Nabla 15:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

relisting - Secondary sources have been shown, so most deletes above became void of reasoning. The question of notability still stands, so fresh input is needed. Note to User:MooseMatt: no need to keep on saying keep, follow ups on the discussion are usualy tagged as comment, so I boldly refactored yours'. - Nabla 15:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep These seem to be substantial reviews, and I think that's enough.DGG (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I have added categories and the following reference: Peter Cheesewright, Microcomputers Come of Age. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 32(10):932–933, October 1981. — Jonathan Bowen 17:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Looks to be notable enough with some sources.--JForget 00:39, 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. The current state of the article it's not worth merging, it's currently unsourced WP:NOR, trim that it's nearly an speedy and policy trumps consensus. I also discounted the obvious WP:ILIKEIT votes. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Running gags on Around the Horn[edit]

giant list of unreferenced/nn fancruft, this violates a lot of WP:NOT and should not have its own page on here. Biggspowd 15:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with MASSIVE trims/Merge - A lot of the material in the list is very crufty and needs to be either heavily trimmed or removed outright, but a handful of the notes are staple features of the show...this is another one of those cases where "just because it isn't exhaustively sourced doesn't mean it isn't valid" applies. If the overall vote is to delete, I'd like to have the material placed on my userpage for future work and potential inclusion on the Around the Horn article. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should note that user is a very active participant on said page. Biggspowd 17:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion page, I'm not bringing an argument that doesn't directly address the AfD into the main debate space. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 19:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is an argument for the afd, since you have a vested interest in the article, and that is to be noted on afds. Biggspowd 22:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Someone who has made just 14 of the nearly 200 edits to an article doesn't need to be called out about having a vested interest, especially with the implication that it should negate their comment -- we expect users who have worked on a page to comment here, that's one of the reasons we tag the page and why the Guide to Deletion says you should notify major contributors. Yes, it's polite to mention that you've been involved with the page, but either way your opinion shouldn't be discounted. (I've just noticed that Biggspowd is currently blocked, so I guess I won't be getting a reply, but I still wanted to mention that, as I fear it's a common misconstruing of this process and the concept of WP:COI.) Pinball22 16:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'm a fan of the show, but this doesn't really deserve its own article. Faithlessthewonderboy 00:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love the show too, but this all stuff that belongs in a fan site, not an encyclopedia. No real notability for anything on there Corpx 02:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was taken off of the main Around the Horn page because it was judged to be too long, therefore deserving its own page. bmitchelf•T•F 05:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know you're only commenting, so I'm mostly fending off others: If it's not encyclopedic, it doesn't matter whether it's in its own article or a section of a larger article, it doesn't belong. See WP:BHTT. Morgan Wick 08:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge per Willbyr. The Parsnip! 18:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with Trim 74.95.163.74 21:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge I honestly can't see the nominator's reasoning, in that reading WP:NOT, I don't see such violations, besides maybe that it is trivial. But it has to do with how the show is presented, similar to running gags on a scripted show, like The Simpsons. bmitchelf•T•F 22:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They should be deleted too. None of this is cited from anywhere and all are taken from somebody watching the show and labeling it a "running gag" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Corpx (talk • contribs) 00:27, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Delete pure fanboy stuff to me. Not Wiki material MarkinBoston 00:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is far less invasive than the massive universe of Simpsons cruft that is kept without references. Relaxing 12:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not a real reason to vote, saying "x is more crufty" does not mean that this should be kept. Dannycali 18:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very crufty, unreferenced and nn. Dannycali 18:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a good article to read--Yankees10 22:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is not a reason to keep an article, just because it is a "good article to read" does not make it notable. Dannycali 02:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Coment There is NO reason to delete it, thats why I am getting sick of wikipedia you guys delete things for no reason--Yankees10 04:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about the lack of notability for these running gags? Corpx 05:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or WP:NOT#IINFO or the woeful lack of sourcing? Seriously, does something like this seem encyclopedic, or more like material for an ATH fan site? Morgan Wick 22:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Renaming can be discussed elsewhere as I see no consensus here. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dumb laws[edit]

Notability warning since January, probably non-notable, or original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musor x (talk • contribs) 15:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, seems to have decent reliable sources, needs cleanup though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have to be careful on this one. To remain NPOV, we can't judge the laws, so an article with this title inherently violates WP:NPOV. Delete, but maybe make mention of it in Chain letter#E-mail. Exobyte 19:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not purport to label any laws "dumb", instead it documents the "phenomenon" of labeling certain laws as dumb by 3rd party individuals. Thus NPOV is preserved--Hq3473 20:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were examples given. The title should be changed. I wouldn't expect to see an article chain emails that talk about dumb laws when I go to the dumb laws page. Exobyte 20:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, I was complaining about how books about "dumb laws" are themselves dumb. Usually, they have no citation to texts. In this case, the article basically points the way to websites about dumb laws. Some of these websites offer the the text of a so-called "dumb law", and the interpretation, to use another legal cliche', wouldn't hold up in court. With regard to this article, it's the worst of both worlds... people who were hoping for an endless list of "funny laws" won't be able to find one; such a list would not be encylopedic anyway. However, those hoping for a substantive, scholarly article about the so-called "internet phenomenon" won't be able to find anything worth quoting, other than that the "dumb law" is a variety of urban legend. There has been intelligent analysis of urban legends, and the same could be done about this as well, but it would be a major undertaking. Mandsford 23:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the fact remains, there is the phenomenon of publishing books and internet list of "dumb laws", without giving proper cites, and in all likelihood making up those laws. Phenomenon is probably notable seeing as there are published books listing "dumb" laws, and publications mentioning those books. For example there is a printed article in Boston Globe, reviewing the dumb law books: ("FUNNY LOOK AT SILLY LAWS WARRANTS A READ" The Boston Globe, September 14, 2006 Thursday THIRD EDITION). If the article is badly written, it should be reduced to a stub, and later re-written, not deleted.--Hq3473 03:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mandsford Corpx 02:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this were an article mindlessly repeating the fake or misrepresented "dumb laws" circulated by lazy newspaper columnists or uncritical emailers, it would be a good candidate for deletion. As it is, it provides encyclopedic information to show that such laws are often nonexistent or grossly misrepresented. An example is a book claiming that a city has "an ordinance against tieing alligators to fire hydrants"[37] when the actual ordinance prohibits tieing ANIMALS to fire hydrants (a 'gator is an animal, right?). As references, there are such sources as the Snopes debunking of sorority houses being banned in some small town as brothels. The article as it exists could be renamed Dumb law hoaxes to more accurately represent it. Or it could have a section on actual dumb laws in addition to the hoaxes. There have been and are some genuinely dumb laws, like the "no snowball law" [38] [39]. If a legislature calls some laws "dumb laws" and moves to repeal them, then it is likely the laws really exist [40]. which could be included if 1)a printed source exists to call it a dumb law and b) a citation to that actual law is provided. The American Bar Association Journal and its counterparts in other countries sometimes include such material in a somewhat humorous but verified way. Some "dumb laws" are actually just old laws which had no sunset provision, such as actual law from my town from circa 1900 which required that an automobile be preceded by someone walking along ahead to assure that horses were not frightened. Edison 16:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep to Dumb law hoaxes per Edison. Bearian 20:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison. The allegations of such laws are not presented on the internet only, there was for example a segment on such strange rules in America's Dumbest Criminals as well. Since they are the butt of joke lists in many different media, the phenomenon is clearly worthy of some encyclopedic discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Good article, shows research and provides a good summary of the phenom. Salvatore22 22:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison. IP198 18:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison. I expected to read a totally subjective and original research based article, but I was mistaken. This article has a substantial number of reliable sources which identify these "dumb laws" so I see no harm in keeping this. Burntsauce 20:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire, merge Moff, delete Supreme Chancellor. Please take the merge discussion for Moff to Talk:Moff to determine exactly where to merge it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire[edit]

~~In-universe~~No assertion of real-world notability with OR. Does not meet WP:FICT or pass WP:WAF. Suggest merging the second sentence into Galactic Empire (Star Wars), otherwise delete.

Also recommending the following for deletion for the same reason, which also are in-universe:

