Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 21

< August 20	August 22 >

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. ELIMINATORJR 23:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Cat Radio[edit]

No assertion of notability, no sources, no way. Has wormed itself into several local media templates-could someone who knows things better than I do extract it if this is deleted? Delete. Bduddy 04:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11. So tagged. From the creator's talk page this appears to have already been deleted & recreated, but without access to the original article I can't say if it's a reposting — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Speedy Delete - how has this managed to last so long? Blatent failure of G11. _TheIslander 23:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With regards to the local media templates, have already removed, in anticipation of deletion per WP:SNOW. _TheIslander 23:51, 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 this, redirect as needed -- Y not? 03:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tro-Clon[edit]

No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real-world context. Fails WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT. Jay32183 23:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 00:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It is an element of a story that lacks external secondary source mention, and therefore is not notable. It should redirect to the series that it belongs to instead.--Alasdair 01:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't really a reasonable search term, but if it were the redirect should be created fresh rather than preserving the edit history. Jay32183 01:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. 70.21.254.188 18:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Park High School, Beaumont, Texas 1962 - 1982[edit]

High schools generally don't deserve their own page and this article is mostly just about this specific one's sports teams. The school has also been closed since 1982. It should probably be trimmed down to about a paragraph and merged into Beaumont, Texas. Scott.wheeler 23:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The athletics is notable, and is one of the accepted major factors for HS notability. Notability is permanent.DGG (talk) 03:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to West Brook Senior High School [1], the successor school located on the same campus. This is just an obsolete name for a school that was merged with two other schools.--Dhartung | Talk 04:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems quite sensible to me. Really, after stripping it down to the info that belongs in WP I'd say that each of the current sections could be condensed to one sentance. Scott.wheeler 02:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All high schools deserve their own page. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so the fact that the school closed is irrelevant. We have an article about the Roman Empire, even though it closed down far longer ago. Dominictimms 14:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Needless to say, that's not a reasonable argument. There is a subtle difference between the Roman Empire and a school in Texas - at least outside Texas. MarkinBoston 19:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with previous comment. High schools are notable (high school events, clubs, etc. are not unless they impact outsiders) 70.21.254.188 18:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the rule quite yet. I think it should be, simply to avoid people bringing articles like this here. See User_talk:TerriersFan/Schools for a current proposal and its discussion.DGG (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per the book in the ref section. Without, it fails WP:V and WP:RS, as the school's own yearbook is under no circumstances a reliable source. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentA Google search of the book shows just a few hits. The book appears to be self-published, and sold only to locals. That puts it in the catagory of the school yearbook to meMarkinBoston 19:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on rather clear precedent, high schools are notable. This article makes explicit claims of notability that more than satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Article would benefit greatly from wikification, especially turning links into sources. Alansohn 04:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DHartung as above. There is certainly no clear precedent about high schools; not everyone would agree that a bias in favour of notability is a good idea; and the argument that the season fame of a bunch of 14-year olds chasing each other with a pigskin on the gridiron is an assertion of notability would make Magritte proud. This is a class essay about a defunct school that makes no effective claims of notability. As it is no longer functioning, reference could easily be provided at the current school's article as noted sensibly above. Eusebeus 08:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article demonstrates permanent notability, in this particular case I do not see the need for a merge. Burntsauce 17:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - and that's generous. The article actually speaks for itself. The school is notable because it was open during the baby boom? And desegregation? I disagree that every school ever open is inherently notable. How is this school notable AMONG SCHOOLS? MarkinBoston 19:37, 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 a strong consensus to delete reinforced by badly behaved single-purpose accounts -- Y not? 03:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yuniti[edit]

Yet another social networking website. Speedied for lack of sources. Now reposted with sources, but they are the subject's own website and a press release. Those aren't reliable independent sources. Author argues on article talk page that there are other similarly unsourced pages on Wikipedia; I'm going to be looking at those. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. NawlinWiki 23:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unremarkable spam ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources or not, this is a promotional article for another non-notable website. And those aren't independent sources. —Travis ^talk 00:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a first networking site to allow validation of a user using public records and credit reports is quite notable. No other site has this, it is legitimate and something worth recording. Mateuscb 00:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC) — Mateuscb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Find me a networking site which allows users to create their own chatrooms, and allows them to create a group for which they can charge membership. In fact, while you're at it, explain to me how the other 103 networking sites listed on Wikipedia (besides MySpace, Orkut, Facebook, and Friendster) are notable. Lastly, I copied the style and layout of the article from the MySpace article (notice I have a features category, much like them). I would love to have criticism, and would gladly welcome any changes to the article to meet the standards (in fact, please do). But there is no argument that Yuniti is worthy of mention on Wikipedia, even if the current mention needs work. — Marquinho 00:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC) — Marquinho (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong delete per NawlinWiki, non-notable, does not meet WP:WEB no reliable sources, etc. Leuko 01:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The social networking site hasn't reached a level of prominence like FaceBook that it has been mentioned non-trivially by reliable sources like newspapers and other mainstream media. (For example, my local newspaper had an article explaining how easy identity theft is on FaceBook, with details of an experiment done by an editor.) A single press release doesn't count as an independent secondary source, so it fails WP:WEB.--Alasdair 01:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent sources to which to attribute notability. When its unique features get noticed, we can write an article from secondary sources. --Dhartung | Talk 04:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All of you have listed valid points, and I cannot disagree with them. However, I again wanted to stress that the notable features I have listed are more notable and more published (even if only by a press release) than all but 4 of the 103 networking sites on Wikipedia. If this article is to be deleted due to "lack of independent sources" and "too much like an advertisement", than all but 4 (MySpace, Facebook, Orkut, and Friendster) of the other 103 networking sites on wikipedia deserve the same treatment. I am only looking for fairness here - Yuniti is no less notable nor valid than the other 99 networking sites on Wikipedia which I have never heard of. So either all 99 are deleted, or all 99 are kept. Additionally, the MySpace article should be taken down, as it is blatantly and clearly an advertisent, more so than the Yuniti article I have written. - Marquinho 08:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The consensus seems to be deletion by reason that yuniti is not "big enough" and does not enough independant sources. I will totally agree with that the moment the current list of networking sites is narrowed down to the top five (There are currently over 100 sites). But as long as the list remains as it is, yuniti matches the same criteria as at least 50% of the current list. It's a matter of consistency. The rules should apply to all cases, not single out and discriminate against specific articles. If nothing else, I think it would make sense to have a very short article that basically states. Yuniti, first networking site to provide validation of its user. Becuase that is a fact --simple, neutral fact. Thanks. Mateuscb 08:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC) — Mateuscb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Please see WP:ININ. Leuko 14:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just added another reference for you guys, an independent one. Hopefully it is sufficient. Also, I realize that the article is a bit biased and advertisement-like, and I would gladly accept, and would in fact appreciate, if it could be edited to not sound like this. - Marquinho 09:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC) — Marquinho (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable per WP:WEB. Only argument for remaining based on WP:OTHERSTUFF. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment hey guys, added another reference. This is getting a bit silly, at this point this article has more references than half of the articles on Wikipedia. Can one of the editors simply fix the article to be more wikipedia-friendly, and call this discussion over? - Marquinho 17:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC) — Marquinho (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Considering that these references are blog posts which both appeared after this AfD was started, I really don't think we can consider them WP:RS. And if we called the discussion over at this point, the consensus seems to be to delete the article. Leuko 17:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Leuko, you're correct, the articles were posted after this AfD was started. But this is about logic prevailing, not technicalities. If we're going to get that technical, then how about we delete the article, I create a new one with the new references, and we start over again, now with references. I may have jumped the gun a little, but this site is obviously being written about, and meets all of the criteria to be on wikipedia. - Marquinho 17:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When you added the sources is immaterial. The reliability and verifiability of the sources is what is in question here. Blog posts, most websites, press releases, and the articles subject's web site typically don't meet those standards. —Travis^talk 18:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Verifiability and reliability is not in question here - Leuko's statement was Considering that these references are blog posts which both appeared after this AfD was started. Mashable.com is a perfectly reliable and verifiable source for news and info about networking sites, and Kristen Nicole being the lead author at mashable is both reliable and verifiable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marquinho (talk • contribs).
    - Okay, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the sources are reliable, independent, and verifiable. I now refer you to my argument back at the second bullet point of the discussion. There is still insufficient evidence of [[WP:|notability]] for the article's subject. From what I can discern, Yuniti is a small fish in a very large pond. Notability must already be established for a subject to meet Wikipedia guidelines. —Travis^talk 00:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. Please don't forget to sign (~~~~) your posts.[reply]
      - First off, thank you for even taking this discussion this far, you could of deleted this article in the beginning and allowed for no discussion. Now going forth with your point on notability, we may be a small fish but as per wiki guidelines "... smaller organizations can be notable" WP:CORP. I still strongly believe that our new feature, allowing users to be validated, in which no networking site has remotely attempted to do, is worth mentioning. We are and will be the first networking site to implement such a feature. If you really believe that is not notable, then, I think we have reached an end to this great discussion. But in the contrary, then I say we have a valid reason to be on here. Even if our article is stripped down, and simply mentions this one notable difference.Mateuscb 01:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the MSN article is not really about this site, but rather about the verification technology, so I fail to see significant coverage Corpx 03:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment : Actually, the MSN article is about Yuniti being the first networking site to implement the ValidateID Technology, with the title being "Social Networking Site YUNiTi.com Licenses StrikeForce's ValidateID Identity Validation Solution" - not to mention that 1) There is no Wikipedia policy saying that an article has to be 100% about the subject, and 2) You'll have to be filtering a lot of other articles, including MySpace and Facebook, whose content is based on articles which were not directly about the article ("Social-networking sites a 'hotbed' for spyware" on MySpace: not about MySpace but social networking sites in general; "Secret Service questions student" on Facebook: not about facebook but about a student investigation, etc.) - Marquinho 05:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Actually the MSN link is not an article, but merely a re-print of a press release, and User:Marquinho refers to it as "our site," so there are WP:COI issues as well... Leuko 14:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : I really do have to ask something here - does ANY article on Wikipedia go through such intense scrutiny? I have a feeling that about 80% of the articles on Wikipedia would be instantly deleted if they went through half as much scrutiny as this article. - Marquinho 05:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, yes. See this AfD I participated in a while back for an example where notability was also being questioned. I agree that there are probably thousands of articles that should be deleted but, until they are noticed by someone that thinks that they should be deleted, they remain. For an example, look at this AfD. I'd also like to say that the guidelines vary depending on the category of the article. Biographies of living persons, for example, are probably the most heavily-scrutinized category around. Articles about schools, on the other hand, often remain with little sourcing. —Travis^talk 13:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Travis, I'm not sure the 2 articles you sent are a fair comparison - the first link about Anthony Chidiac, from what I can tell, was using e-mails as a reference? That's a bit ridiculous, as there is no way to verify that the e-mails were even really sent by the supposed writer. At the very least a press release that was noticed by social networking news sites is verifiable. I agree that e-mail is *not* a verifiable source, and if this Yuniti article was based on e-mails, I would gladly accept its deletion. As for the D&D Characters, despite their encyclopedic value, if we're going on the basis that articles have no notability, then I really don't think it can be compared to this article. Notability means things that set this article apart from all others like it, correct? I have already listed 2-3 things which set this site apart from all other networking sites on Wikipedia, things it has which no other does. I see no such examples listed in the D&D AfD. - Marquinho 17:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You asked if "ANY article on Wikipedia go through such intense scrutiny." I answered in the affirmative and provided a link to an AfD discussion which, in my opinion, demonstrates a high level of scrutiny. The second AfD link was in response to your "about 80% of the articles on Wikipedia would be instantly deleted" comment. Other than that, I was making no comparison to this article. Please don't use my comments out of context. —Travis^talk 20:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps my emphasis was on the wrong word. My question was "any article on Wikipedia go through such INTENSE SCRUTINY." Deleting an article due to having references that cannot be validated (e-mail), or deleting it because it is not notable (non-main characters in a computer game) is, in my humble opinion, not scrutiny. These are requirements to be a Wikipedia article, and if not met, should result in deletion. By scrutiny I meant that this article has 2 valid 3rd-party references, a press release, is balanced, has been cleaned up as much as possible per the demands of the editors, has 2 people giving a [logical and valid] counter-argument for every delete point made. And even so reasons which are not even part of the Wikipedia requirements for an article are listed as deletion reasons (such as: the references are not valid ENOUGH, the notability is not notable ENOUGH). - Marquinho 21:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the first posters said it all. Spam "There are other pages as bad as mine" is not a justification. MarkinBoston 19:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "there are other pages as bad as mine" has never been my argument. My argument has simply been that this article is in no way, shape, or form any LESS valid than any other article on Wikipedia. My argument has simply been that if the basis for deleting this article is "Not valid enough sources", "Not Notable", and "Spam", then we may as well delete the entries for MySpace and Facebook as well, as those articles have the same type of references, notability, and spam-likeness as this article. And I know what your next argument will be - "But everyone knows what MySpace/Facebook is". But nowhere in the Wikipedia requirements for an article does it state that it must be about a subject everyone knows about. - Marquinho 21:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With respect, you don't know what my next argument is. My point, which I already stated and will repeat, is that it doesn't matter whether another page has, or will be deleted. We are discussing this page only. If this page does not pass muster, then it should be deleted. When the time comes, we can consider other pages. My mom taught me a long time ago - just because Johnny's mom lets him do it, that doesn't make it right :) MarkinBoston 22:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Again, my argument is not "delete this page and all the other pages like it", which would emcompass 80% of pages on Wikipedia. This is obviously ridiculous, because it would mean that a lot of useful sources on Wikipedia would be removed, even if they are not "notable ENOUGH" nor "valid ENOUGH" by some peoples' standards. Rest assured that if we started a discussion such as this for MySpace, we would have all the people who hate MySpace (which there are a lot of, and on Wikipedia, probably more so than those who like it) voting to delete the article based on its spam-ness - more so than people voting to keep it. My argument is simply that these articles, which have NOT been deleted, are equally as valid (or invalid), and if there is validity to keep them (which I believe there is), then there is validity in keeping this article (which I obviously believe there is). The reason for my comparison is simply to make a logical argument - I cannot make an argument that "MySpace is more notable", or "MySpace References are more valid", because who am I to say what is more notable or more valid? - Marquinho 23:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like we came back full circle with this discussion. We are getting in a gray area where it's starting to become more opinion than strict policy. So, given our current situation, here is my thought. What steps must we accomplish in order to get this through? We need something quantifiable (X numbers of articles, X number of enrolled users, etc…) -- goals that can be met as, opposed to an opinion of what is notable or not. That way we can leave the "other articles do this or that" behind. If we have specific guidelines, we will go after these measures to ensure the article goes through. Again thank you for giving your time and thought on this subject.Mateuscb 06:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mateus and Marcos: I think it's all been said. When all of the "delete" comments are boiled down, you are still left with the question of notability. With all due respect, the argument, "we may as well delete the entries for MySpace and Facebook as well," is a red herring. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who hasn't heard of MySpace and/or Facebook. MySpace, in particular, has received massive amounts of press coverage. Notability of those two sites is unquestionable. Except for the websites listed as references in the article, it appears that Yuniti has received no press coverage. Notability is very much in question. Now, there are thousands of articles with very obscure subjects, but obscurity doesn't imply non-notability. Conversely, just because "everyone has heard about" something doesn't automatically grant notability. I could go on, but again, I think it's all been said.