Moff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Supreme Chancellor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--EEMeltonIV 15:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Without offending the nominator, I just did a Yahoo search for the term "Grand Moff" and found over 250 thousand internet hits. I think the nomination to delete the Moff article should be withdrawn based on the amount of material out there about it. I'm on the fence about the ranks article and the S.C. article absolutely should go. To the nominator, all personal feelings aside, Moff should stay: it can be improved into a good article and with that many hits its notable enough to warrant some kind of attention on Wikipedia. -OberRanks 23:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The search results start with the Wikipedia article itself, then go on to include Wookieepedia, a couple of starwars.com articles, and a blog. Most of the links among the top 30 hits, even including the blogs and wiki sites, are for Grand Moff Tarkin -- a notable character. However, a character's title does not inherit notability from that character. --EEMeltonIV 00:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So how about merging the Moff article into the article on Grand Moff Tarkin? I might do this in any case, since you have pointed out Tarkin is a notable character. -OberRanks 10:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be okay with a sentence in Grand Moff Tarkin along the lines of "Tarkin's rank, according to [source] (WEG's Imperial sourcebook comes to mind) is held by characters responsible for an oversector of several star systems." But, again, the rank itself is just a bit of trivia and including more than a few words about it would be giving it undue weight. --EEMeltonIV 01:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I change my vote to Merge specific ranks into the articlces about the characters in which they appear with an added stipulation that a link to the Wookipedia article be added somewhere linkin gthe Imperial ranks article to this site. The Wook article is extremely impressive to say the least. Still hold on deleting the S.C. article. -OberRanks 14:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Wow, I don't know where to start. The article is very much not "in-universe". It deals with the evolution of Imperial insignia through six movies of a major franchise not to mention countless books, comics, and manuals (a major one being "The Imperial Sourcebook" and the scripts of the actual films) over the past 30 years. I also recently did some editing to explain the ranks in a more real world fashion and describe some of the on-screen apperances hoping to make the article better. Have no idea why anyone would want to delete this article; it can be developed into a fine article, much like Starfleet ranks which is almost an identical concept (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet ranks and insignia for what happened when someone tried to VfD that article). -OberRanks 15:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFF -- this is about the Star Wars article, not Star Trek. --EEMeltonIV 15:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know about that policy. Still...worth mentioning. Some of the comments there might apply also apply here. Have to add, EVERYONE should take a look at this and this. I'm not saying that to influence the debate, it's just too funny to not have a look! ;-) -OberRanks 16:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it's just an essay, not a policy. -Chunky Rice 22:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Didnt realize all three were on the same boat. KEEP main rank article, MERGE the Moff article into the main ranks article, DELETE Supreme Chancellor article. -OberRanks 15:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be mostly original research. Much of the text is speculative. Though, I have to admit that I'm a little surprised that there isn't some sort of source material for this. If such material could be found and cited, the article could be kept. Otherwise, delete -Chunky Rice 22:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a valid deletion criteria. If it's written in-universe, re-write it. --Hemlock Martinis 00:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while the second and third articles are in-universe, my main reason for nominating them (along with the original Rank insignia one) is that they make no assertion of notability and do not pass WP:WAF. --EEMeltonIV 02:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Manual of Style guideline is irrelevant. The Star Trek one has shown that these types of articles can be improved. Request input from the Star Wars WikiProject; they will likely have suggestions for improvement. --Hemlock Martinis 06:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A Manual of Style guideline is irrelevant" - I suppose, then, essays are irrelevant, too; nevertheless, I agree with WP:ONLYESSAY. "The Star Trek one has shown that these types of articles can be improved.'" - Again, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. "they will likely have suggestions for improvement." - I'm part of the Star Wars wikiproject (and the Star Trek one), and I don't think these articles meet the threshold for real-world notability. --EEMeltonIV 23:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said essays were irrelevant. A MoS guideline is quite different than an essay. --Hemlock Martinis 23:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delele. In or out of universe, it's fancruft and fails WP:RS and is at least borderline OR. Dbromage [Talk] 01:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability from real world sources Corpx 02:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, hasn't it been already nominated before though? -Flubeca^Talk 21:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Close. --EEMeltonIV 00:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Especially if someone is willing to rewrite/source and cite. --BHC 03:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Please offer a reason why. --EEMeltonIV 04:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star wars is an international phenomenon of tremendous popularity, with substantial interest in even the smaller details. Well sourced and well written articles are a boon to wikipedia, I'm not convinced this article needs to be deleted if my original criteria were to be met. --BHC 09:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's already well written and can be improved if neccessary. --134.109.124.40 09:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:FIVE this is just more in-universe fan cruft, not anything NEAR being worthy of encyclopedic note. Burntsauce 20:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Burntsauce ↑. Or send to Wikifictioncruft. --Evb-wiki 01:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe all three articles are well-written and they don't impose too much on the reader's patience. Taking a glance over at WP:FICT I see that Characters of Final Fantasy VIII is given as an example of a good article. Personally, I would not want to slog through a long article like that unless I was a super-fan. Those nominated for deletion here are a better use of space, they are coherent and simple, and they make small observations about the Star Wars series that seem they might interest a non-expert who was just passing through. EdJohnston 02:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / transwiki to wookieepedia... this is wikipedia, not Wookieepedia. In-universe fancruft, big pile of banta pudu. All but the general star wars articles should be moved to wookiepedia for detailed information... Besides, give me FIVE!!! Thanks! --Cerejota 05:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CitiCat^♫ 01:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of coats of arms of English counties[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete: This page was placed for deletion two months ago. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of coats of arms of English counties. However, I've just gone through and removed all of the fair use violations from the page. In total, I removed 36 images, leaving just 9. The fair use images used were a clear violation of our policy. Galleries of fair use images are simply not permitted. We do not permit them on discographies, lists of books, screenshots of episodes, or any other similar use. The simple redisplay of copyrighted content is not transformative in any respect and constitutes a fair use violation. With the page gutted of 80% of its content, its value is near worthless. This article can never fully represent all the coats of arms for English counties. For precedent on a similar deletion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of United Kingdom academic heraldry which was similarly gutted due to fair use violations. Durin 15:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With the images, it's a fairuse violation. Without, it's useless. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore images. The images are mistagged and are not being used as fair use: see User:Marnanel/CivicHeraldry_pages. The license User:Marnanel asserts has been granted is a free content one: use for any purpose, as long as attribution is retained. This is a free license which is compatible with either the GFDL or CC-BY, and implictly grants us the right to put either of those licenses on the images. JulesH 20:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. On further inspection, it seems the change of the images copyright information to suggest they are being used as fair use was performed automatically. JulesH 20:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That copyright status was never adequately resolved. As such, we presume the images are copyrighted and can not be used under a free license. The images are appropriately tagged, and this use constitutes a fair use violation. --Durin 21:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't really care whether you keep this page, since I didn't make it and it has nothing to do with my original purpose: I added the coats of arms entirely to add them to infoboxes on the pages of the relevant cities, towns and counties. If it's relevant, I never asserted a fair use licence: I was granted permission by the original creator to use these on WP with attribution, as I made clear at the time. The bot which went through and changed them to fair use did so without my knowledge or consent. Marnanel 23:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, and a permission to use on Wikipedia with attribution is not a release under a free content license. As such, we must assume the original author has not release copyrights on them under a free license. I've previously requested this be done, in fact asked a year ago today for this to be done, and it hasn't been done. The author can submit the release to m:OTRS. Until then, we have to assume the images are copyrighted and their use here on Wikipedia will be under fair use. --Durin 23:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your reasoning appears sound. I doubt the original author reads Wikipedia anyway. Marnanel 23:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for reasons given by User:Durin. Marnanel 23:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to commons - the place for galleries and such Corpx 02:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

36 of the 45 images that were on this article can not be transwikied to Commons because they are not available under a free license. Thus, they are incompatible with Commons licensing requirements. --Durin 02:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the current version, which you trimmed down to remove the ones with non-compatible licenses? Corpx 02:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but it's not of much use as a comprehensive article on all English county coats of arms. --Durin 02:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, but why are some of these under GDFL and others not? Corpx 02:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Restore and keep~~ - here or as commons - I have considerable doubts whether the images are copyright or even capable of being copyright. Coats of arms are granted by the College of Heralds. I am fairly certain that the authentic version of the arms is in heraldic French, with an image on the grant being a realisation of the text. As such any one is able to construct the image from the text. It would thereofre be open to the WP author to paint the alms and upload an image of that. Is this not all a storm in a teacup? If the Councils in question have authorised their publication in WP, why can they not stay? They are doing no harm, and if their publication is authorised, I do not see how WP can be sued for doing so. Peterkingiron 22:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone wanted to create their own interpretation of the arms from the blazon, then we'd have an entirely different situation. However, these are not such creations. These are the actual arms from the various counties. The counties can and do have rights. As for the permissions to Wikipedia, the point here is that we do not accept permission to use on Wikipedia images. Please read and understand Template:Permission from license selector. This is a key point of understanding classes of images on Wikipedia. We accept images in two general categories; fair use and free license. Permission to use on Wikipedia does not fall into either of those categories, and thus such images are subject to speedy deletion. We're being quite lenient in allowing the arms that were granted permission to use on Wikipedia to even remain on Wikipedia. We're assuming we can use them under fair use, but even that is a stretch since arms can be created from the blazon, and can give us a free equivalent. Note that simply copying the arms and declaring it yours is not sufficient under these terms.
- The reality here, for the people advocating restoring the images, is that restoring the images is frankly not an option. This AfD is not aimed at achieving consensus to include or exclude the fair use images. That is a moot point; the fair use images will not be accepted on this page. The question at hand is not whether to restore the images. The question is whether this article should remain, given that it is gutted of 80% of its images. --Durin 02:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several points here. Firstly, the question isn't over whether the design of a given coat is copyrighted or copyrightable. That is an entirely separate question. Rather, this is about whether this particular images are copyrighted, and if so, under what licence Wikipedia presumes to use them. If you can make a case that every representation of a coat of arms is uncopyrightable, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, if they are copyrighted, we must consider the licence. There is no chance that Wikipedia has been granted a free licence to use these images, so we must either fall back on fair use or permission to use only on Wikipedia or something similar. Such a licence precludes their existence on Commons at all, and also precludes their appearance in a gallery on Wikipedia. Finally, I can tell you from personal experience that blazons are not written in French these days (here's my grandfather's grant). Marnanel 04:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - (I should add that I have no idea whether these images were actually provided by the counties. I asked for permission from the webmaster of civicheraldry.co.uk and was granted it; I don't know who drew them originally.) Marnanel 04:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing opinion to delete per Marnanel's clarification that the license was only for use on Wikipedia, which is clearly not a free content license. JulesH 19:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is with great regret that I must change my view to delete. I may have been wrong in referring to the grants as in French, but (certainly hisotrically) much of the terminology has been French - 'or' rather than gold as a colour. However that is by the way. When all the images appeared, the page was interesting, but in its present state it has had too much content filleted out of it. I would still suggest that you consult with the College of Heralds as to their view of the copyright issue, but if all (or most) of the coats of arms cannot appear on WP, the page cannot survive in WP. However, I wonder whether it may be possible to resurrect the content on a website outside WP (which licence requirements are less rigorous), and to substitute (for the present page) a short article discussing the the coats of arms, with a link to that page. That would have to be moved to Coats of arms of English Counties. Peterkingiron 11:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect to Donald Trump. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump in popular culture[edit]

not really a huge list of trivia like the other "IPC" articles, but basically an overblown hodgepodge of trivia and cruft about times he has appeared on TV shows, his WWE stint, etc. It is fairly redundant and most of it is sufficiently covered in the main article. Biggspowd 15:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Donald Trump. His political views, parodies of him, and "other notable appearances" such as his Learning Annex seminars are not currently covered in his main article. Wl219 17:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment There is no intrinsic reason why the main article cannot be the place for this material. DGG (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then delete per W1219. Carlossuarez46 21:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. One of the most overrated persons in history (even though he invented the phrase, "You're fired") does not merit a pop culture article. Hey, did you hear that Leona Helmsley passed away? I think her IPC article should be nominated for deletion, but one should wait 15 minutes out of respect. Mandsford 23:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Trump article per above.--JForget 00:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above and redirect. Dbromage [Talk] 01:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redundant and trivial. Otto4711 16:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of us editors at the Donald Trump article did a lot of hard work to get rid of this sort of non-notable WP:TRIVIA. The moment this is merged 50% of the article would be on this OR trivia which in turn breaks WP:UNDUE. We don't want this back either. Tendancer 16:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect without deleting per DGG and Mandsford. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep These "popular culture" articles are generally poor in quality, but they serve a useful fucntion as a repository for trivia, which some editors delight in adding. This protects the main article from such additions. However this article is disproportionately long, and should certainly be trimmed. This article is of similar length to the principal article, so that merging would gravely unbalance it. NOTE for closing editor - I have added a link to this article in that on Donald Trump, which should be removed if the decision is to delete. Peterkingiron 22:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serving as a repository for trivia is not a legitimate function for Wikipedia articles. Trivia sections are to be avoided but splitting off a trivia section into its own article is not the way to do it. Otto4711 12:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 17:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Trump article no need for separate article.Harlowraman 19:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The present article is not one of our finer efforts in the IPC area. The complete saga of all of Trump's TV appearances doesn't need to be told in Wikipedia. It's hard to imagine that our Trump article would become better due to inclusion of any of this. EdJohnston 04:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR 23:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Waldauer[edit]

Prodded with reason "I don't call youtube notariarity sufficient for wiki worthiness. When she makes it, she can come back!". Prod disputed (mistakenly) with {{hangon}} tag. Procedural nomination. JPD (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added Cube News 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as: No real notability, no apparent reliable sources. --Evb-wiki 19:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and Cube News 1 as well. No real notability, no apparent reliable sources. She does seem to have been in a direct-to-video film of some sort, per her IMDB entry, which doesn't appear notable either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind (along with the unnominated Cube News 1). --Evb-wiki 19:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability outside of youtube Corpx 01:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete This is a website with a large following. The page can be cleaned up quite a bit, though. Andrew Kirschner 02:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That statement about following is unverified. Andrew Kirschner is adorable. OK, I said it. But just because I said it doesn't mean it is true. You may or may not be adorable but without a photo I can't prove it and beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Same thing with large following. A large following for an obscure artist might be 100 unique hits a day but for a NY Yankees fan site, 10,000 hits a day. Which applies to Kim and how did you verify she has that kind of following? Postcard Cathy 04:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only information that supports that is in the article, based on the youtube statistics; Which are easy to find. As for the movie, it is being distributed via DVD and I'm yet to get the sales figure on that. Drphallus 08:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The show has been profiled on the the Veoh.com show "Viral", and the husband and wife creators were also interviewed by Yahoo. This may not make them The Beatles, but it shows that there is a buzz. Anyway, my wife can verify that I'm adorable, but I don't think that opinion is universal.Andrew Kirschner 01:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete the article is just a stub and intended to be expanded on as I found more information. It was flagged for deletion while it was being written and was meant to support the existing article about cube news 1 that only referred to her as "Kim" and explicitly said that not much was known about her. I did some research and started to document what I found and linked cube news1 to it's creator.
Drphallus 08:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC) — Drphallus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

In further research I have found references to Cube news 1 and Kim in the wall street journal, Yahoo...twice (one was an interview) a small article in MySA and an interview in rumour mill news, and that is just the online references. There is a lot of offline work that she has been involved in too. There is no doubt in my mind that Kim has received enough attention to be notable
Drphallus 00:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete According to YouTube's published numbers today, viewings of videos on her YouTube channel total 2,879,772. That would, in my view, be considered a "large number," although frankly I think that term ought to be deleted from the article as being rather vague. It does, however, establish an objective basis for her consideration here. She is also a member of the YouTube Partnership Program, consisting of individuals paid by YouTube for each hit, which puts her in a very select group of YouTube entertainers. I think an important point about Kim that is being missed by some of the discussants here is that she is riding the crest of a new entertainment wave: she has established a comic video vignette format that has significant appeal across all the usual demographic divisions and she is reaching this large and diverse audience via the internet. This interesting demographic is evident from checking the bios of the comment makers for her videos. Kim is wiki worthy. Verlayne 11:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator, this is not going to happen. Burntsauce 20:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikaddiction[edit]

Found via link from a speedied article. Clear neologism Daniel Case 14:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear neologism article created to prop up an even sillier neologism article (now deleted) that appeared to be an attack page on some unknown person. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G1/nonsense. And as creation of deleted content. I tagged this for a speedy like an hour ago and it has been recreated. Spellcast 15:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Useight 16:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 01:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bergen's Baseball[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bergen's Baseball

Non-notable drinking game. 2 non-wiki ghits, one of which is a user-submitted list of drinking game rules, the other also appears to be user submitted. References in article do not appear to be quality references (one is the above mentioned user-submitted list). Contested prod. Fabrictramp 14:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —X96lee15 03:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as with most drinking games people try to post here. Daniel Case 14:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough yet. One of the non-wiki posts was August 14, so it hasn't had time to catch on. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 14:52, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primalist's[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Primalist's

Artist's collective formally founded the day the article was created. No claim of notability in article. Contested prod. Also WP:COI issues. Fabrictramp 14:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete zero sources, zero ghits. Eleland 14:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure of WP:V and lack of notability. The creating editor raised this at EAR today, and I made it clear that it was an AFD candidate unless significant improvement was made. I don't expect the necessary improvements to materialise, to be honest. Adrian M. H. 14:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Suggest the creater uses MySpace or some other internet site to host this. If the Primalist's notability Wiki will be the place for them, but at this moment they have only just formed and contain no notable members. SilkTork 14:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete classic A7/non-notable group. Art club founded 5 days ago, etc. Schoolkid nonsense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and unsourceable at present, as well as lack of notability. (Points off for excessive apostrophe use too.) Tony Fox (arf!) 15:47, 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 and redirect to The Singapore Scout Association#Bukit Panjang District. — TKD::Talk 01:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Condor Sea Scouts[edit]

Single school chapter of Sea Scouts, with no special claim of notability in article. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 14:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable :-) Stwalkerster talk 14:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to The Singapore Scout Association. SilkTork 14:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to The Singapore Scout Association#Bukit Panjang District. The school that has the troop does not have an article, but this is its district. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 15:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect individual scout troops and packs aren't notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Individual Scout Groups are not normally notable and this one certainly is not. --Bduke 00:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete and redirect, we've been through this with half a dozen Singaporean troops, nice to know they have such pride, but vanitas vanitatum. Chris 01:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect Rlevse 02:10, 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 keep. CitiCat^♫ 01:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medal of Honor: Airborne Soundtrack[edit]

This was just copied from the main article Medal of Honor: Airborne, not really notable, not enough information and not wikified. Suggest it is merged back into the Medal of Honor: Airborne article. --Konasr 13:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cmt - please see How to propose a merger. --Evb-wiki 13:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. CitiCat^♫ 01:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boyd Travers[edit]

This was just copied from the main article Medal of Honor: Airborne, not really notable, not enough information and not wikified. Suggest it is merged back into the Medal of Honor: Airborne article. --Konasr 13:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cmt - please see How to propose a merger. --Evb-wiki 13:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per lack of independent reliable sources and salt per Scientizzle's reasoning. — TKD::Talk 01:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kulture News[edit]

It was tagged for a speedy and a PROD, but was removed on both occasions, so I guess this is the next step. There doesn't seem to be multiple, third party sources on this company. Just their own official websites. I am nominating Kulture Media Group for the same reason. Spellcast 13:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them both. There's little information other than MySpace and self-refering website. SilkTork 14:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE!!! Kulture New has a staff of journalist and resources to verify its legitimacy. The article was also placed correctly into the adequate categories. CoreyArthurs 14:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They do have their own staff and resources. But is there any other sources apart from the company itself to meet the notability standards? If there is, feel free to provide reliable sources. Thanks! Spellcast 15:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sources establishing notability. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 15:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. WP:NN, does not assert WP:N, and provides no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 17:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability; 28 Google hits suggests it hasn't done much to attract interest or reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE!!! Problems have been fixed reliable sources and notability proof is set forth herein.

With 916 page views with 650 of those being unique visits I would say lack of notability is an false statement.
Date Day Unique Visits

8/1/2007 Wednesday 17
8/2/2007 Thursday 44
8/3/2007 Friday 21
8/4/2007 Saturday 34
8/5/2007 Sunday 34
8/6/2007 Monday 41
8/7/2007 Tuesday 39
8/8/2007 Wednesday 46
8/9/2007 Thursday 40
8/10/2007 Friday 40
8/11/2007 Saturday 66
8/12/2007 Sunday 39
8/13/2007 Monday 47
8/14/2007 Tuesday 38
8/15/2007 Wednesday 39
8/16/2007 Thursday 91
8/17/2007 Friday 34
8/18/2007 Saturday 30
8/19/2007 Sunday 43
8/20/2007 Monday 78
8/21/2007 Tuesday 55
Total Page Views 916

Date Day Unique Visits

8/1/2007 Wednesday 14
8/2/2007 Thursday 20
8/3/2007 Friday 19
8/4/2007 Saturday 25
8/5/2007 Sunday 27
8/6/2007 Monday 26
8/7/2007 Tuesday 31
8/8/2007 Wednesday 37
8/9/2007 Thursday 30
8/10/2007 Friday 27
8/11/2007 Saturday 47
8/12/2007 Sunday 28
8/13/2007 Monday 37
8/14/2007 Tuesday 33
8/15/2007 Wednesday 28
8/16/2007 Thursday 45
8/17/2007 Friday 25
8/18/2007 Saturday 26
8/19/2007 Sunday 31
8/20/2007 Monday 53
8/21/2007 Tuesday 41
Total Unique Visits 650

Rank Referrer Domains Unique Visits %

1 google.com 84 42.21%
2 yahoo.com 16 8.04%
3 google.ca 15 7.54%
4 wikipedia.org 15 7.54%
etc...CoreyArthurs 13:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a poor article, but that is not a reason for deleting it. It is not clear if it is about a website or a printed magazine. If the latter, there ought to be an indication of its circulation, and somethign about its general scope. If it is a printed magazine, I would have thought that would be sufficient as a source. However if it is only a website and gets under 50 visits per day, I would have thought it was NN and should be deleted. At present the articel is distinctly like spammy advertising, which is also grounds for deletion. Accordingly, the authors need greatly to improve it if it is to survive. Peterkingiron 22:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I'm disinclined to believe this meets WP:N And, seriously, <100 hits per day is not an impressive web total. CoreyArthurs (talk · contribs) has also created Matt Johnson (rapper) & Hood Apparel in what appears to be a marketing effort for Matt Johnson & his various endeavors. — Scientizzle 23:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm even more convinced that this is a coordinated attempt at advertising. The article Matt Johnson (rapper) had a previous incarnation as Funky J, deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funky J . That article, and its companion Loco Gringo, was created by KultureNews (talk · contribs) & HoodApparel (talk · contribs). I'd recommend salting these articles as this/these editor(s) are clearly here only for advertising purposes. — Scientizzle 15:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: CoreyArthurs asked me to look at this article. I removed the massive quotations, which were in no sense encyclopedic. Sorry, folks, 40-50 unique visits a day does not argue for notability: I operate a crisis resource web site that gets far more hits than that, and has been the subject of several articles in the mainstream press, and I'd still never even consider saying it merited a Wikipedia article. But, at least for now, I'm not voting. The question is whether there is some (other) evidence of notability. Has this site been written about or quoted in other, clearly major publications? Is it the subject of any academic work? Has it broken stories later picked up by other news sources? If none of these, are there people on its staff who clearly meet notability criteria in their own right? If the answer to some of these is yes, then there may be a reason to save this even if its traffic is light. But, if not, sorry. Notability first, encyclopedia article after. - Jmabel | Talk 07:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. CitiCat^♫ 01:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Cross Catholic Secondary School[edit]

Stub on a school with no sources, no importance asserted, and nearly no information even in the infobox. >Radiant< 13:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant high school with notable sporting achievements and other awards. The article needs to be expanded and improved not deleted. TerriersFan 16:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —-- DS1953 ^talk 17:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has been vastly improved by TerriersFan since its nomination and now is well-sourced. The school is clearly notable. -- DS1953 ^talk 17:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a well-sourced article chock-a-block with verifiability that makes no credible assertion of any notability whatsoever. Eusebeus 18:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - notability comes through WP:N by way of multiple sources which this article obviously has. TerriersFan 22:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Eusebeus 14:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terriers, the sources verify that exactly zero really notable events or characteristics can be attributed to the school. All the sources provided fail WP:N as patently trivial. They are the very definition in fact: "pieces or bits of information of little important or value." VanTucky ^(talk) 15:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources verify that the school is not notable in any way. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, excellent job by User:TerriersFan in improving this article -- Samir 22:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--JForget 00:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial information/directory info/students winning awards etc do not grant notability to a school Corpx 01:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ample reliable and verifiable sources satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 06:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Somewhere. As convincing as the fact that the school won the "Best School Float" award in 2006 at the Greater Kingston Santa Parade is, I remain unconvinced of its real notability. Someone appears to have dug deep and found some fluff pieces about the school, so I figure it should go somewhere. --ForbiddenWord 12:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good start, and of course notable. Brandon97 14:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is only a stub (and I have just tagged it so), but so are many articles. I thought it was agreed that Secondary Schools were generally notable per se, but primary schools needed to prove particular notability. Being a stub is not a reason for deletion. Peterkingiron 22:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since there are ample non-trivial reliable sources to meet notability. Burntsauce 17:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every school wins SOME kind of awards. Not notable to me. MarkinBoston 00:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CitiCat^♫ 00:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pompiliu Kostas Rădulescu[edit]