No offense, but my original opinion remains: Yuniti is not a notable website. Not yet, at least. If the situation changes, an article will be welcome. —Travis ^talk 17:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- No offense taken whatsoever. I understand your points and argument, I simply strongly disagree with them. I am being told that having 2, even 3 independent sources doesn't matter. What matters is whether the article being written is about something which is well-known: be it well-known in it of itself, or written by a "popular source", in essence notability and 3rd party reference material isn't sufficient. An article must be about a "popular enough" subject to be Wikipedia-worthy, which in essence has made Wikipedia an article-popularity contest instead of an information database. I understand that you continue to use the word "notable", but I think you are using the wrong word. Notable means "prominent, important, or distinguished". The word which you continue to describe is popularity, and if that is your argument, then I concede, because you are correct, yuniti is not popular enough. Notable, yes. But not popular. - Marquinho 05:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't intend for my comment to be misleading in that way and I'll try to be more specific in the future. I wasn't arguing, and don't believe, that notability = popularity. Many people/things/events that receive a lot of press aren't notable. For example, wildfires in the Western United States are always heavily covered, but they don't each deserve an article. Now, back to your point. If Yuniti is prominent, important, or distinguished, I fail to see it. Am I missing something? I have read each of the references listed in the article and can still find no evidence of prominence, importance, or distinction. The Businesswire article is a press release from StrikeForce Technologies about the technology licensed to Yuniti. That is not an independent source. The mashable.com article, the only reference that sounds independent, is as much about StrikeForce as Yuniti. It seems to argue against your case by saying, "…the validation option isn’t required." The mention on killerstartups.com also goes against your case by equating Yuniti's features to those of MySpace and Facebook and by failing to mention the one thing that supposedly sets Yuniti apart from the others. In any case, it is only a blog post. The fourth reference is Yuniti's "About" page. I'm sorry, but I can find nothing to prove that Yuniti is prominent, important, distinguished, or otherwise notable. —Travis ^talk 15:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - The Mashable.com article begins with "Yuniti, an online social network, is among the first to sign on ValidationID", thus distinguishing Yuniti from all other networking sites. The article goes on to say "Communities like MySpace are continually being pressured to incorporate an identification validation system or age verification system of some kind", thus establishing the importance of this feature that only Yuniti has. Further research on Wikipedia and the web turns up no other networking site that has implemented ValidateID, completely distinguishing Yuniti from all other sites of its kind. Secondly, your comment on killerstartup only goes on to distinguish Yuniti - it is a site with "best of both worlds", setting Yuniti apart from not only MySpace and Facebook (because each has things missing which Yuniti has), but in turn establishing its notability if it has the best of both. Your third argument about it "only being a blog post" only goes on to enforce your popularity point, not notability. Had this article been written by "The New York Times", a more popular source, we would not even be having this argument. My last reference, the about page - well, I can't argue with you there. I'll again make my point that the MySpace article uses e-mails and the MySpace about page as a reference, as does Facebook, and that I wrote this article using those as a model. But I know how much that argument is disliked (although valid), and so my suggestion is to simply remove it as a reference from the Yuniti artile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquinho (talk • contribs) 17:05, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as guidebook of no national significance. —Crazytales (t.) 14:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Zebra (publication)[edit]

Non-notable guide book. First several pages of non-wiki, non-tomato ghits do not mention this guide in any way, with the exception of their own web site. contested prod Fabrictramp 23:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Author of article (though not the original author). I addressed these very same reasons for deletion when I removed the prod tag. My response is given again: The subject has been described by outside sources. Notably, the San Francisco Chronicle published a lengthy article about it. A specific Google search turned up many more independent articles (though admittedly from sources with less reputation). Here are a few I easily found on just the first and second pages of search results: [2] [3] [4] [5] The article could definitely use some expansion, especially with the San Francisco Chronicle or others used as a reference, but that will come in time. With a lengthy article from the major press and several more from the minor/indie press, I believe it meets notability and verifiability requirements. -kotra 23:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Their Media Coverage page has some more possible sources: [6] -kotra 00:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I reworded the article for NPOV and encyclopedic tone, and added two references (the San Francisco Chronicle and the Green Zebra website). -kotra 23:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability appears to be lacking and, in any case, the coupon book is really only of interest in San Francisco, hence the single article in a major publication. The company website and mentions in green-oriented indy press outlets aren't independent sources. —Travis ^talk 00:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Green resource guide. I get the idea, which is someone making a guide businesses that follow good ecological practices. I'll be surprised if this "Green Zebra" is the first, or only, such guide, but as a concept, it's notable. Mandsford 02:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I originally prodded, then nominated this for AfD, the sources now in the article weren't there. With the sources added, I'm now neutral about the article. It seems locally notable, but I'm not convinced it has notability outside the immediate SF area. --Fabrictramp 13:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:TravisTX. I agree with those editors who implied that this might be a Keep if there were some evidence of any national significance. Checking through some of the Google hits, I only noticed two accounts where the writer had done any interviews for the story. The others mostly seemed to be writing up (and commenting on) the press release. If reporting on this idea spreads outside the SF area, the article might be re-created. So far the SF Chronicle article is by far the best writeup; if there were more like that, a Keep should be considered. EdJohnston 04:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I keep seeing this coupon book described as a "resource guide." This is, as far as I can tell, nothing more than a highly localized, limited-scope version of the nationally distributed Entertainment Book. Please note this YouTube "review" of the book. —Travis ^talk 12:58, 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. @pple 17:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jibrell Ali Salad Aadan[edit]