Non-notable person, self-promotion. Per WP:BIO and WP:NOT. Dahn 13:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually there are numerous Google hits but they mostly seem to be in Italian or French, and I speak neither. Anyone with some ability at Romance languages who could check the notability of this guy please? Pedro | Chat 13:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment They are actually in Romanian (my and his native language). Mr. Rădulescu is one of the (many) contributors to Jurnalul Naţional, a newspaper which has internet versions of all its articles. As far as I can tell, virtually all of those links point to articles he had signed, made available in this way. Writing many articles does not make one notable. There are also links which indicate that he has directed plays etc., but they do not provide basic material such as critical assessments or third-party biographic data. The remaining links appear to be blogs and the like. Dahn 13:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Addition - my unrestricted google search gives 640 results in all, with and without diacritics. Keeping in mind that "Rădulescu" is a quite common name in Romania, a lot of those overlap mentions of various people (for example, one hit I get on the 6th page mentions the literary critic Pompiliu Eliade and the Greek director Kostas Assimakopoulos). Restricted gives 220 hits without diacritics and 7 with - their nature is discussed above, and there is notable overlap. Dahn 13:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear self-promotion, no references, user has almost no other contributions. Biruitorul 22:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fabric 01[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete - also nominating all of the related stub articles, Fabric 02, Fabric 03, Fabric 04, Fabric 05, Fabric 06, Fabric 07, Fabric 08, Fabric 09, Fabric 10, Fabric 11, Fabric 12, Fabric 13, Fabric 14, Fabric 15, Fabric 16, Fabric 17, Fabric 18, Fabric 19, Fabric 20, Fabric 21, Fabric 22, Fabric 23, Fabric 24, Fabric 25, Fabric 26, Fabric 27, Fabric 28, Fabric 29, Fabric 30, Fabric 31, Fabric 32, Fabric 33, Fabric 34. All are non-notable and fail WP:MUSIC and will never be expandable beyond the current track listing stubs. Otto4711 13:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are clearly sources listed for all articles (see the reviews column in the infobox). They can be expanded using these reviews as sources - just because they haven't been expanded yet, doesn't mean they won't be. I'll probably take a shot at doing a couple of these later today. These albums seem to be by notable DJs (I've checked the first 10 at least), even if the DJs themselves don't necessarily have articles about them yet. Wickethewok 14:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the base page for these is Fabric discography, which includes a large number of live compilations as well. Also the nightclub that originated these mixes, Fabric, appears notable. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 15:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Otto4711 15:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. That was not a vote for keep. But should the discography and other live albums be included as well in this AfD? Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 15:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly at least some of them are notable, so I don't think adding even more things to this nomination is going to help. For example, I found five reviews for the most recent album Fabric 34 RA, PopMatters , Big Shot, Jive, About.com. Wickethewok 16:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the discography or the live CDs, so didn't consider adding them here. I don't want to spend any time on them if these are retained since the result would probably be the same, at least for the CDs. The discography might be an improper linkfarm though. Otto4711 16:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Fabric is notable, yes, but more importantly the DJs who created these albums are notable, in some cases extraordinarily so (John Digweed did one, for example). No compelling reason given to delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well again, notability is not inherited and the notability of the compiling DJ is not a guarantee of notability for the compilations. Otto4711 18:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In keeping with the above example of John Digweed, this album (Fabric 20) has at least nine reviews I've found (see the album's infobox). This is probably the most popular Fabric album, but even for say Fabric 19 I find 5 reviews right off the bat (Stylus, RA, Sound Revolt, bbc collective, AMG). Certainly you acknowledge that at least some of them are notable? Wickethewok 19:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. It was my understanding that albums by notable artists are themselves notable. Darksun 18:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MUSIC albums by notable artists do not automatically become notable. Many of these DJs don't have articles and may not themselves be notable, and regardless they are not the artists here. These are compilation CDs, not original works by these DJs. Otto4711 12:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ mixes are most often treated as creative, original works by electronic music journalists and many other published sources. Why else would there be so many reviews of them? Also, keep in mind that DJ mixes aren't the same as, say, the NOW! compilations. DJ mixes chain together tracks using various techniques such as harmonic mixing, beat matching, and often otherwise alter/remix the tracks on their albums (eg. Involver and OS_0.2). Though you may disagree with the amount of perceived creative input a DJ has to a mix, there is mounds of text from reliable sources by people who think otherwise. The sources I've listed so far discuss the DJ as a creative figure in these works. See for example, the JIVE review of Fabric 34 which says that "Ellen Allien [the DJ] has imaginatively created a work of art that is both timely and timeless". The other reviews similarly discuss the album's in terms of the DJs input, with the tracks themselves more secondarily. Wickethewok 13:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CitiCat^♫ 01:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Kombat announcer[edit]

just can't see a good reason for this article, is there anything verifiable worth merging with Mortal Kombat (series)? Xorkl000 12:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the notability of the game series does not confer notability on every aspect of the game. No sources that are about the specific topic of the MK announcer voice and the attempt to assign racial/ethnic identities to the various incarnations of the voice are original research. Otto4711 13:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited. Thus, even though MK itself is notable, the voice of the guy that says "Finish Him!" is not notable by itself without adequate third-party coverage. bwowen talk•contribs 03:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable for its proper article although it can be mentionned in Mortal Kambat or any appropriate articles.--JForget 00:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bessie Cursons[edit]

Child performer who entered a televised talent show, and didn't even win. Although there was considerable media attention at the time, it was all directly related to the show, and she has no independent notability. Wikipedia is not a news service. Also relevant to this matter is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connie Talbot. J Milburn 12:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week Delete WP:N advises that notability is not temporary. In this instance she was notable but now seems not to be. Pedro | Chat 13:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Britain's Got Talent; non-notable aspect of notable TV show. Eleland 14:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — to Britain's Got Talent - TV contestants are not notable especially if they did not win, so redirect it to the TV show's article. :-) Stwalkerster talk 14:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. Might be notable someday, but not yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - article not warranted 87.127.44.154 18:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - No notability outside reality show appearance Corpx 01:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Might be notable some day, but today is not that day. Burntsauce 17:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Known for just one event, being a losing contestant in a TV show. Not notable now and certainly has no long-term notability. --Malcolmxl5 17:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CitiCat^♫ 00:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IvyGate[edit]

nn blog. Alexa is 351,810. Main assertion of notability is exposing an internet meme, which has it's own article. The references listed just mention the blog in passing, not on it's own merit. PROD was added, but removed. Biggspowd 12:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - I fail to see any long term historic notability for this blog Corpx 01:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The site is well known among college students, even at non-Ivy League schools, and alumni of Ivy League universities, especially young ones. It's more widely read than probably almost any college newspaper. If traditional dead-tree campus publications deserve their own entries (which all of them have), this should get its own entry, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.215.239.118 (talk) 20:23, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Corpx. --Aarktica 22:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Nisbeck[edit]

Non-notable photographer. Previously deleted as db-bio. Recreated without adding assertion of notability. No reliable sources provided. Possible conflict of interest. --Evb-wiki 11:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. No assertion of Wiki-notability. Springnuts 12:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not at all notable; also fails WP:RS and wikis not a repository of weblinks. Ohconfucius 13:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V and WP:BIO.--JForget 00:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect per WP:SNOW. Daniel Case 14:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rapist[edit]

Nothing but original research. A very poor quality article. A redirect to rape should be the answer, unless anyone can provide a sourced rewrite. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Completely WP:OR, a bit WP:POV, and provides no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 12:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree completely with the comments above. Springnuts 12:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Inherently a fork, whether well written or badly written. Mowsbury 13:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect no brainer, per nom. Ohconfucius 13:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Redirect. This is pretty open and shut. TheLetterM 14:01, 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. CitiCat^♫ 00:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filmport[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP and WP:NOT. There are news stories (City of Toronto PR coverage..ect), however Filmport hasn't even been built yet. Occupancy isn't even set untill early 2010. Hu12 11:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable spam. Springnuts 12:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and nom. --Aarktica 22:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond saumure[edit]

No real assertion of notability Stephenb (Talk) 10:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single article about him does not make him notable. Springnuts 12:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO Ohconfucius 13:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There have been at least a dozen articles about Dr. Saumure, some well before he completed his academic journey. Two have been added. Insculpta 03:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional materials on Dr. Saumure's notable contributions to the fields of Conservation Biology, Herpetology, and Wildlife Biology added. Insculpta 03:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking forward to input on this updated version. Insculpta 03:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, Delete. Still fails notability guideline IMO. Springnuts 12:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to album article. Any information can be inserted there. ELIMINATORJR 23:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One and the Same[edit]

it is not necessary to have pages for every song in the album. the songs are not important enough to have a page. most of the pages don't have that much info anyway. if there is any useful info on the song pages, they can be merged into the album article (revelations). i am also nominating the other songs in the album, except for the singles. ▓░ Dark Devil ░▓ ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) 09:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. —Drowne | Talk 12:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:MUSIC. >Radiant< 13:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect; wasn't even released as a single. Eleland 14:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge definitely. The song isn't enough to deserve its own article. That information can easily be put into its merge.Silver seren 15:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It is not required to have separate pages for each song.Harlowraman 19:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It is tempting to say delete to discourage these type of articles, but I suppose a redirect is harmless enough. Burntsauce 20:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catalin Anastase[edit]

Non-notable person, self-promotion. An infringement of WP:BIO and WP:NOT. Dahn 09:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might actually be notable (lots of good google hits - he is clearly at least somewhat successful - but too many problems with this article, so delete as autobiography with no sources hence no wiki-notability. Springnuts 12:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: many of those hits point to non-notable sites, and relate to promotional material for his exhibits, youtube links, and his visit to Australia. I am ready to accept that Mr. Anastase may get more notable with time, but he does not appear to fit within the bio guidelines for now. Dahn 13:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to know what weight to give to exhibitions - ie do they signify notabillty. But I agree, currently not notable. Springnuts 15:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Not matching guidelines, does not appear to be notable, even if they have a fair few results. However, there are no sources, and page history suggests that it is an autobio. :-) Stwalkerster talk 14:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - screams self-promotion; user's only other contribution was to promote this article. Biruitorul 22:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom: clearly non-notable, not sourced, no nothing. Turgidson 15:53, 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 keep. Singu larity 17:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of institutions of higher education by endowment[edit]

Biased article, hard to source and update and not really nessecary Bronzey 09:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Potentially useful article on a major aspect of education finance. Can be sourced with effort. Mowsbury 13:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are the sub-articles on lists of USA and Canadian universities included in this AfD? If not, why not? --Bduke 13:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Necessary fork of Financial endowment. Where is the bias? Either a school has the money or it doesn't. Also, most of the listed schools are sourced. Wl219 17:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's not actually that hard to source. The information is available, just had to make sure it's found and cited before an institution is included in the list. KTC 22:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but at the present state its a combination of a disam & redirect for the US and Canada lists, and then a listing for 3 other prominent institutions. I'd think the '"other" category needs to be expanded, and then turned into an article, and this changed into a simple disam. page. DGG (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently, someone does source it and update it, although the U.S. and Canadian articles have a lot more content. As the article explains, the endowment is a measure of a university's "wealth". There is a hint that it can be expanded to include a ratio of assets to students served. I don't see what's considered "unnecessary" about this article. Mandsford 23:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the United States at least the Chronicle of Higher Education publishes this information annually, and for tax reasons it's required that these numbers be disclosed. So it's actually easy to source and update. No idea what's biased about it. --JayHenry 04:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's neutral and sourced. Can easily be expanded. Thin Arthur 08:37, 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 delete. Singu larity 17:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Congregation[edit]

Contested prod with no reason given. A synagogue that has all of the things you'd expect, and some very good kitchens apparantly. Unfortunately it has no claim to notability and no resources Nuttah68 08:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability. Kind of reads like a brochure. Nateji77 09:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:N, written like an advert and probably COI. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not really a website for this church as most of the content on the page belongs on their site Corpx 01:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a NN synagogue (not church). If the article survives this AFD process, it should be moved to a title incorporating the name of the place where it is. The present title is misleadingly general. Peterkingiron 22:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think a good many local congregations would turn out to be notable if enough local material were examined, but it certainly isn't shown here. the name is he same problem as with churches that call themselves simply "Church of Christ" and the like--if the articles are kept the place name is added. DGG (talk) 16:54, 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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiant! (talk • contribs)

Global Market Insite[edit]

Pure PR piece. Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account, (User:Irishlaw), who admits on his userpage that he works for Global Market Insite and states "I perform in-house SEO - SEM". Has no other edits other than related to Global Market Insite. Was deleted twice previously. Hu12 23:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom--Hu12 23:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 08:09, 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. CitiCat^♫ 01:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terminal Greek 737[edit]

The font is identical to plain Terminal, and being intended for a different code page does not establish enough notability on its own. -- Prince Kassad 21:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability for this font Corpx 04:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Kyriakos 08:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 08:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there's any new information in this article, it would be better placed at Terminal (typeface) or Code page 737. Nateji77 09:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to raster typeface. Is not suitable for its own article, but is a bit of information of some worth at the target. The subject is a conceivable search term. --SmokeyJoe 07:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. >Radiant< 13:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monitor Group[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP Hu12 21:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom- origional research--Sefringle^Talk 05:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 08:08, 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 above seems contradictory. It is not clear if no further discussion should be placed here or if discussion is acceptable as long as the information in the template is not modified. I will assume the latter until someone clarifies this.