Possible WP:HOAX; zero Google hits... Oli Filth 22:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No source - Esurnir 23:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can find a source. If a reliable source is found showing that he was in fact a member of a national legislature, I would change my opinion.Keep per work of CambridgeBayWeather. NawlinWiki 23:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it is not a hoax it is surely nn and unsourced stub indeed. -- the woman who sold the world - [buy] 23:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Woman Who Sold The World. Jakew 23:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been moved to Jibrell Ali Salad and sourced. Somali articles are in general hard to source and people who are known by different names make it harder still. The man, according, to the source, was the governor of two different regions in Somalia and has created a new state in the area of Puntland/Somaliland, see Maakhir. Even if the state does not exist for long the governorship should be enough to assert notability. However, I could not find any reference in English to indicate that he was an MP of Somaliland, but this is not a hoax. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From what I can tell, it's definitely not a hoax. With google, I found an opinion piece (and an expanded version) and a forum post. His notability, however, is still questionable as there are no independent sources to be found. —Travis ^talk 01:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Former governors were still former political leaders. And former political leaders ought to be inherently notable. After all, some reliable source may exist somewhere, but in Arabic, of course.--Alasdair 01:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I forgot to mention that the source for Jibrell Ali Salad come from the same sources as the Maakhir article. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is verified, then I'd argue it's inherently notable, certainly at the present time. -- Simon Cursitor 13:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and strive to find refrences and sources. If he holds the positions it is claimed h does there should be no question over notability.KTo288 21:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment.We're not meant to determine how notable a subject is from Google but the results is not zero, they may not meet Wikipedia's criteria for sources, but this individual does appear in forums and blogs with a Somali focus.KTo288 21:51, 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 per WP:SNOW(!) I have also Googled this and apart from passing references in a couple of blogs there is nothing. There is no prospect of this being anything other than a delete. TerriersFan 23:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Melt the Snowman[edit]

There hasn't been any announcement that there's going to be a third album by Young Jeezy. Even if he does, there's no source to cite it (I tried to Google it, but came up with nothing). MITB LS 22:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. Unsourced speculation about future events. Jakew 23:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mention whatsoever on search engines except for this article, Young Jeezy, and this ripoff of Young Jeezy. WP:CRYSTAL —Travis ^talk 01:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless references are provided that it is real. 69.116.170.120 02:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete view - as crystalballism. Bridgeplayer 04:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable source found on google. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless good references are added. 69.116.62.33 12:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.21.254.188 (talk) 18:48, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
Delete per the nomination, for all we know this is a HOAX. Burntsauce 17:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against recreation if this is announced to be the name of his next album in reliable sources. It's a great name for an album, if he releases a new one he'd be foolish not to name it this. --JayHenry 18:39, 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 speedy delete as a copyvio advert (WP:CSD#G11, WP:CSD#G12). --Core desat 08:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamara dhandha[edit]

I do not find evidence of notability besides one article that mentioned them on what seems an ed piece. Brusegadi 22:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable.Saganaki- 02:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article was deleted previously for copyright infringement. Has anything changed? If not, delete and salt. If it has, delete anyway, as NN.--Sethacus 03:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Notability and copyvio Rackabello 03:06, 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 non-notable, failing WP:MUSIC. - KrakatoaKatie 05:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Discocrappy[edit]

An album by the band Charles Bronson, see afd below. This article, like its bands article makes no assertion of notability beyond being an album from a non-notable band. The article contains no sources and doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC IvoShandor 21:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is somewhat POV "making it hard to get through the entire album in one sustained listening session", and, according to the article, wasn't charted. According to WP:MUSIC, if the band that made the album is notable, the album may be notable, but Charles Bronson is borderline, seeing as their article is going through an AfD as well. Neranei (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of evidence of notability. --Coppertwig 17:54, 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 – no reliable sources to back up claims of notability. - KrakatoaKatie 05:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bronson (band)[edit]

Article makes no assertion of notability past its unverified claims. Doesn't appear to meet the guidelines at WP:MUSIC, a cursory search for reliable sources revealed none. I prodded the article on August 17 but it was removed August 21 (diff), just so folks know. IvoShandor 21:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close and instead tag for reliable sources. This band, if their discography is as extensive as shown, should be able to have some sources. This page has never been tagged. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 22:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think the prod would have revealed that. A bunch of albums doesn't mean a band is notable. I can produce a bunch of albums, doesn't make me notable. If they are notable, then it should be no problem for reliable sources to be produced during this nomination. Closing it just maintains the status quo. As it stands there doesn't seem to be anything notable about this band other than the assertion they made music. IvoShandor 22:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this page because it was linked from DeKalb, Illinois, stating they were from there. A search of the archives for the DeKalb newspaper, The Daily Chronicle, back to 2000 showed exactly zero stories, same number of trivial mentions, zero. Now if this band was notable, I would think the local newspaper would have mentioned them once in seven years. IvoShandor 22:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tag for reliable sources. I believe this passes WP:MUSIC: 1. I know I've read about them in Maximum RocknRoll or HeartattaCk (probably both) but I've long since ditched all of my back issues and they don't have online archives; 2. I know they're toured the Midwest U.S. (but again, I know of no sources for this, other than the band's MySpace account); 3. multiple releases on Lengua Armada and Slap A Ham (probably the two largest hardcore/powerviolence labels); 4. drummer was in MK-ULTRA and Los Crudos; 5. one of the best-known powerviolence bands (and probably the best-known from Dekalb). I'll admit that some of these reasons are a tad iffy, but considered together I think demonstrates sufficient notability. The article just needs references. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wyatt Riot (talk • contribs).

I wouldn't call a couple fan zines reliable sources. All that stuff in the article is unverified, I suppose you can tag at as refs needed, but if the prod didn't get anyone's attention, the tag won't either. How many articles have that tag now? Not really effective at all and we shall never know if this belongs here. Delete, someone can rewrite it if they are truly notable, unreferenced cruft like this has no place in an encyclopedia though. IvoShandor 18:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as MRR and HC go, they're probably the most reliable sources you're going to get for a hardcore band. It's not like you're going to find scholarly resources as WP:Reliable sources suggests or even local newspaper articles for what was essentially an underground band which avoided mainsteam exposure (yet were still widely influential). Even the folks who drew up WP:MUSIC admit that "What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad." Wyatt Riot 20:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable to me. I tagged the article and put a couple citation needed tags in there, I doubt it will have much effect though. IvoShandor 21:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Comment The article might pass Passes WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles 6. "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" through the drummer's other bands MK-ULTRA and Los Crudos, ~~but since those articles are mostly unsourced, there is still an issue of verifiablity.~~dissolve ^talk 21:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Los Crudos has been cited as a notable band. dissolve ^talk 18:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do the sources on the Los Crudos article confirm that any members were in Charles Bronson, if they do that fact should be cited in the Bronson article, otherwise it is still just an unsourced assertion that doesn't do anything to establish the notability of the band Charles Bronson.IvoShandor 18:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The members are cited from a book We Owe You Nothing: Punk Planet: The Collected Interviews. I don't know if it mentions Charles Bronson, but it does seem to meet the standard for notability set at WP:MUSIC 6. dissolve ^talk 19:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Los Crudos, yes. But the assertion in the Bronson article is just that, an assertion, it has no source. So the issue of verifiability remains. Los Crudos' notability doesn't necessarily establish the notability of Charles Bronson, unless what the article about Bronson says can be verified. Not sure how long this will be open but I can look in a library for the book. I am more interested in keeping content that belongs here than just seeing it deleted but if notability cannot be established it should be deleted. IvoShandor 19:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you're looking specifically for the Charles Bronson/Los Crudos/MK-ULTRA connection, there's an interview on the MK-ULTRA entry where it's mentioned that Ebro was in all three bands. I'm sure there's more, since googling this or this turns up quite a few pages, although a lot of them appear to link to MySpace blogs (currently blacklisted as sources) and record reviews from non-notable sites. As an aside, however, isn't the policy on reliable sources meant to apply mainly to facts that are likely to be challenged? Does anyone really doubt that the Ebro Virumbrales from one Chicago hardcore is actually the same Ebro Virumbrales from a different Chicago hardcore band? I mean, I absolutely agree that this article needs reliable and verifiable references, but that seems like such a small issue to be focusing on. Wyatt Riot 22:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added the ref. It's in French, but I can find no subsitute in English. Wyatt Riot 23:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going from zero to some references isn't a small issue, while you may think it is small, if it is going to establish notablility it is highly important. Without any sources to support the assertions then it ought be deleted. Who the hell is Ebro Virumbrales? Name drops may be enough to establish notability within the circle of fans that like this type of music but generally isn't acceptable for the broader project. If the only claim to notability is, this guy is now in X band, shouldn't that be sourced? If nothing else, to avoid future AfDs? IvoShandor 23:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying. I just think that there are some claims so obvious that references are unnecessary, like names of band members. Pretend for a second that Cream was an otherwise unknown or underground band. They don't get play on mainstream radio and the local papers won't touch them. Despite this fact, they would certainly merit inclusion on Wikipedia simply due to having otherwise notable members. But I think it's nit-picking in a way to demand that someone prove that it's the Eric Clapton or Ginger Baker playing in this underground band. I think it also creates a slippery slope, because where do you draw the line? Should there be a reference backing up the names of band members, or the genre of music? Ebro Virumbrales is a person with a marginally unusual name listed on both the Charles Bronson and Los Crudos pages, which (to me) seems like it should be sufficient to satisfy WP:MUSIC criteria. (And to answer your question, Ebro is kind of a Ginger Baker of the Chicago-area or midwest hardcore scenes. He's been in quite a few influential bands, and he's currently in a hardcore super-group, Ruination.)