Anyway, I am currently an employee of Monitor Group so I have a point of view here and will not actually start a new article, but there should be one. Monitor Group is one of the world's top five strategy consulting firms, see for example, this Business Wire article [41]. It emplys a long roster of important thought leaders from Michael Porter, Tom Nagle, Chris Argyris to Stuart Brand, Eamonn Kelly and Peter Scwartz (if you do not know who these people are you should not be commenting on an article about strategy consulting). It is a leader in a number of key areas including Scenario Thinking, Strategic Pricing, Marketing and Innnovation - note the recent acquisition of Doblin (a key thought leader when it comes to design and innovation).

So let's get a good article on Monitor Group up on Wilipedia! (For got to sign steven (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven Forth (talk • contribs) 21:59, 4 January 2008 (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 KEEP (no consensus) Only two stated opinions. Re-re-listing is a bit too much. So previous AfD (keep) was taken in consideration too - Nabla 18:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghislain Barbe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This was previously discussed at AFD, but was recently tagged for deletion via WP:PROD, the reasoning for deletion being lack of notability. As an article previously discussed at AFD, it was not eligible for PROD-based deletion but should have been brought here for re-consideration. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per lack of sources giving significant coverage to him Corpx 04:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 08:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep artist with a hand in several notable things, including character design for Sagwa. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:52, 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. A clear result; the page had no defenders. TerriersFan 22:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Files-Upload.com[edit]

Reposted after being speedied under G11 and A7. Still reads as largely promotional and has very thin independent sources. Nevertheless, I think that it is better to establish a clear consensus before re-deleting. I have no opinion on redirect to One-click hosting (which has been suggested in the similar AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Box.net) but do not consider anything accept the name of the site worth merging so feel that deletion is still appropriate. Eluchil404 20:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete PC world is the only one that's a reliable source and I don't think the coverage there is enough to be "significant" Corpx 04:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As author of the article I will restrain from voting, I just wanna mention that it wasn't my intention to make something like advertising. If you think otherwise just point it out and I'll do my best to improve the article... By the way, it seems like they are redesigning files-upload for some time now, so the article should be rewrited as well...Dreambringer 07:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 08:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Corpx and nom. --Aarktica 22:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacks WP:RS and WP:N largely self promotional.Harlowraman 19:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-soon.com yet another self-promotional spam piece. Burntsauce 20:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naren Khapung[edit]

Non-notable musician; fails WP:BAND. Article is consistantly added to (but never referenced) by an anon IP, who removes unreferenced tags, etc. Very few ghits return nothing substantial. Precious Roy 18:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notabilty, even in Nepal.--Sethacus 21:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 08:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUS and WP:OR. Notability not asserted, supposed record label (SAV) links to an airport. shoeofdeath 18:33, 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. — TKD::Talk 00:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ali in the Jungle[edit]

Non-notable song which fails WP:MUSIC. There's essentially nothing more in this article than the fact that the song exists and was released as a single. fuzzy510 07:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete As the proposer argues, this song fails WP:MUSIC. It is a recently released song played by one group. There is nothing notable about it. Anarchia 11:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 08:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. dissolve ^talk 00:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - It is a badly written article about a song that has not been nationally charted. The only claim to notability I can see is that it was released as a single. Neranei (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The links are very convenient to anyone who head the song but doesn't know who all the people mentioned are. It also has been recently been re-released. Brejc8 20:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a mention of Nelson Mandela doesn't translate to notability. Every time I stub my toe, I scream "JESUS CHRIST"! That doesnt' make me notable. MarkinBoston 00:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This, of course, does not prevent the article from being recreated if adequately referenced. Singu larity 16:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Landry[edit]

Unreferenced article about radio host/DJ. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTABILITY. FamicomJL 03:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ford MF 05:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 08:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting talk 23:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don´t know which WP:SOMETHING this article fails or not fails, but it doesn´t look like article about notable person. --Dezidor 23:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be notable - his name has not be mentionned really in the recent controversy of the trash radio station in Quebec City, although maybe he can be mentionned in the Jeff Filion article or CHOI-FM.--JForget 00:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article definitely needs expansion, but anybody who can be heard internationally on XM Satellite Radio is notable enough for us. Expand as much as possible, but keep. Bearcat 01:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. GreenJoe 01:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat. --Paul Erik 02:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't believe that being heard on North-American satellite radio automatically constitutes notability. It would help if anyone could provide some evidence that he is the subject of independent secondary sources. Until then, I lean towards delete, without prejudice to recreating the article if it can be shown that he is notable. Skeezix1000 15:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the WP:BIO ruleset and completely lacks ANY KIND of independent reliable sources. Burntsauce 17:31, 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. PeaceNT 06:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Ministry[edit]

This appears to be a product developed by a ministry. Google results are skewed by results returning "Jesus' ministry" (note the possessive) but adding "Revalesio" to the search doesn't return much beyond marketing pages and descriptions of the products. There is no sign that this has any reach beyond Revalesio, nevertheless that it has been covered by reliable sources. Banyan Tree 07:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable spam. Springnuts 12:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as patently failing WP:N. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly Delete - This seems to be a minor NN Christian ministry. If that is wrong the creator needs to provide evenidcne of notability. Peterkingiron 22:51, 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 keep: nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. David Mestel^(Talk) 21:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science writing award[edit]

Notability of the award is not asserted. Only source cited is the award's official web site, no independent sources at all. Might merit a mention in the organization's main article, but not an article by itself. List of winners merely replicates what is on the web site, and none of the winners are asserted as notable. Realkyhick 07:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: More sources have been found, and the subject now appears to be notable, at least within its field. Nomination withdrawn, closure requested. Realkyhick 20:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable award, attracting independent media coverage, e.g. [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]. Looking through the list of winners, I note that many of them are notable and have appropriate wikipedia articles that should be linked. JulesH 14:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you please add these to the article? This should suffice, and I'll withdraw this nom after you add them. (I'd do it myself, but I'm swamped with real-life work right now.) Thanks! Realkyhick 17:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have added references list above Billgade 19:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have gone through the award list and highlighted the notable winners both in the body of the article and have made links to wiki pages - note that two of them are nobel prize winners.Billgade 15:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can do some more Wikification when you get a chance, we'd appreciate it. Realkyhick 17:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added five or so links to the Science Journalist, including creating an entry for Walter S. Sullivan -- more could be done, but Wikipedia is woefully deficient in entries on science journalists. For future reference: Any science journalism award worth over about $1000 is a BIG deal. (Yeah I know scientists get half-million dollar nobels, and engineers get the same from the National Academy of Engineering, but the world of science journalism struggles!) Billgade 19:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most sports journalists would go for a $1,000 prize, too. I speak from personal experience. :-) Anyway, I think we're headde in the right direction here, so I'm going to withdraw this nomination. I still need for you to add whatever references you can to the article itself. Thanks! Realkyhick 20:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for making this a better article! Billgade 20:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 20:03, 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. PeaceNT 06:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dvar[edit]

A musical duo that "stays anonymous" as stated in the article. Notability very slim at best, and the "cult status" is not very widespread, if able to be found at all. Jmlk 1 7 06:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of gaining any charted hits, or their works used in other media, or any awards. An elusive band with no reliable sources does not satisfy WP:MUSIC.--Alasdair 06:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The duo's notability is as elusive as the duo itself. Realkyhick 07:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Does not appear to be notable :-) Stwalkerster talk 14:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Nevertheless, they have very original style on the edge of Dark(Light)Wave and Cartoonish style. I have all their albums, and I know many fans of this duo... You have to hear it to understand... 217.151.225.40 09:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - No charted hits or reliable sources, but their albums have been reviewed. Neranei (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if I have to hear it to understand, it's a definite Delete. MarkinBoston 00:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Sherman (comic book artist)[edit]

Not able to verify information given to establish notability. Only two sources listed, one unlinked and the other a fansite. Google turns up only a handful of relevant hits. Realkyhick 06:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. —Ichormosquito

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —X96lee15 03:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely notable among comics artists. Rhinoracer 08:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable among comic book artists. Whether or not this is reliable enough for the MLB logo citation is another story. I think it is. Ichormosquito 09:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Definitely reliable. This may be enough to do the trick. Again, inability to verify the info was my main concern. (Could you add this ref to the article? Thanks!) Realkyhick 18:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Fixed it. I wish I could have found another source, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Ichormosquito 07:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "Legion Companion" at Google Books has an 11-page interview with him. Also a Michigan State University Libraries page lists (towards the middle of the page):

Sherman, James--Miscellanea.

Entry (p. 331) in The Who's Who of American Comic Books, by

Jerry Bails & Hames Ware (Detroit, Mich. : J. Bails,

1973-1976).

I'm unlikely to find this book, living in New Zealand, to see what it says, but it seems like a source - anyone else got access to it? --Zeborah 09:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm obviously in favor of keeping it. Aapold 12:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While a figure like this may well often work behind the scenes, he does receive printed credit for the Legion of Super Heroes books he drew, and the baseball logo is very notable as well. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable comic-book and commercial graphic artist. As a completely irrelevant aside, I've always disliked the MLB logo because it looks like the ball is too close to be hit from the batter's stance, and thus the batter is about to take a blazing major-league fastball right to the chest. Ouch. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment: This is the sort of lazy, ignorant AFD that wastes so much of Wikipedia's time, server space, and bandwidth.

http://lambiek.net/artists/s/sherman_james.htm Rhinoracer 19:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Personal attacks on other editors are not welcome, and violate Wikipedia policy. There was nothing lazy or ignorant about this AfD at all. The article, in its original version, had only two sources and only one with a link. Since the AfD, others have added source citations, as is often the case. The purpose of an AfD is not always simply to delete an article, but often to rescue an article that might otherwise be deleted because it lacks proper sources and/or verification. Please remember to be civil in all of your future remarks. Realkyhick 20:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was not a personal attack: it was a criticism.