But at the same time (and to play devil's advocate with myself), I do realize that if it's one of the few claims towards notability for this particular page, then it's not that out of line to demand the reference. I hope that the link I inserted earlier provides enough proof. I'll try to scare up some more references when I get the time. Wyatt Riot 07:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are key to establishing notability, very true. Just because someone says X was in Y doesn't make it so. If the statement "Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted" isn't true then it shouldn't be included on every single page that is arrived at from a red link. IvoShandor 21:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, this article has been on wiki since December 2004, I would think if there were some sources out there, someone would have added them by now. IvoShandor 21:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the previous poster said, those who know this band best have not been able to satisfy the most basic requirements - I think we can assume that no one ever will. Statements made above - "I remember them" - are worthless to this discussion. The burden is on those who would retain this page, and the burden has not been sustained. MarkinBoston 19:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MarkinBoston. --Coppertwig 17:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem notable to me at all.--Kranar drogin 23:02, 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 as non-notable. Sources provided included several vendor pages for purchase of his book, and articles were mostly brief mentions in pieces about network security. The article's creator has no Wikipedia edits outside this subject. While its creator and multiple SPAs seem to be very interested in this article's future, this person does not meet WP:BIO. - KrakatoaKatie 05:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Steinberg[edit]

Delete this was deleted last year but it's back in a somewhat different form; he still seems not notable - his company appears to be nn, and his book is ranked deep in the 500,000's in sales rank at Amazon.com Carlossuarez46 21:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Joseph is a respected expert on various areas of information security (especially online authentication and SSL VPN). Note (responding to comment above) - His book is sold primarily directly from the publisher. The book was recently translated into French - which the publisher would not have been done if it were not selling well. Rajeshh 01:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Rajeshh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Dhartung | Talk 04:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my note below. Rajeshh 14:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Not notable as per previous AfD. Suspicion this is a vanity article. NB previous comment was left by an account that has only conducted edits on the article.Saganaki- 02:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He seems to be notable enough that people may find this information useful. 69.116.170.120 02:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC) — 69.116.170.120 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Dhartung | Talk 04:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability derived from independent third-party sources. --04:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhartung (talk • contribs)

-- Plenty of third-party sources attesting to notability are accessible from the references on the page 69.116.62.33 13:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC) — 69.116.62.33 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have been doing plenty of editing on Wikipedia. My dynamic IP Number changes - best for privacy - my recent edits will be under this IP: 69.116.62.33 03:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I attended his lecture at the 2006 Information Security show in New York. It was packed. He is well known in his field. 69.116.62.33 13:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep He seems to be an industry expert and industry experts (especially those who are well published) are notable. The article seems well sourced. 70.21.254.188 18:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— 70.21.254.188 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep I looked him and a bunch of other IS security experts up after reading their books. 128.122.81.155 02:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will someone please add the not-a-vote template to inform all the sockpuppets here that this is NOT A VOTE? Burntsauce 17:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a person confident in his or her notability should not have to resort to aforementioned sockpuppets to fake a front. ALTON .ıl 08:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Note: I am the author of the page and I added more material today to make clear the notability of the subject including more on his inventions, publications, and the fact that the customers of over 1,300 financial firms in the USA use, and benefit from, his inventions. Rajeshh 14:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Note 1: I am not a heavy user/editor of Wikipedia. I found this article when I looked up Joseph Steinberg after researching VPNs, as he is one of the recognized experts on web-based VPNs, which is the topic I am researching. I am commenting here since I was surprised to find that someone wants to delete this article (I am seeing the revised version per the note above from user Rajeshh). Note 2: I see in this thread that there is hostility towards users who don't make many Wikipedia posts. I am not sure why. Every user starts as a user with only a small number of posts, the number of posts often has nothing to do with the credibility of a user, and if comments are both (1) not hostile and not attacking anyone and (2) verifiable facts and/or logical opinions then they should be considered important regardless of the source. That seems to be the purpose of information sharing on the Internet. Everyone can add information, not just some editor. The one truly hostile posting above is clearly the comment that attacked some of the previous posters as being “sockpuppets” - which, considering that all of the postings above seem to be rational opinions, is an unfair attack. F.L., Vaughn, Ontario 216.191.216.196 02:24, 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 Merge and redirect to episode list. Xoloz 13:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toy Meets Girl[edit]

There doesn't appear to be anything "out of universe" or any significant coverage by secondary sources. Considering Robot Chicken episodes don't have plots, there's nothing that can be merged or summarized elsewhere. 17Drew 07:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination extended - There is no point in actioning just this article - there are 44 articles linked from List of Robot Chicken episodes, all in the same format. I am therefore, on procedural grounds, extending the AfD to all 44 articles and relisting to enable editors to take a view on this broader nomination. At the moment, the consensus is for merge/redirect but the only mergeable content appears to be the images. I am neutral on the nomination. TerriersFan 21:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This appears to open up a whole world of mass deletion for Robot Chicken episodes which would doubtless get messy and ruffle a number of feathers (no pun intended). As a body of work (in the loose sense) there is an argument that the series be recorded for posterity but I am not sure that individual episodes warrant quite such extensive articles. It's controversial but I would suggest a composite semi-detailed list of episodes as used on more prominant TV articles such as List of Deadwood episodes or List of The Sopranos episodes Dick G 08:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Episodes of Deadwood or The Sopranoes have plots. Episodes of Robot Chicken are just brief skits, often only several seconds, with no overarching plot to be summarized. There's nothing that can reasonably be merged. 17Drew 08:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably you don't need an overarching plot for a summary. A notable skit - e.g. celebrity or contemporary news reference, might justify a line or two of content. Agree it's not necessarily going to result in a stellar article but am wary of deleting an extensive set of articles on the same criteria per the above nomination.Dick G 08:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's overarching is the whole reason that we have plot summaries. According to Wikipedia:Television episodes, "The only purpose of plot summaries is to provide context for the rest of the information." The brief plot summaries in lists of episodes are there to show how that episodes fits in the entire series' storyline. The fact that Toy Meets Girl had a skit about old toy lines, however, has no impact on anything in the fictional world of the series or anything in the real world. The information contained at List of Robot Chicken episodes is enough information to summarize the episode, arguably more than enough. 17Drew 08:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern. You obviously feel stronger about it than I do but it wouldn't be an AfD debate if there wasn't some sort of dissenting voice... Dick G 08:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect - To the List of Robot Chicken Episodes, as hillarious as they may seem RC episodes lack any order, a user that isn't familiar with the subject would be freaked to read a plot that begins with Roddy Piper's skirt blowing up in the air and culminating with What a Twist, sorry but the program's format just doesn'r really allow for an encyclopedic entry. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay, this and other episode pages are the only pages that tell who plays who. Rtkat3 (talk) 1:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
See WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Plus, "if an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." 17Drew 19:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article clearly fails WP:EPISODE as there is no notability for this episode Corpx 00:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Robot Chicken episodes. WP:EPISODE says nothing about deleting articles, rather it says "If the article(s) contain little content, consider merging or redirecting them into another article (e.g. an article about the show itself, an article that is a list of episodes of the show, or an article that summarizes the plot for one season of the show)." DHowell 02:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per DHowell and WP:EPISODE. Also per WP:EPISODE, if sources can be found supporting notability for this episode (or any of the sketches in it), the article can be kept. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Harlowraman 23:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Robot Chicken episodes per WP:EPISODE --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 18:35, 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, TerriersFan 21:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please note that this article has been relisted to allow editors to take into account the extension of the nomination. TerriersFan 21:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Peregrine Fisher 17:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DHowell, Josiah Rowe and WP:EPISODE. Episodes for which external notability can be shown could be kept as separate articles. EdJohnston 00:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 two mentioned articles aren't about girl-wonder.org but about the issue of gender bias in comics, and they both only briefly mention this particular site. The article Dhartung points to is a reprint or mirror of the Mother Jones piece. Fails WP:WEB, at least for now. - KrakatoaKatie 05:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Girl-wonder.org[edit]

Coverage by Mother Jones but is that sufficient to = notability? Was tagged speedy, I bring it here. Carlossuarez46 21:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, just barely fails WP:WEB even with this (all I found on Google News). --Dhartung | Talk 04:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Groups such as this one should be included in Wikipedia. 70.21.254.188 18:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lacking notability Corpx 03:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Primary author here. Girl-wonder.org is an organization at the forefront of feminist discussion in comics. As such, it will come up in future debates on issues such as the Mary-Jane statue and the Heroes for Hire cover. It’s important for readers to know what this source is. L. Penn 06:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Seems fairly notable and very well-researched. Salvatore22 22:41, 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 18:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leafpad[edit]

Non-notable software. Alksub 20:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Notability. Magioladitis 22:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability, no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Fails WP:N. —gorgan_almighty 10:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Inclusionist that cannot find any notable characteristic with this editor. Said: Rursus ☻ 11:20, 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. PeaceNT 11:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LUNARR[edit]

Non-notable company. No third-party references. Alksub 20:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonnotable, no independent sources. NawlinWiki 00:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless good sources showing notability are added. 70.21.254.188 19:03, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Road, Arizona[edit]

This is a standard suburban roadway, of which there are millions. The only "notable" fact, which I removed because it was a copyright violation from [7], is that it was built to connect two schools; this also describes at least thousands of roads; most major suburban roads started out as rural roads. A map of the road (Google Maps) can be seen here. NE2 20:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does appear to be a major arterial road (6 lanes), not sure how major a road needs to be in order to be notable. The section you removed should of been reworded rather than removed all together. --Holderca1 21:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think the removed copyvio should be reworded, feel free to do so. --NE2 22:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am just saying that by removing the article's claim of notability and then nominating it for deletion as non-notable doesn't seem like the right way of doing things. --Holderca1 19:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with Holderca1. --Son 01:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no apparent roadway to notability. Article seems to exist for WP:COATRACK-y traffic jam bitching. --Dhartung | Talk 23:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable road. Jakew 23:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COATRACK. Bigdaddy1981 05:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That isn't a valid reason for delete, it's an essay, not policy. --Holderca1 15:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its non-notable, also. And that's a good enough reason for me The only content that I can see is whining about construction. And what's up with the random picture of the chap (I assume) its named after - nothing about him in there either. Bigdaddy1981 16:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not bitching. The road is notable due to it's history and importance to the traffic system of Phoenix suburbs. The amount of traffic and construction is substantial and the state of the art/experimental camera systems are seen in only a handful of states; which makes the article quite notable. RyanW124 07:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To me, this road has enough notability to have an article for it. It should be moved to Warner Road (Phoenix, Arizona) however. I think there is much more information that should be put in the article relating to the experiments being done with the road. I don't see how it's COATRACK-y. --Son 11:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:N master son^{T - C} 15:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No way is this article COATRACK-y. It's just how this road is and will be for a long time. I don't see why it couldn't exist as a stub. I hope the "deletionmongers" can at least agree with that. RyanW124 03:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This, to me, looks like your average round and I do not think WP is a directory of roads Corpx 03:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination, this is not a notable road. Burntsauce 17:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are thousands of urban arterials out there, and many of them have had inconvenient construction at one point or another. —Scott5114 ↗ 17:55, 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. PeaceNT 11:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High school musical 5[edit]

WP:NOT#CRYSTAL: there is no evidence this work will be made. Alksub 20:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If "Disney will not relase any information.", then there is no information, meaning there's nothing to discuss. Also, a blog is not a reliable source. Should be deleted according to both WP:CRYSTAL, as the article entirely speculative, and WP:FILM, as notability does not extend to films that are not in production, let alone films that are not even confirmaed to exist. Calgary 23:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing there, WP:NOT a crystal ball, or the gossip column for Variety magazine. NawlinWiki 00:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sheer speculation from a blog entry. —Travis ^talk 01:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable, no secondary sources, and this article is not suppose to be a crystal ball.--PrestonH 04:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Besides, #2 isn't even out yet ;) •97198 talk 07:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator, WP:CRYSTAL definitely applies here. Burntsauce 17:47, 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. Topic already covered sufficiently in Warrior Nun article. There is nothing encyclopedic worth merging; a redirect might be in order, except that the title is exceedingly unlikely as a search term. Xoloz 13:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven and Hell in Warrior Nun Areala[edit]

Original research religious interpretation of a comic book. No secondary sources. Alksub 20:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The definitive example of a synthesis of information. Not a bad idea for an essay, but unless there are multible independent sources which discuss the subject, it should be deleted. Calgary 23:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am Juangarcia1982, the one person most responsible for the article and the related Areala articles in general. I am alone in this. I would like other people helping me and have solicited the help of others but for the most part, I do most of the work. (As proof, if you look at the "History of the page" you will see that most of them are done by the same nameless serial number.) I usually do not log in because I never sought credit and prefer the comforts on anonymity.

As for this article in particular, it began on the chief Warrior Nun Areala page. I--and despite solicitation for help, it is usually I--usually start there writing about new topics related to the comic book at hand and if they become too long, split them off into other articles. By itself, the original page was part of the central article and as part of that central article it had ample context and outside articles to be acceptable. However, the Heaven and Hell in page--originally titled Factions in page--grew very long and I decided to split it away. I merely began a new page and cut and pasted the information.

Soon after the new page was created, a marker was posted suggesting that it was inappropriate for various reasons. On seeing this, I decided to edit the page in order to conform. I cut and pasted unneeded information. I placed new information to explain the article to new readers. I re-wrote it in order to undo the "in-universe" style.

It at times was a "soap box" and I admit to taking pleasure in writing about the topic and in dissemination the information held, though I assure everyone that I was never deliberately trying to do anything but factually write about the comic book itself. Also, the religious information is mostly just what is presented in the comic book. Regardless, when I was presented with requests for alteration, I chose to follow the guidelines and stay to information exclusively related to Warrior Nun Areala. I apologize for even accidentally conducting "original research."

With that done, I thought that was enough and removed the tag, thinking that I had rewritten it according to the rules. Another tag appeared soon after. I rewrote the article further but again, I apologize for acting in haste.

At the moment, the article is half its former length with unnecessary information removed, and no-in-universe writing style. I hope that it will be deemed capable of meeting the necessary guidelines and that this article will be allowed to stay. However, I will not protest if it is deleted because I understand that the website administrators are merely trying to do their duty. (To a degree I even understand why they might delete the present version; it is so short and bare that it might best be merged with other relevant Warrior Nun articles.)

In any event, good day and good luck. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Juangarcia1982 (talk • contribs) 01:08, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

NIt is probably worth noting that the majority of this text appears to appear in the root Warrior Nun article, so a merge back may be the easiest answer. -- Simon Cursitor 13:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT & WP:OR - Looks to me like completely in universe information Corpx 03:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. The parent article, Warrior Nun appears reasonably balanced (though it could be shortened), and the mentions of Catholic theology there are informative, but this article is just too much information. The whole thing appears to be completely in-universe. For instance, the only references of the article are to specific comic book issues. EdJohnston 00:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Existential Cinema[edit]

Original-research film interpretation. Alksub 20:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From the article: "A great number of films explore the existential questions present in life. These questions are presented again and again in film in different countries in different films and in different genres. Among the more popular films in which these questions are asked are the following: Mr Smith Goes to Washington (1939)...[a list of films follows]" I guess if you have to ask, you can't afford it. How many times have I kept my vow to never ask a rhetorical question? Mandsford 21:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can I hear you say original research? In any case, the subject should becovered as a small section in the main article for Existensialism. There is no need for a separate article, because there is not really much more to discuss. Also, keep in mind that this is simply a description of existensialism as it relates to film, not an independent subject or film genre. Calgary 23:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As far as I can tell, there is no existential genre let alone an existential cinema. The Transhumanist 22:17, 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. John254 16:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Preston (military lawyer)[edit]

Non-notable Air Force officer. Corvus cornix 20:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems fairly notable within the context of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Needs citations, but plenty are available. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, military lawyer involved in some of the most significant (for good or ill) military proceedings in a generation, and externally notable for refusal to participate. --Dhartung | Talk 23:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable lawyer: there seem to be plenty of reliable sources available. Jakew 23:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 00:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- If notability means anything, then this guy is, IMO, a highly notable whistleblower. Geo Swan 01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe highly might be overstating it a bit, but I'd class him as being past-the-post by a hair's breadth, as it were. After all, I understand you've made articles for all the detainees whose names have been made public, after all? I would argue that any of those people who were not shown to have major terrorist ties would be less notable than Mr Preston here. --Agamemnon2 22:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- any chance the nominator could return here and offer a fuller explanation for the nomination? Geo Swan 01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. He's non-notable. Corvus cornix 04:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am going to ask you, a second time, to give a fuller, more meaningful, explanation. Geo Swan 04:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is nothing in the article which says what makes him notable. He's an Air Force JAG, doing his job. Lots of people do their jobs. Corvus cornix 18:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The C-i-C also does his job, or at least what he and his advisors think is his job. Personally, I'd like a rule to let a bot eliminate any afd comment that contains the phrase "just another" or "just does" :) DGG (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Awesome example of assuming good faith. Corvus cornix 23:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Alternatively, you could think of it as DGG voicing his or her opinion about how to automate Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just not notable. Not to put too fine a point on it, but your original nomination, and your initial comment, both flouted the recommendations in WP:ATA. And while WP:ATA is just an essay, not a policy, please allow me to ask you to consider, whether you think nominating articles for deletion, without making an attempt to offer a reasoned argument, shows good faith to those wikipedians who expect the discussions in {{afd}} to be based on reasoned arguments?
        
        Cheers! Geo Swan 09:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Failure to indicate a subject's notability is, technically, a CSD candidate, plus the subject of the article HIMSELF blanked the page. I brought it to AfD instead of flagging it for speedy deletion because I was attempting to assume good faith and to get further eyes to look it over. Attacking a nominator is no way to discuss the issue at hand. Stick to the article and its subject, don't make attacks on the nominator. Corvus cornix 16:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I am going to respond to your points in turn, numbering them for clarity.
        You are correct, policy does state that every article should contain an explicit claim of notability, and that if it is absent the article is eligible for speedy deletion. Practically no articles contain this explicit claim.
        
        Someone who might be the real Robert Preston, military lawyer, blanked the page. If the page blanker really is Robert Presont they have my sympathy if they don't wish to have an article about themselves. But, if I understand policy correctly, this is not a valid argument for nomination for deletion, so long as the article itself fully complies with policy.
        
        I am very glad to read that it iss your intent to show good faith.
        
        I am very sorry to read that you interpreted my comment as an attack. That was not my intent. Let me know, specifically, what aspect of my comment you felt was an attack. I think it is important to acknowledge when we make mistakes. But I will be hard to convince if you consider requests for reasoned arguments an attack. It is important, IMO, that participants in the deletion fora give real thought to their comments, and can offer reasoned arguments -- particularly the original nominators.
        
        As for the proper "way to discuss the issue at hand"... I made not one, not two, but three, very civil requests before you summoned up the energy to offer any kind of substantive explanation at all. Let me phrase this in the mildest way I can. How much energy should the other participants in an {{afd}} have to make to get the nominator to offer reasoned arguments?
        
        Is the lack of an explicit claim of notability your current justification for deletion?
        "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If controversial, or if there has been a previous deletion discussion that resulted in the article being kept, list the article at Articles for deletion instead."
        
        I am glad responding to you made me go and look up the exact wording. A lot of my contributions are to controversial topics. I bend over backwards to comply with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:VER. My contributions hardly ever get serious challenges over their neutrality. This last year or so my contributions have been getting an increasing number of challenges over the notability of the topic. As with your nomination challengers assert that the topic itself it not notable, as if the NN assertion were obvious, and did not require any actual explanation.
        
        I grew increasingly frustrated with the assertions of A7, and concluded that A7 may be useful for vanity articles, or patent nonsense, but were inappropriate for controversial topics. For controversial topics the judgement call as to whether a controversial topic is notable is too subjective, too vulnerable to the personal bias of the person making the judgment call. I was unaware, until I re-read the policy, in order to respond to you, that the policy explicitly states A7 should not be used when the subject is controversial.
        
        Whistleblowers whose leaked memos receive worldwide coverage, and trigger important policy changes are controversial. A7 doesn't apply.
        