Debate on Wikipedia must be civil, true; but it is also robust rather than effete. I confess that this AFD nom made me angry, as nobody with more than a cursory knowledge of comics would have made it. Your online verification was desultory, to say the leastr. And, no, deletion debates are NOT intended to "scare straight" editors into improving an article. They are intended to vote on deletion. Please do not misuse this quite serious step, however good your intentions be. Thank you. Rhinoracer 16:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no misuse of AfD in this nomination at all. If you will check the history of the article at the time it was nominated, it will be quite clear why this article was nominated. Remember to look at such article from the point of view of a reader who had never heard of the subject. At the time of nomination, this article was poorly sourced and unable to be verified. It has been improved somewhat since then. My intent was to discuss deletion, as it is with any AfD that I initiate (and I've done quite a few in my time), not to "scare straight" anyone. However, if an AfD has the side effect of turning a bad article into a keeper, so much the better. I'm not so hidebound as to think that an article submitted to AfD must be destined for deletion, no matter how much improvement is applied to the article after its nomination. You seem to have let your anger get the better of you. Just because James Sherman is well known to you doesn't mean he's well known to others, and it does not remove the burden of source citation from the author(s). This AfD was perfectly within reason, even if it does not result in deletion. Realkyhick 08:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I know nothing of his work in comics, but creating one of the most recognized logos in sports history should be enough to make one notable. The article certainly needs some work, but that's no reason to delete. Kinston eagle 01:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Kinston. Creating the MLB logo definitely implies notability, if not sainthood. X96lee15 03:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - noted comics artists, especially his run on Legion of Super-Heroes. Konczewski 18:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Lambiek is a good enough soiurce for me. Artw 22:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The MLB logo and The Legion of Super-Heroes both make him notable. Either one alone would have done just fine. :) Stephen Day 21:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - should be a no-brainer but worth voting anyway. The deletion seems a bit hasty and there are numerous steps that could have been used (or given time to work) the claims were worthy of further investigation (as they'd secure notability) and a quick Google would have produced something usable [47] (and saved all the hassle of an AfD). A note to the comics project talk page (or notice board) would also have sorted this issue out. (Emperor 22:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Student Governments[edit]

A long list comprised almost entirely of external links to student governments at American universities and colleges. Might be more useful if the lists were internal, but most of these organizations are not notable enough to have their own articles. Pure listcruft. Realkyhick 06:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this article, please note that I only created this in order to spin off a list that was inappropriately dominating the Student's Union article. I have no particular objection to its deletion. Hornplease 06:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if it's entirely external links, it qualifies as a CSD A3. Could be speedied. Hornplease 06:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not entirely external links. One or two are internal. The speedy crossed my mind. Realkyhick 06:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THere is one internal link. That being considered, it's still a list composed entirely of external links. One internal link is not a list. Two, maybe, but not one. Calgary 08:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's just let this AfD play out to its conclusion, just to be on the safe side. Realkyhick 17:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is just a collection of external links. Useight 06:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the creator's remarks. Jmlk 1 7 06:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, and it appears that this article was only created to remove material from a page without being forced to argue over it. --Haemo 06:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I could have argued, but who would have disagreed, really? Long lists are deprecated within articles anyway. Hornplease 07:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A mere list of external links. Falls in to WP:NOT. --H irohisat ^Talk 07:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Trim down to only internal cross-references for notable organizations. The list is a bit more than simply a collection of external links as there is additional information on a substantial proportion of line items, which could be expanded. In general a list that adds value by providing additional line item information is considered more than a mere list of links. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment A speedy was placed on it, which I declined to speedy & removed. No comment on the article, but the discussion should continue. Its usually not a good idea to short-circuit an afd.DGG (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#LINK. A category would seem more useful here, but since most of the links are external, it's probably not justified. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP is not a directory of student governments Corpx 01:52, 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. There was no support for the page being deleted. A significant number of editors are looking to merge the article but it is for those editors to propose and promote the merge as a normal post-AfD editorial action. TerriersFan 22:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado emergency[edit]

The National Weather Service issues no such product defined as "Tornado Emergency". In fact, the article itself states "A Tornado Emergency is simply enhanced wording added, (at the discretion of the forcasters working the event), to a standard Tornado Warning". (emphasis mine) The Severe weather terminology (United States) page indicates that it is unofficial (which it kinda is). It is simply a stronger "call to action" used in a Tornado Warning product. For those reasons, I allege it fails to meet notability standards. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 06:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC) NB: I also link to Talk:Tornado warning#Suggested merging of "tornado emergency" into tornado warning in the interest of full disclosure. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 06:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Unofficial or not, it seems the NWS has used this designation, and it doesn't mean the same as a Tornado Warning. Might I suggest, however, merging Watch, Warning, and Emergency into a single article? Or was it that way before? --UsaSatsui 21:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. You know, after some searching, I'm not seeing any usage of this term outside of those announcements. I'm taking away my "keep" opinion unless someone can show a source outside a "flee for your life" bulletin. The weatherman who decided to coin it on a whim to get across the seriousness of the event isn't cutting it for me. As it stands, put it into Warning (and I still think merge Watch into there too.) --UsaSatsui 05:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Three reasons it should be kept:

1. When discussed at Talk:Tornado warning#Suggested merging of "tornado emergency" into tornado warning, it was decided that it should not be merged into a seperate article, with almost all who discussed it stating that the term tornado emergency was coined to differentiate the situation from a typical tornado warning.

2. I e-mailed the National Weather Service in Norman, OK, asking about tornado emergencies.[1] Forecaster Cheryl Sharpe responded to my e-mail, saying in part:

"I don't remember exactly how [David Andrea] disseminated [the tornado emergency] (probably in an SPS [Special Weather Statement] or SVS), but he did it because a large and intense tornado was approaching a relatively large metropolitan area. The terminology was intended to convey the exceptional seriousness of the event."

3. To all of you who think this article should be deleted, I ask you, if a tornado emergency were issued for your area, would you be more inclined than you normaly would to seek shelter? --Ks0stm 21:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure. But that doesn't make it an official term. If they issued a "Huge F*cking Tornado Warning", I'd be more inclined to act, but I wouldn't consider "Huge F*cking Tornado" a technical term. --UsaSatsui 05:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the event of a tornado... how many of us would actually have our hands on a copy of the actual bulletin from the National Weather Service to know that there is some tornado emergency? It's not as if it's issued under a special code. If the Emergency Alert System goes off, you're going to see Tornado Warning. "Tornado Emergency" is a "call to action" (An I use that as an official NWS term) statement, of which there are many. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 09:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is used because most people are paying attention to the media when a tornado warning is in effect for their area, and will get the tornado emergency message through the media. As I recall, the fact that people watch the media for weather information is the reason they have have meteorologists employed at most television stations. --Ks0stm 21:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and most people will simply be told a Tornado Warning has been issued. NOBODY reads the ENTIRE NWS bulletin on air. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 18:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the major television stations in the Wichita, KS television market do if they are in continuous coverage, and as I recall, they all were when the EF-5 hit Greensburg back in May. --Ks0stm 12:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

A tornado emergency is a rare, but important statement. The article should be kept to inform people what a tornado emergency is, and it is to large to merge with tornado warning. Southern Illinois SKYWARN 00:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC) 22:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- No, it's not too big. There's one paragraph and 4 reprints of NWS bulletins. Cut the bulletins, paste the paragraph. Easy merge. --UsaSatsui 05:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as others note (and as noted in the article) it is a rare occurence for the NWS to give the broadcaster the option of adding "tornado emergency" to the "tornado warning". Mandsford 23:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the term does exist and is rarely used as the above mentionned and I remember that it was used during the Greensburg EF5 tornado back in may. Although alternately it can be merged in the the tornado warning or tornado with the occurences of those mentionned in the associate tornado events/outbreaks including twice in the May 2007 Outbreak - Greensburg (May 4) and Great Bend (May 5)--JForget 00:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It is a critical note to indicate the very rare events that a violent and extremely life-threatening tornado is headed for a populated area. That in itself indicates it is one of the highest level of alerts the NWS has. CrazyC83 01:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although very rare it is important to the public to give them the real sense that you better get down or get away form this thing. It should be labeled as low importance because for the average person you don't need to know it but if you are looking it up then it should be there for you. -Wxweenie91 (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect would be appropriate since there are no solid sources to get it past WP:NEO. Corpx 01:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actual NWS emergency announcements using the term aren't "solid sources"? The National Weather Service isn't exactly a bunch of schoolkids coming up with kewl n00 werdz, they're a scientific organization with actual science and everything. I don't see how WP:NEO applies. --UsaSatsui 03:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NEO, it needs "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" Corpx 03:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the National Weather Service. They're reliable enough (as reliable as weather forecasters can be, anyways). They're one of the foremost authorities on the subject, and they use the term, and I'm sure it's not something some rogue weatherman conjured up for fun: it's a clearly defined term with a clearly defined meaning (like Watch and Warning).

The issue isn't whether or not the term or the event is notable per se...I'm sure we can all agree tornadoes and the terms used to warn us about them are notable enough. It's whether or not it's significantly different from a tornado warning to merit it's own article (in other words, does it have enough notability to stand on it's own?). In a sense, it is just a more severe warning, and doesn't seem to have the "official" status of the other terms (yet). --UsaSatsui 05:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...about the term—not books and papers that use the term...". The National Weather Service USES the term. They don't write ABOUT the term, except in passing to say "Yeah, we used this a couple of times.". --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 09:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or merge as per Evolauxia below. The second reference talks about the use of the term.

Tornado Emergency... It became apparent that unique and eye-catching phrases needed to be included in the products. … we used the phrase 'Tornado Emergency' to paint the picture that a rare and deadly tornado was imminent in the metro area. We hoped that such dire phrases would prompt action from anyone that still had any questions about what was about to happen.

Its a secondary source discussing the subject briefly, but directly. This is well on the way to establishing notability. --SmokeyJoe 07:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So how is it different from the equally descriptive phrases, "Extremely dangerous and life-threatening situation", "Take cover now to protect your life", and "This is an emergency situation", none of which have articles? I still haven't seen any evidence it's an official term. Just one that gets used a lot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UsaSatsui (talk • contribs) 14:17, August 22, 2007 (UTC).
It is different in the fact that those are part of the "call to action", which exists inside of the "tornado warning/tornado emergency". --Ks0stm 21:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That just makes no sense. You're saying because the extra descriptive term is at the top of the message, rather than in the middle, it gets special status? --UsaSatsui 02:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with tornado warning and redirect. The term is not official and not standalone, it is an enhanced call-to-action statement used in tornado warnings and severe weather statements (updates on tornado warnings). Unlike actual products, there are no official guidelines, it was first invented on the spot and is used at forecaster discretion. Evolauxia 21:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You know what would really swing this for the keep voters? Bring something up that clearly defines a Tornado Emergency. Tornado Watch, Tornado Warning, Severe Thunderstorm, Hurricane, and so on all have clearly defined terms issued by the NWS. Find one for Tornado Emergency. That will clear things up. --UsaSatsui 02:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as Evoluxia said it best above. They are simply not a product that you commonly see, and they are never issued on their own. Also, as another point, the Flash flood emergency redirects to the "Emergency" section in the Flash Flood Warning article. WindRunner 15:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tornado warning.Harlowraman 19:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge would be best for the moment, I think. Burntsauce 20:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW and WP:NFT Daniel Case 14:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snap-a-cracker[edit]

Personal game played by limited people, unsourceable. Pilotboi / talk / contribs 05:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently Wikipedia is not for something you made up in school one day. The article itself states that it was made up one day (albeit, at work). See the connection? Calgary 06:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:MADEUP and unsourced. Dbromage [Talk] 06:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Must've been a slow days for these folks. WP:MADEUP Realkyhick 06:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely falls into things made up one day. I'm glad these aren't my employees. Useight 06:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and made up. Jmlk 1 7 06:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Dfrg.msc 07:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 11:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom and reasons above. The sunder king 11:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete as failing WP:NOR and WP:V very badly.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - far too young to be notable. Onnaghar ^{tl | co} 12:42, 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. PeaceNT 06:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CH-46 shootdown in Iraq (February 2007)[edit]