        Cheers! Geo Swan 20:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        <move back to the left> please allow me to ask you to consider, whether you think nominating articles for deletion, without making an attempt to offer a reasoned argument, shows good faith to those wikipedians who expect the discussions in {{afd}} to be based on reasoned arguments? reads like a personal attack, to me. Corvus cornix 23:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll repeat, it was not my intention to trigger the feeling you were being attacked.
        
        I am moving my reply to your concern over my tact to my talk page. Geo Swan 00:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I too have a couple of problems with the "just doing his job" interpretation.
        Was his boss, the guy who promised that the commission members would be handpicked so they would be sure to convict, and who promised that all the exculpatory evidence would be classified so the defense team couldn't learn of it, just "doing his job?"
        
        Three of the officers wrote letters of complaint, and a bunch of their colleagues didn't. Were the colleagues who didn't write letters of complaint just "doing their job"?
      - I think you are totally incorrect and that what the three whistleblowers did was exceptional.
      - The Guantanamo military commissions run have undergone massive revisions twice, not once. The change in the military commissions pre-Military Commissions Act and post-Military Commissions Act is less extreme than the revisions that occurred shortly following the drafting of the letters of complaint. Did the letters trigger most of those changes? I don't know. You don't know. And even if we thought we did know WP:NPOV and WP:NOR would prevent us adding our conclusion to the article. But, IMO, the wikipedia's readers deserve coverage of material that would be helpful to them in their own speculations. Geo Swan 20:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. —Geo Swan 01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Guantanamo Bay detention camp and delete - there really doesn't seem to be any more to him than the leaked email - a footnote in the proceedings and not, in my opinion, worthy of an article of his own. Bigdaddy1981 05:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked at Guantanamo Bay detention camp recently? That article is already too long, unfocussed, and attempting to cover too many sub-topics. I don't think introducing another sub-topic s good idea.
- FWIW I don't think merging with Guantanamo military commissions is a good idea either. That article too is in need of being spun off into smaller articles.
- Cheers! Geo Swan 20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes its a mess, but I don't see this as a stand alone article; there is such little detail and I don't see how more can be added. Bigdaddy1981 00:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure that there is much more to this (and, incidentally the John Carr articles) that isnt already stated (brefly) in the Guantanamo military commission article - unless an editor proposes to create an article on the requests for transfer for all the lawyers I think deleting this is the best bet. Bigdaddy1981 08:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- One of my frustrations with the wikipedia is that there are wikipedians with vastly different underlying design philosophies for the wikipedia's future growth, but there is no meaningful debate. Instead of discussing the underlying design philosophies, people vote for the deletion of articles that don't fit in with their person vision of the wikipedia.

In my opinion there are both very strong technical and esthetic reasons to prefer buidling the wikipedia from small focussed articles, as much as possible. I am willing to explain why, in detail, here, or on one of our talk pages.
I would love to read your reasoning as to why this article is too small.
I would love to read why you like big omnibus articles.
Cheers! Geo Swan 09:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable. 70.21.254.188 18:58, 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. Keep commenters below appear unfamiliar with appropriate WP guidelines and policy, as their arguments fall under WP:ILIKEIT. Deletion commenters base their suggestion in sound policy-oriented reasoning. Xoloz 13:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zork magic[edit]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:CVG article criteria. Guideline reads : If information is only of note to someone who plays the game, then it probably isn't worthy. Oscarthecat 19:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a game guide, no real assertion of outward notability. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to point out that WP:CVG isn't a Wikipedia policy or guideline and I do not agree with the criteria given. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a game guide is, and this appears to be a violation of that policy. I love all of the old Infocom games, but this information is trivial. -Chunky Rice 20:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep' Rename to List of Zork spells. It's not a game guide, it's a collection of all the spells of all the Zork series. Zork series has developed a whole fictional universe containing its own spells, days, months, and much more. This article is part of Encyclopedia Frobozzica, a fictitious encyclopedia in the Zork universe. -- Magioladitis 22:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of fictional spells in a fictional encyclopedia doesn't make it notable. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). --Oscarthecat 06:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- For the same reasons as above. --Mike Schiraldi 03:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete — Wikipedia is not a game guide. Zouavman Le Zouave 23:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with reasons above. Questionable notability as well. Dincher 01:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- I ran across this page because I was looking specifically for this information--and I'm not currently playing any Zork game. As Magioladitis said, this is a significant part of the Zork universe; it's not of interest only to people playing the game. So much for WP:CVG and Wikipedia is not a game guide. On the other hand...while I don't think either of those two guidelines apply, I admit I find it a little hard to defend on the terms on Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). While the Zork universe is certainly notable, I don't know that I could make a particularly strong case that this particular bit of information about the Zork universe is itself sufficiently independently attested in reliable secondary sources to merit its own article. (And while I was specifically looking for this information, it turns out there are other places it's also available (such as here), so it's not particularly important that it's included in the Wikipedia--and even if that weren't the case, I realize that the fact that someone might be interested in this information isn't itself sufficient reason for its inclusion.) On balance, I think this information is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia--hence my "Keep" vote--but I don't feel all that strongly about it, and I can see some good arguments against it, which is why I'm only voting a weak Keep. --Smeazel 20:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (Oops, and yes, I realize this isn't really a "vote"; I shouldn't have used that word. Sorry for the bad terminology.)--Smeazel 20:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounding like a good candidate for movement to a gaming wiki.--Oscarthecat 20:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Such as? What gaming wikis exist that would contain this kind of information? (I don't mean that sarcastically; that's an honest question.)
    The thing is, contrary to your initially stated criterion about "information...only of note to someone who plays the game", this is precisely the kind of stuff that would be completely useless to someone actually playing the game. Each one of the games that use these spells contains only a handful of them, and they're all clearly explained within the game; a full list of all the Zork spells appearing in all the games would serve no purpose to someone playing one of the games except to confuse them. It's actually of interest pretty much only as information about the Zork universe, and wouldn't be of any help as a game guide at all.
    None of which, of course, has any bearing on the article's passing muster according to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), and I stand by what I originally said about that--I think this is notable enough to pass, but I admit it's borderline, and don't feel too strongly about it. (If it has any bearing on the matter as far as real-world references, however, I could mention for what it's worth that five of the spells have game interpreters named after them, and one a data package format.)
    (Though, returning to the subject of the gaming wiki--as I said, that question was intended seriously; I am honestly curious if there are any gaming wikis that would contain this kind of information.)
    Sorry for leaving such a long comment.--Smeazel 06:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi - with regard to which gaming wiki, I'm thinking of IFWiki the Interactive Fiction Wiki. It already has a section on gaming spells in general, see here. --Oscarthecat 06:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janan cain[edit]

Probably not notable enough. Publisher of her book (Parenting Press) doesn't have an article here. Created by an account named "Parenting Press". Book has an Amazon Sales rank of 5,341. Listing here for community input. No Vote. Exxolon 19:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Certainly fails WP:BIO and is probably partly WP:SPAM. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the comments I see about the book in a few places are correct (and based on the reviews of the book on the publisher's site, as well as the rather high Amazon rank), it may well be notable enough for an article - I'm just not sure the author is. I can't find any significant coverage of the writer apart from the book. Weak delete unless someone turns up some strong sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem notable to me, failing WP:BIO. I was going to {{speedy}} it, but in the light of the comment above I will wait for consensus. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non famous author. Also someone just speedied CSD a7 the article--JForget 00:59, 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. John254 16:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Iringan[edit]

unsourced BLP about a winner of a kids tv contest, apparently nn Carlossuarez46 19:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it appears that the contest is fairly major, judging from coverage of both her and the contest in the Manila Standard Today, Manila Bulletin, Inquirer.net, the Manila Times, and some other spots. She doesn't turn up a lot of English results in Google, but what's there is fairly meaty. As winner of a Popstar Kids notable contest, I think she squeezes in under WP:BIO. I'll try to add these to the article (and move it to the proper capitalization) in the next day or so when I have the time. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added, reworded a little, and tagged as a stub and for expansion. (Oh, and moved, at some point, too.) Tony Fox (arf!) 04:12, 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. @pple 17:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Club Penguin Locations[edit]

This article was previously deleted after nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club Penguin Locations. It has since been recreated, and while this new version is not exactly the same as the original, the same substantive issues apply. Specifically, the contents of the article cannot be verified by reliable, third-party published sources as required by WP:Verifiability. In addition, most of the content is prohibited WP:Original research. Finally, the article serves primarily as a game guide in contradiction of the prohibitions of WP:NOT#GUIDE. -- Satori Son 18:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. -- Satori Son 18:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no sourcing. --Rocksanddirt 19:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Club Penguin Mandsford 21:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - G4, repost of deleted material. Tagged. Giggy ^Talk 23:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This belongs merged into Club Penguin 69.116.62.33 12:57, 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 This does not of course preclude the relisting of articles individually or the merging of articles. There is no consensus for deletion here, and I find no overriding policy to bypass the consensus. I'll disclose that I have discounted or assigned less weight to arguments presented "I like it" and "I don't like it" and arguments presented by what appears to me, to be single purpose accounts. Regards, . Navou ^banter 18:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Navou failed to do so, I will point out that this was a non-administrator close. i ^said 00:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeons & Dragons creatures[edit]

(View AfD)

A long list of Dungeons and Dragons creatures that have no references beyond the monstrous manuals from which they spring (and the occasional mention in the affiliated magazine Dragon). No evidence of independent importance (i.e. notability)-Eyrian 18:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep as these pages are sourced and refer to topics that are of interest to a significant proportion of the population. I also don't see a reason to delete in what was stated.OcciMoron 18:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTE. The subjects of these articles are not notable, as they do not have any independent sources. --Eyrian 19:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm familiar with WP:NOTE. Given that there are 30 years of books by various authors that are based on the sources for these articles, many of which feature these monsters prominently (either rulebooks for the game in its various incarnations or novels based on said books), these articles provide valuable reference material for those curious about the significance of these creatures in a large corpus of fantasy material. Perhaps keep and merge into a single article is a better idea? All of these articles are very long, however, so that might not be the best solution.OcciMoron 19:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem not. Notability requires independent sources. Monstrous manuals released by TSR/WotC simply don't count. Neither do licensed novels. There needs to be some kind of article or book that refers to these creatures that is not affiliated with Dungeons and Dragons. --Eyrian 19:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Is www.rpg.net sufficient? Or should I cite the hundreds of non-WotC or TSR publications that relate to these monsters, made by third-party companies? There are also references to Dungeons and Dragons in popular songs, television shows, news articles, blogs, etc. etc. etc. I think if you cannot find independent coverage, you aren't looking very hard.OcciMoron 19:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the coverage. As for those references, perhaps you're looking for the deleted List of Dungeons & Dragons popular culture references. Things that relate to these monsters (How is that relation determined? ) are unlikely to contain substantial coverage in any kind of independent source. They are just not notable. --Eyrian 19:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"They are just not notable [to Eyrian]." Clearly you don't think they deserve to be on wikipedia; when presented with a way to find independent sources, you are just doubting the existence of such sources. The Dungeons and Dragon game is an Open Standard, and so independent publishing companies have released many books based on the original three core rulebooks, using much of the mythos to produce their own adventures, sourcebooks, etc, or expanding upon material covered in those original books. Simply because you have not encountered these sources does not provide grounds for deletion, no matter how many times you keep saying "It's just not notable." Please try to add more to the discussion with each comment, rather than only reiterating your past comments.OcciMoron 19:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You're opening a COLOSSAL can of worms here. There are dozens if not hundreds of D&D-creatures-related articles in Wikipedia. I truly lament the workload of any poor ~~rube~~ admin ~~conned into~~ persuaded to delete them all. --Agamemnon2 19:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that if these articles are deleted, then it's only fair that Template:Infobox D&D creature is deleted forthwith as well, as should Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures with all its contents. Given the popularity of the topic of D&D among Wikipedians, all the major offenders should also be WP:SALTed with extreme prejudice and the utmost impoliteness. Unless you want to do this all over again when the wheel turns another spin. --Agamemnon2 19:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO, why stop at monsters? Just look at Category:Dungeons & Dragons character classes! If these articles on trial here now are deemed deletion-worthy, then surely all these others must follow the same logical progression? Oh, and then there's the literally thousands of internal links we need to remove linking to all these articles, and even more templates, like Template:Dungeons & Dragons character class, too! Alas, I do not envy the lot of the administrator, with his mop and bucket, trying to clean this mess. --Agamemnon2 19:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, did I mention the dozens of categories that would need to be depopulated and deleted, all requiring admin manpower? Still, I guess we have no choice, by WP:NOTE and all... --Agamemnon2 19:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR :) OcciMoron 19:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of it, given time. --Eyrian 19:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Well... that sounds like quite the campaign you've got planned there... My opinion is that it's an unnecessary one, however. ◄Zahakiel ► 19:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most chivalrous. That should only keep you busy for, oh, every evening for the next two months or so. Don't forget Category:Dungeons & Dragons deities, either! I just know those articles would fail WP:NOTE. All 200 of them. --Agamemnon2 19:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A group nomination for 200 articles shouldn't take more than two hours; one for reading, one for nominating. Just because it's difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. --Eyrian 19:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

True, true. And then there's the deletion of categories, salting the most likely to be bona fide recreated, explaining the hows and whys of the decision to the relevant projects, who I'm sure would be, well, livid. And then there's removal of redlinks, which any diligent deletionist should undertake after the AFD comes up trumps. --Agamemnon2 19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is relevant. --Eyrian 19:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, because this is all about setting a potentially far-reaching precedent. Such discussions should not be handwaved away. I most empathically request only that which is fair, that due process is undertaken in these deletion discussions. My interest is merely in seeing the job done well, or not at all. Half-measures are, as I've divulged in a previous utterance, odious. --Agamemnon2 19:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What precedent? That nonnotable articles should be deleted? --Eyrian 19:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That every single article related to Dungeons & Dragons that's not independently-sourced should be deleted. Since this includes hundreds of articles created bona fide, as well as numerous categories and templates, I feel it only prudent that special care is taken, especially since Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons appears not to have been consulted on the topic, which I should imagine would impact their bailiwick rather fiercely. --Agamemnon2 20:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, they knew. --Eyrian 20:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that that's a different case, as the AFD for that one clearly indicates that it was someone's fanwork monster that they had themselves uploaded. The difference between that and, say, a displacer beast (a monster with 30 years' history in the game) should be clear. --Agamemnon2 20:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Good, it should be. I warned people from day one about creating pages for every little monster, and this is a clear example of something that lacks notability.Piuro 05:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)" --Eyrian 20:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

All that's telling me is that they have, as a project, some kind of consensus for notability, but it doesn't say what it is. It doesn't automatically mean they'd agree with your style of article management. Indeed, I would hazard a guess they wouldn't agree, since at least at least a few of the ones you have listed for deletion are rather major (as far as D&D monsters go), namely hobgoblins, angels and golems. I wouldn't be so quick to lend other people's support with such flimsy evidence. --Agamemnon2 20:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H e l l o . Mandsford 21:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Your quote doesn't counter Agamemnon2's statement; The "this" that Piuro is referring to was a fan-created entity. This has nothing to do with the entries you've listed above; and "Gorgon," "Centaur" et.al. are hardly "every little monster." If you want to relist those creatures that have no mention at all outside of a D&D setting, fine, that might be worth considering; but the bull-in-a-china-shop routine has me agreeing with FrozenPurpleCube below. ◄Zahakiel ► 20:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - References sections list several independent sources (magazines, websites, etc.) from different authors and publishing companies. Definitely no violation of WP:NOTE. ◄Zahakiel ► 19:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Name one. Dragon magazine is not independent. Neither is a licensed novel. Independent, in this case, means not published by TSR or Wizards of the Coast. --Eyrian 19:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

- (Edit Conflict) Merge in a list; notable monsters such (e.g.off the top of my head like the Beholder monster) should be kept as long as independent sources are found. It may be possible to merge some monsters with their more commonly known counterparts, like placing undead monsters in the Zombie article. I think the issue here is are D and D monsters in general notable, or just certain ones, or is it just D and D in general that's famous and notable?? Zidel333 19:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem with moving this info to other articles (say, moving the content in Chimera (Dungeons & Dragons) to Chimera) is that the mythology purists tend to delete such info from those pages. This is why I began creating separate articles to contain info on these creatures, and the mythology folks were fine with that and left them alone. I stopped creating such articles when dealing with overzealous deletionists become too much of a pain in the ass. BOZ 19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply - I think you're in danger of missing the forest for the trees. From WP:NOTE, "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." I doubt you would dispute that each of the topics you've listed receives extensive coverage, and that's just IN the related material. As the user above mentioned, there are non-WotC or TSR publications involved also. Further, there is a large body of precedent for the individual aspects of largely notable works (e.g., the "Halo universe") receiving articles to discuss the details thereof. As I said above, there's no violation of the notability guideline here. ◄Zahakiel► 19:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The beholder might suffice as an article, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. And what would such a list look like? List of Dungeons and Dragons monsters? That would be enormous. Decades of Dragon and Dungeon, four (and a half) full rule revisions, dozens of supplement books... It'd never end. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. --Eyrian 19:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    - It's a pity, since the effort needed to expunge and WP:SALT all these articles (and I most empathically demand all or nothing; half-measures are odious) is, as stated above, immense.--Agamemnon2 19:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Let's not make an all or nothing argument, when the best thing to do would be to actually develop a position on what creatures merit coverage and why. That would be more likely to produce consensus here. FrozenPurpleCube 20:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right; the list would be enormous, but that's not the "notability" problem you've used as the foundation for this AfD. The sky isn't falling... the current articles are fine for covering all this data, and valid aspects of a hugely notable macro-topic. ◄Zahakiel ► 19:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close There's just too big and diverse a pool of potential articles here, even with this limited sample, there's unlikely to be sufficient consideration of each article on its own merits. I suggest working with this on project space in order to get a solid position first. Especially since Dragon, for example, has been editorially independent of the owner of D&D for quite some time, and it's hardly the *only* magazine or book about RPGs. And then there's 3rd party publishers for D&D since the advent of the OGL, which means...well, I'm not sure. But I do think that this situation warrants a consideration of the subject as opposed to a focus on the rules. Sorry, but there's a reason why The Spirit is more important the rules. FrozenPurpleCube 19:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. These articles are all cut from the same cloth. These aren't important monsters from Dungeons and Dragons, just idle side ones. They contain a bit of habitat/biology information copied from a monstrous manual, and as many variations have been listed. That's it. --Eyrian 19:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The way you word your statement makes me think you agree there are important monsters from D&D. That's *exactly* why I think that there needs to be a real discussion of the subject, not just an AFD shotgun. Thus I suggest you try the project space to develop a consensus first. At the least, it would show an interest in getting feedback from others if you were to bring up the issue there. Might not change anything, but it would be more of an effort. FrozenPurpleCube 20:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the succubus and basalisk articles Artw 20:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - These two articles should be handled in the same manner as the ones above: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Succubus (Dungeons & Dragons) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basilisk (Dungeons & Dragons). 204.153.84.10 20:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I agree in principle, that these creatures probably do not merit their own articles, per the guideline at WP:FICT, I believe that they should be nominated separately so that we can consider them on a case by case basis. There's nothing inherent about this subject matter that merits grouping them together as such. -Chunky Rice 21:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the 200-some articles in Category:Dungeons & Dragons standard creatures individually (and, yes, most of them should be deleted) isn't practical. --Eyrian 21:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep & Comment: I don't understand. Above, in response to Agammemnon@'s comment about the sheer amount of work it would take to delete & secure everything, you state "I'll take care of it, given time." But now you don't have time to nominate each article individually? Please take a consistant position.--Robbstrd 23:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my time. People complain if more than a few articles are nominated at once. --Eyrian 23:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's some sort of fundamental tie, I think that group nominations are a bad idea. It works if you're going to nominate a book for deletion, then various character pages and other sub pages should probably be a part of that nomination. They simply cannot survive without the main article. That's not the case here. Each article's merit is independent of the others. It might take a little while, but I see no practical reason why they shouldn't be nominated independently. Do a couple a day, and it'll be done a few months. -Chunky Rice 21:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I rewrote the page for the Construct creature type, I assume creature type articles will stay even if some creatures get the big axe? --Agamemnon2 21:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article isn't currently being considered. Others will be nominated as necessary. If the article is good, it won't be deleted. --Eyrian 21:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the number of keep, close, and merge votes on this, I actually don't think you're in the position to say what will and won't be deleted here, Eyrian. You're defending this deletion nomination as if more users than just you are supporting it, when the consensus appears to be against deleting.OcciMoron 22:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eyrian - the decision to keep or delete is not made on article quality.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as default currently. Mass nominations are not helpful and this should be restarted as individual -several articles will probably have independent pages to which material would be better off merged to a mass nomination will lead to fuzzy numbers and inaccurate consensus. Given the prime aim is 'pedia building, these mass nominations are counterproductive on principle. Thus the olny option is to keep/close and restart indivdually.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Comment. Once again, notability is being used as a lazy excuse for deletion with no standards as to what notability is in this context. If people are expecting "independent sources" like Newsweek or the Wall Street Journal to comment about Gorgons (And the D&D interpretation of Gorgons at that), then you will obviously find scant notable material. Amongst RPG players, RPG websites (especially those specializing in D&D) & RPG magazines (webzines or the printed variety), these are very notable creatures within the D&D universe & anyone with any D&D playing experience would already know that. Furthermore, a random sampling of these D&D deletion requests yields that there was no sufficient prior process to notify enthusiasts of these articles that "notability" was an impending issue as to the quality of the articles. A more prudent & diplomatic response would be to tag these articles as having concerns for their notability & let the D&D community have more time to justify the notability aspect of these articles. Should the articles not "improve" over a period of time, the notion of deletion would be more substantiated. -75.130.90.56 22:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)-[reply]