This shoot down is in no way notable to the Iraq conflict, in terms of death toll or anything else.
Articles are generally not created for military aircraft crashes (in conflicts) unless they are part of a battle or significant (see Khankala Mi-26 crash).
There are many such crashes. PBP 05:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Contains no more information than List of Coalition aircraft losses in Iraq#2007. Dbromage [Talk] 05:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. I disagree with the nom that it is not notable to the Iraq War, but agree per Dbromage that the information is fully represented in List of Coalition aircraft losses in Iraq#2007. Pointless article as it stands. --Trippz 09:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be substantively expanded, as per Trippz. Megapixie 12:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - expand if needed. Onnaghar ^{tl | co} 12:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Buckshot06 14:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 14:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just one of a gazillion fatal events related to the war in Iraq, maybe in a timeline history of the War or the event of the War in the current year it can be mentionned but not in an individual article--JForget 01:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - I fail to see any historic notability Corpx 01:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because already in List of Coalition aircraft losses in Iraq --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's far too many of these for every one to be notable. Sometimes, someone important will be on board, there will be large loss of life, etc, but this isn't such a case. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sad but just another of thousands of combat losses over the years. MilborneOne 12:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed tragic, but combat losses in a war are expected, and therefore for an incident to carry encyclopedic notability (for any newbies who might read this, such notability is related only to the inclusion in the encyclopedia, and does not reflect on the value or importance of the lives lost), there needs to be something that sets this loss apart from the "norm". The article does not point out any such significant factors. The only thing I can see about this one that even landed it here was the fact that imagery exists of the attack, however the mere fact that someone caught the incident on pixels does not render it notable. That being said, and since my brother frequently rides on CH-47s in Iraq, special condolences go out to the families of those killed. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:15, 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. Bduke 12:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigsbee Escarpment[edit]

Relevant information already contained in Sigsbee Deep. The Afd nominated article contains no relevant additional information, and in fact contains unsourced nonsense that has been tagged as such for over a year with no cleanup. Maralia 20:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Doesn't read well either. Onnaghar ^{tl | co} 12:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - The Sigsee Escarpment is a geological formation with major impacts to the oil and gas industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.114.210.251 (talk) 20:56, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. CitiCat^♫ 00:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tetragrammaton in the New Testament[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I see no way of editing this article where might approach NPOV. Although it represents a POV I happen to agree with, it's nothing but an extended argument against one of the Jehovah's Witnesses' scriptural redactions, and I'm afraid it's irremediably non-encyclopedic. The appropriate place for this kind of criticism is in articles on Bible translations where these insertions are actually made, such as New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures -- and more briefly and with less advocacy than here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with TCC. This topic is not solely about JW's dogma but is a raging debate among bible translators of all faiths. Many languages have NT translations containing the divine name and the subject is very encyclopedic. Can we make the article NPOV? Absolutley! I'm currently working to remove the polemics from both sides of the JW debate and to bring in many more sourced points of view than just the JW and anti-JW opinions. For instance I have referenced to an Catholic Journal. I believe you just need to give this article time TCC. SV 07:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A raging debate?" No. No it isn't. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe no "raging" but search for "Tetragrammaton New Testament" and you'll find tons of pages, some but not all pertain to JW's. SV 23:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which demonstrates exactly nothing. Most (not "some") of those pages appear to be discussing the NWT either pro or con -- pro side being JW, con side not, which doesn't exactly constitute a debate. At least a few other hits are the very page under discussion or a mirror. In any event, serious debate on Scriptural translation is not conducted online. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming material is added from the source User:SerialVerb mentions, which contradicts the current reading of this article, then I'll be happy that POV concerns are addressed, and as such would suggest keeping the article. JulesH 07:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should point out that the article SV wants to cite is not the original, but an English translation of it hosted on a Jehovah's Witnesses website. [48] I am not convinced there are a great many reliable sources available for the subject, which must revolve around a JW-related debate perforce since this is the only significant group that favors the addition of the Divine Name to the New Testament. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following the suggestions above. I think the box in the article is POV & out of place, Merge the list of references in the preceding article here. DGG (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concern: TCC has identified his point of view as trinitarian, opposed to the idea of YHVH in the New Testament. see Talk:Tetragrammaton in the New Testament Is TCC using this AfD to push a POV? SV 20:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I demand you withdraw this unwarranted personal attack. Argue on the merits of the proposal, or not at all. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - POV is such a sticky area to discuss. You've nominated two linked pages both of which discuss a non-trinitarian/trinitarian debate. When you nominated the List of Hebrew Versions of the New Testament that have the Tetragramaton you mentioned that it was POV. I think you should retract that argument. SV 04:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes I did nominate two related articles for deletion. If anything, it militates against your personal attacks here, as they represented opposite sides of the argument. Your accusations of bias are entirely unfounded, and I once again demand their retraction.
    - Characterizing an article, and characterizing another editor, are two entirely different acts. If you can't see that, go away. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - There was only one editor of the article. You should retract your accusations of POV editing first. SV 15:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 05:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability depletion[edit]

It does not appear to be a term in common usage and the topic is covered at Resource depletion -- Alan Liefting talk 04:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki unless its expanded, to wiki dictionary, because as is, it is just a definition Corpx 01:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be considered to be oxymoron and does not deserve to be transwikified. -- Alan Liefting talk 03:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Delete’’’. Is entirely original research, entirely unsourced, and contains no content of significance or substance. Is not expandable. There is no definition given for the peculiar term. I suspect that the page was created as an experiment. --SmokeyJoe 06:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonsense term. Appears to be made up. Prove its notability, or delete it. The Transhumanist 22:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR neologism without WP:RS. But the link to depleted uranium is funny. Leibniz 12:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7. MaxSem 08:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slasher's Massacre[edit]

NN amateur film. Alksub 03:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also including this in this nomination because its content is nearly identical:

PLEASE IF YOUR GOING TO DELETE A PAGE, Delete Slasher's Massacre, not the night they didnt come home— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edhegs (talk • contribs)

Delete both. Does not assert notability and the only references are Myspace pages. Dbromage [Talk] 03:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Non-notable, cites unreliable sources, and needs massive cleanup. However, you can't clean up with out proper sources. --Hirohisat ^Talk 03:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Looking at the page histories and the myspace/youtube links, I'd also suggest WP:COI. Dbromage [Talk] 03:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Two MySpace references? this article seems like a promotional stunt. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both per WP:CRYSTAL. Faithlessthewonderboy 04:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per WP:CRYSTAL and failure of WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 04:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NN issues. Jmlk 1 7 06:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenPoundHammer. delete both. Not notable, speculative articles. Clearly a promotional article, though not an informative one. I second the Snowball nomination.--Trippz 07:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Editor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article was deleted via it's second AFD, but that deletion was overturned for lack of participation at this deletion review. It is relisted here for further consideration. (It was also recreated and speedied between the 2nd AFD and the DRV, but that has no bearing on this discussion.) I have no opinion. Chaser - T 02:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep view - I have cleaned it up and produced a better sourced version. A rather specialist application but notable within its field. Bridgeplayer 03:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. The revised version makes it borderline notable and probably just scrapes past WP:V and WP:RS, but still needs cleanup and additional sources. Dbromage [Talk] 04:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assert notability or delete - The article itself doesn't assert notability (from what I see). If Bridgeplayer isn't lying, then it should be improved. If it isn't improved to assert notability, delete. Giggy ^Talk 05:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep — I'm not sure about this, but instinct is telling me to keep. The article appears to be sourced. :-) Stwalkerster talk 14:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is the third or fourth time i've seen this at AfD or DRV and everytime I see it I think it's an article about the editor of The Harvard Crimson. --JayHenry 15:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. There seems to be a few reliable sources around to assert notability, although the article needs a lot of work as it barely asserts that notability right now. —gorgan_almighty 16:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reason for deletion is just not strong enough and there was very few people supporting it in the second nomination. --minghong 01:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no real reason to delete the article. From a professional point of view, i can tell that Crimson Editor is very familiar to many programmers and therefor notable, however, this would need to be referenced. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 08:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are enough sources for me. Bryan Derksen 03:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Keep --SkyWalker 06:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a copyright violation (WP:CSD#G12). Deletion performed by Sarah (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closure by Haemo 06:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure point roadhouse[edit]

Text taken directly from [49]. Alksub 02:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G12, as copyvio, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 02:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. A quick search suggests the subject is notable and currently up for designation as "historic", but the text is unquestionably copyvio. Dbromage [Talk] 03:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as original research. Eluchil404 18:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uke (manga)[edit]

Article about a role in romantic relationships (mostly homosexual) in anime and manga. This article has been tagged for cleanup for about 6 months with not much improvement, and is lacking in cited sources. Can't find anything in reliable sources that discuss the use of the term, so it appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability's requirement for coverage in said sources. Most of the article in general appears to be original research, especially the "types of ukes" section. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A search for the japanese term in Google Japan reveals: [50]. A lot of results, but I don't read Japanese, so maybe someone can check them to see if any of them are reliable sources.--Alasdair 06:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One small point but if this is deleted someone may want to consider putting Seme (manga) up for deletion as well since it is the direct counterpart to this. --70.48.108.238 19:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Once the original research is stripped out, it becomes nothing more then a dicdef, which I believe can be referenced to one of the Genshiken tankobon published by Del Rey Manga. --Farix (Talk) —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:36, August 21, 2007 (UTC).
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the entire article is original research. There's so substantial content beyond that. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I did find some academic sources, and if it stays I can do the cleanup. Here's a link to one abstract: [51] Sci girl 07:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Do you have anything else. That reference did not mention the term uke at all so I don't think it will be of any use. --69.156.206.142 04:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's just an abstract of the paper, not the full thing. But yeah, I'd like to see where in the full paper that ukes are discussed, as well as some more sources that discuss the term. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 06:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synn[edit]

Synn is a non-notable developmental wrestler. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When/if she ever gets called up to the main roster, she should get an article. As of right now, she isn't at all notable. Nikki311 01:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Nikki311 01:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this subject. Fails WP:BIO as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 01:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources with significant coverage are found Corpx 02:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete untill they become notable, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Oyster guitarist 03:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Restore if she manages to gain some notability further in her career. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are professional wrestlers considered athletes for our purposes? If so, this person perhaps passes WP:BIO. Mostly I'm just playing devil's advocate. Faithlessthewonderboy 04:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response It's very difficult to tell with professional wrestling, as it doesn't realy fit perfectly into any category. I think the problem here is a lack of secondary sources. I mean, the information is probably accurate, but without sources we have no way of knowing, do we? Calgary 05:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball. Davnel03 09:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think the issue here is WP:CRYSTALThe article does nothing to suggest that she will one day be notable. What we should be assessing here is current notability. Calgary 09:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's worked for OWW for years and never even rumored to be brought up to the WWE, which should tell you something. Not notable MPJ-DK 13:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She only worked in OVW since she was Jim Cornette's real-life girlfriend. She doesn't really have much of a future in wrestling and didn't have much of a past either. Eggy49er 01:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Darrenhusted 14:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator, the person is not notable. Burntsauce 17:41, 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. PeaceNT 06:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GPO Historical Society[edit]

was up for A7 speedy, however it asserts significance. Unfortunatly,it appears to fail WP:NOTABILITY, it was establish only a month ago. Hu12 01:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I had put it up for speedy deletion. It's not notable. The article also fails to cite sources. GreenJoe 01:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although this historical society was established only a month ago, it is now a historically significant organization created by the Heritage Council of the Green Party of Ontario. The page will be expanded over time with party and historical society history. The source is the Official Historian.(GPOHistorian 02:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Don't just tell us that it's "historically significant" -- show us how, by means of reliable sources (see WP:RS for what qualifies). And you seem to be the historian. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, fails WP:RS and WP:V. User:GPOHistorian is welcome to remake the article after notability has been established. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to establish notabillity and doesn't cite sources. Oyster guitarist 03:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems unlikely that a subsidiary organization of a provincial political party is really notable outside the party itself. --Dhartung | Talk 03:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability via WP:ORG and cites no sources. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Green Party of Ontario. It's perfectly reasonable as content there, but not notable enough for its own article. Bearcat 01:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Green Party of Ontario seems to be a very minor political party, with a mere 8 elected councillors. The party is barely notable and under 25 years old. Its Hisotrical Society must certainly be NN. The inclusion of a single sentence in the Green Party of Ontario article might be justified, but not an article on the Society. If retained, it should be moved to Green Party of Ontario Historical Society to make clear its subject matter. To me as an Englishman, GPO measn General Post Office, and I think there is a historical society for the Post Office, though I am not sure of its name. Peterkingiron 23:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Closing early due to the article creator blanking the page. Also, as others noted, could have met other speedy criteria as well. Andrew c ^[talk] 00:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STT8[edit]

Speculation. Alksub 01:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only is it speculative, the author of the article even admits that it is OR. Reso lute 02:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the article "Investigations and research on the STT8 by numerous journalists spanning 3 continents have been going on for over 20 years, tirelessly trying to uncover deeper ties to numerous horrific events." If we can find any evidence at all that there is significant interest in this organization (if it is confirmed to exist or not) then that may be grounds for a complete rewrite, but as it stands, we have absolutely no sources to work with, and virtually no verifiability. Calgary 02:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to our secret headquarters and delete. Fails more policies than I can be bothered listing, but WP:OR and WP:V are the most important. Reads like the introduction to a blog. Dbromage [Talk] 03:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response It is an introduction to an as-yet nonexistant blog, although in the article the author refers to it as a "bog". Calgary 03:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I think "bog" might be more accurate. The last paragraph suggests it also fails WP:NOT#BLOG. Also tagged as possible hoax. Dbromage [Talk] 03:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as patent nonsense and next time, speedy it. Eleland 14:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Despite an alleged 20 years of investigations, Google News gets nothing whatsoever. If you can prove it exists then try again. Hut 8.5 18:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced hoax.Nigel Ish 21:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korean nationalism[edit]

This article severely violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Many of its text has been copied directly from a similar article (Korean pride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), which has been redirected to another page since January 2006 due to the same issue. Therefore, I am also nominating Korean pride for deletion as well. eDenE 00:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rewrite, or at least tag to hell. I believe that there is such thing as Korean nationalism and that it is notable, though this article has problems. If evidence actually indicates that the Koreans are an exceptionally non-nationalistic people, I would agree with deleting the article, but deleting it because it has POV issues is absurd. Atropos 01:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I also believe that the topic itself is notable and important. However, this article is going nowhere and no one is willing to take care of this. Also I'm afraid of touching its contents, because it will likely cause a revert war. eDenE 02:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response If there is nothing wrong with the subject itself, and the content shows grounds for improvement, with a clear potential to become a well-rounded encyclopedic article then it does not meet the criteria for deletion. Also, take note that Korean pride redirects to Asian pride, and has been a redirect since October 2006. Neither Korean pride nor Asian pride have been tagged for deletion, so if you're nominating either of them for deletion you'd need to tag/list it for it to be included in the discussion/nomination. Calgary 02:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the concerns about the text of the article are valid enough, there are plenty of sources for an article on it: [52]. Or try some books [53]. The concept exists. Covering it properly? Difficult, I agree, but that's true of a lot of things on Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 02:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the edit history w/ Korean pride can be sorted. Nationalism exists in many places and it's not surprising that it exists in Korea, and sourcing should be a cinch. Fix POV problems using dispute resolution. --Dhartung | Talk 03:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Though it does look like it's in need of some work, which is difficult considering the subject is not something which most of us know much about. But the subject is certainly notable and deserving of an article. Faithlessthewonderboy 05:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, perhaps some more work and sourcing would help this article, but it's not all that bad, actually, in my opinion. Useight 06:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We tend to run into this situation a lot with older articles, where's it's clearly crap but any incremental change just makes it worse because it's sorta reached a local maxima of quality. Best course of action in these cases is to get a few good books (i.e. not Sports Illustrated and a bunch of newspapers) and rewrite the article completely in your userspace based on a few good sources. Then propose that the mainspace version be replaced by the version in your userspace; this should be a landslide if the version you produce is any good. cab 06:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is well-referenced and notable. A lot of Koreans are nationalistic.----^DarkTea © 11:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Basic encyclopedic topic. Any problems with the article should be dealt with by improving it, not throwing in the towel and deleting it. Mowsbury 13:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant keep without even needing to look at the article. "Nationalism" has uses as a POV epithet; so does "Zionism"; shall we delete Zionism? Eleland 14:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously although I agree a full rewrite is needed to add more sources and remove the POV content - this is a significant issue in Korea.--JForget 01:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above--Sefringle^Talk 03:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 04:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- PC78 09:01, 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 as self-admitted neologism per WP:SNOW. Daniel Case 14:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hapanese[edit]

WP:NEO, may not be notable. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- unverifiable and non-notable neologism. --Boricuaeddie 01:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable and not notable neologism. Oyster guitarist 03:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail both WP:N and WP:V. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I think this term is notable enough, it doesn't appear to pass WP:V. Better suited for Urban Dictionary. Faithlessthewonderboy 05:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The opening sentence of the article says it all: a recent neologism. Not notable. Realkyhick 06:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — recent neologism which does not appear to have any sources to back up its notability. --Haemo 07:24, 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.. CitiCat^♫ 01:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPA2[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I couldn't find any proof that this writing system is used anywhere else except the website PersianDirect.com . That organization calls itself "The Persian Linguistic Association", but it looks like a website operated by a few people and not an academic society. Most pages on that website, except the page that describes IPA2 are under construction and it also has a forum with almost zero messages. Searching Google for "Pársik IPA2" yields a lot of Wikipedia clones, but i couldn't find anything substantial that will prove its notability. Some people on the talk page proposed merging this into Romanization of Persian, but i disagree - a system that is only used by a very small group of people, who developed it by themselves shouldn't even be mentioned on Wikipedia unless there are verifiable external sources about it. Amir E. Aharoni 07:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Extremely interesting idea, but there is no realistic possibility of introducing the Latin alphabet under the Islamic Republic. Anyone can propose ideas like this, but until they make their way into Parliament, or at least are seriously taken into consideration by the academic community, they are not notable. --Targeman 20:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Right, but actually the Islamic Republic is not the major problem. If there is any proof that this system is used by Persian speakers outside the Islamic Republic, it will be notable enough for me and i shall call off this AfD immediately.

Curiously, the phone numbers on the PersianDirect.com website use the Iranian calling code +98. --Amir E. Aharoni 21:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt this system is used by Iranians abroad. As you pointed out, the forum on persiandirect.com is all but inactive. Nothing on the internet attest to its usage anywhere. --Targeman 21:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IPA always stood for the International Phonetic Alphabet. I'm surprised if the Islamic Republic of Iran has a program for introducing the Roman alphabet. I understand from above that there's an article called Romanization of Persian, however, and this seems to be a logical merge. Mandsford 22:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge, As i said, i would be opposed to a merger. This would present this system as one of the notable proposals, while it is not. Plus, i have grave doubts about the legitimacy of the "Romanization of Persian" article, too, but i'm still checking that.

Confusion with the International Phonetic Alphabet is indeed annoying, but that alone is not a reason for deletion. --Amir E. Aharoni 06:05, 14 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, CitiCat^♫ 00:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find the nominator's reasoning convincing. Doesn't appear to have caught on or even generated significant discussion or interest beyond its own website. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 04:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Shinner[edit]

Actress whose only credit to date was cut from the film. Non-notable. Cannot find any reliable soruces that say that her role was cut (the IMDb page, for instance, is completely blank). Prod removed without reason. hbdragon88 00:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, possible A7 speedy candidate, non-notable person. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7: Unremarkable Person. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 02:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A7: not notable person. Oysterguitarist 03:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:A7, and WP:V. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Bduke 11:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pentagon Strike[edit]

Article about a 9/11 conspiracy flash movie that does not establish, and indeed misrepresents its significance. The movie did not originate the "no-plane" hypothesis of the Pentagon attack as the article suggests. It was released (according to its site) in 2004. The "Hunt the Boeing" web site was online more than a year before that and was even linked from the original version of the site that now hosts the movie. The Popular Mechanics article and Snopes article do not mention the movie.

Delete as non-notable. Gazpacho 03:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a non-notable subject being used as a coatrack. Calgary 03:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N. Unwarranted assertions that PM "debunked the theory" do not mean that materials mentioning same theory are commutatively notable. --Dhartung | Talk 03:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable flash file. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article about the many "Debunking 9/11" theories. Mandsford 00:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above.--JForget 01:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.. CitiCat^♫ 01:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Around the World in 40 Feet[edit]

The required notability criteria does not seem to be satisfied for this newly published book - it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". Caniago 04:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability on google or even claimed in the article. ISBN doesn't show up on WorldCat; author is also the managing director of the company that published it; and the creator of the article has littered the external links sections of other articles with this book as 'further reading.' Another clear case of a self-published writer using Wikipedia to promote their non-notable book on the cheap. bobanny 05:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Self-promotion. Consider blocking the author for linkspam on other articles, a particularly heinous offense. Barring that, perhaps a flogging. Realkyhick 06:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable :-) Stwalkerster talk 14:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Endroit 14:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nippon Yusen — This book appears to be used as promotional material for the Nippon Yusen company. [54] (Trim down the contents if necessary, when merging.)--Endroit 15:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nippon Yusen per Endroit. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's nothing in the article that tells us anything useful about the company. The book might be a good primary source for NYK (though that article mostly needs secondary sources), and perhaps this page could re-direct to the company's article, but as it stands, there's nothing to merge. bobanny 19:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not that the book tells something useful about the company, but that the book marks an interesting note in the history of the company. I'm not aware of too many other incidents like this one, and having it documented in a coffee table book is certainly unusual. I think it would add a point of interest to the Nippon Yusen article. As Endroit wrote, it should be trimmed significantly when merged. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldn't redirect. We dont redirect from either references or primary sources. But the amount of links added is not really a very severe case of linkspam. DGG (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey folks, I'm the one who created the entry. Being one of the editors who worked on the book, I posted an entry here because I believed there would be interest in the subject matter - from a broader socio-economic perspective as it deals with containerization and globalization. Since the book is so new, there has been not many citable references but I did try to include a few in the external links section. Anyhow, I am totally new here on Wikipedia so I was not aware of all the rules, especially when it comes to adding to other entries' "external links" or "additional reading" sections. The intention was not spamming. Now I have tried to "wikify" the entry and posted it. Please have a look. Totalfactor 11:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC/GMT +8)

At this point, I see no independent reviews. That's what is needed. It's not technicalities, but the basic principle that this is an encyclopedia, and things must be sourced to show that they're important.DGG (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. It's not up to us to determine if it's interesting or not; if sociologists or economists take interest and publish something, it might merit an article then. See WP:COI. bobanny 23:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable now, but if it gets reviewed or gets significant attention, it should be re-created. Neranei (talk) 17:02, 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.

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379

[1]