Incorrect. Notability means that there is independently published information. As in, not published or licensed by Wizards of the Coast or TSR. There is simply no material like that. --Eyrian 23:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's see--a Google search for "iron golem," for example, reveals several websites that are not owned by WotC or TSR[8]. Sounds like independent sources to me.--Robbstrd 23:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all This seems a rather pointless issue to raise in the first place, and I'm not at all convinced to side with this scattershot of deletion requests. They have my vote to stay. Shemeska 23:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because you are not interested in Dungeons & Dragons does not mean that D&D-related articles are not notable. Clearly people who have zero amount of fame or are only famous in their neighborhoods are not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia, even an online encyclopedia with hundreds of thousands of articles and a seemingly unlimited amount of space; that's what user pages are for. Fan fiction is also usually not considered notable. These articles, however, are notable. There are hundreds of thousands of other people, perhaps even millions, who are interested in Dungeons & Dragons. Let's look at the advantages and disadvantages of keeping or deleting these articles.

Advantages of keeping: These are creatures that frequently appear in numerous popular novels (such as the best-selling and widely popular Drizzt Do'Urden novels, as well as hundreds of other novels) and games (computer and video games and also old-fashioned pen, paper, and dice games); these articles have helpful, interesting, and detailed background information for those wishing to know more about the creatures; and the casual person browsing Wikipedia who knows nothing of the subject but wants to can easily learn by reading these articles or by simply scanning the first paragraph (for example, I was interested in the Star Wars Expanded Universe but knew absolutely nothing about it, so I read various articles that some editors are want to call "not notable" or "fancruft" and quickly became quite educated on the subject).

Disadvantages of keeping: It increases Wikipedia's bandwidth by an infinitesimal amount, or perhaps the subjects of these creature articles might feel offended by how they are represented in the articles and sue for libel. Also, perhaps some religious zealots might think these articles are blasphemy.

Advantages of deleting: Are there any? Perhaps appeasing editors who like to delete things or have a grudge against fiction, or perhaps to follow a guideline such as Wikipedia:Notability or WP:FICT. But how will that benefit Wikipedia?

Disadvantages of deleting: Basically, people will be deprived of everything I mentioned in "Advantages of keeping."

Merging: Not a good idea. This would create a giant page that would take forever to load and, when loaded, would slow down computers. Some might advise greatly condensing the information so that the page of merges is smaller, but that is completely unnecessary. People could easily find these articles by using the search engine, typing the name in the URL, following a link from another article, or looking at Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures. They don't need to be condensed and merged into a single page.--71.107.178.64 00:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, because there seems to be a strong majority consensus above to do so. I think merging in this case would only produce overly long articles and so in this instance, the separate articles probably work best. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By my count there are 9 keeps, 1 close (keep?), 1 merge, and a whole bunch of rebutting by the nominator. In that light, I'd like to politely suggest that it looks like snow. In other words, the D&D folks are never going to to see eye-to-eye with Eyrian over this. —Travis ^talk 01:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The gamer's guides do not make these individual creatures, as D&D monsters, notable. At the very least, merge them into a list, that is very pared down. i ^said 02:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Never heard of novels?--71.107.174.221 19:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep D&D and its characters are notable, and many people may find this information useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.116.170.120 (talk) 02:46, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
Keep I have no intention at ever looking at these articles again (I sampled one or two now to see if there was content). I think there is sufficient, and the sources seem appropriate for the material. I'd say to keep them all for now, and let those who care decide which are minor enough to merge. It does not add an air of lack of seriousness to WP. Anyone who knows of DD and also of WP would expect to find this subject treated very extensively here. It's not being here is what would seem peculiar. DGG (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say pare down and merge anything particular to D&D (such as, off the top of my head, mindflayers, beholders, aboleths, slaadi, etc) into a "List of D&D creatures" article. Delete any of the ones that are basically no different from mythology (that is, not unique to D&D), such as succubi, or angels. If deleting is unpalatable, merge those ones into the articles of their respective mythological forebears, clearly denoting which content is game-related so that the casual reader doesn't become confused. ♠P M C♠ 04:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Several of these articles are already a list of dozens of creatures consolidated into one article. There are over a dozen references listed in Golem alone. Although I might be convinced that some articles should be deleted, I refuse to accept the submitted list as is, because this should be discussed on an article by article basis. Turlo Lomon 05:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep articles for now; Chastise nom for attempting a PokeDeletion in re D&D. I suspect that the nom has an unused grindstone sitting around and a dull axe to grind, and is deciding to whet it on D&D articles. Submit the articles individually, and do NOT use Ratman as precedent. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 06:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and relist individually, as the outcome for some of the listed articles will be different than others, and I'm not comfortable making an umbrella decision to cover them all at once. spazure (contribs) 09:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is a guideline and not a policy, which, according to the guideline itself, may have exceptions from time to time. I would argue that the articles are notable in the first place but even if not should be the "occasional exception." The sources are the equivalent in some cases to self published material but there are other sources that are not. However, taking all things in context and with a view as to whether the encyclopedia is better with or without the articles, I think we should keep them. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 11:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I keep hearing replies that this nomination is misguided, that there are independent sources, etc. Well: where are they? Why should this article get a pass on having no independent importance when so many others do not? Why is proof by assertion sufficient here? As for WP:POINT, how am I gaming the system or acting in bad faith? I genuinely believe that these articles do not meet notability, as they have no independent sources. Concerning the decision to list several, there are about 200 entries in the D&D monster category. They should mostly be deleted. People complain if many articles are listed at once. These articles are all basically the same, and should be treated the same. --Eyrian 12:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is misguided only in the sense that if you delete these articles, then by fairness and equality you should also have deleted nearly all of Wikipedia's D&D coverage, as well as oodles, oodles I say, of articles on fictional characters, creatures, places and so on. I'm not averse to these deletions, merely the unequal state I fear would result. For example, you have marked Construct (Dungeons & Dragons) with a notability tag, but not any of the other creature types that by rights are equally (non)notable. This leads me to be concerned with the nominator's thoroughness in pursuing his goals. --Agamemnon2 14:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Even if they don't have third-party sources, so what? Can Eyrian explain what good will come out of deleting them?--71.107.174.221 19:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Item: I am generally averse to voting on multiple articles under the one AFD; Item: this represents the thing end of a wedge-berg, since it impacts on all RPG articles; Item: I concur with the "all or nothing" P-o-V -- these things are either allowed or disallowed on principle.

That said, my understanding, based on Wiki-precedent, is that the nominator be invited to select whichever he believes to be the keynote case, argue that to a resoltuion, and if the final consensus (carefully not saying "vote") is to delete, then all articles in the class are forthwith deleted, and can only come back as individual, and argued, exceptions. And I would concur with the salt proposal, if the delete goes ahead. -- Simon Cursitor 13:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a precedent: notability. Every day, articles which have no coverage in independent sources are deleted. Must these be different because they are affiliated with Dungeons and Dragons? Why? --Eyrian 13:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's take a look at use of primary sources.

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source

Now, let's take a look at the Golems entry (first on the list). There are 13 published books referenced. What the article needs is a little cleanup. You keep saying we should read the policies and I have. There is nothing wrong with using primary sources when they are published books from a major publisher of books. Turlo Lomon 13:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with using primary sources. It's that these articles are exclusively referenced to primary sources, which doesn't meet the requirements for notability. --Eyrian 13:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Very Strong Delete. Widely known or not, there still is a definite lack of reputable sources for these articles. Coming from the instruction manual and an affiliated magazine series does not strike me as very neutral and wide selection of sources. It'd be like only using Fox-based sources for Bill O'Reilly. If the closing admin reads closely, they see a lot of the keep's above are merely saying they like it. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That is an inadequate analogy. Using "Fox-only" articles for Bill O'Reilly would probably introduce NPOV problems; but not "notability" problems, which is what the nominator is arguing here. Neutrality is hardly an issue when discussing fictional entities unless blatant fanspeak starts creeping in. For the record, while a number are indeed saying "ILIKEIT," others are pointing out that such magazines and websites as are mentioned above do have a measure of independence in content, although several are published by the same companies. Due to the extensive coverage each of these topics receive, the Wikipedia ~~policy~~ guideline (Notability) does allow for flexibility in the cold, hard "number" of sources being demanded by the nominator. There is plenty of precedent in Wikipedia for that. ◄Zahakiel ► 13:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should these article be exempted? Why, when so many articles are required to demonstrate independent importance, should these be allowed to stay? Because you like them? These articles are only fanspeak. They're just a bunch of fictional details. As for independence, does "one of the two official magazines for source material for the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game and associated products" sound independent? --Eyrian 13:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply - Not because "ILIKEIT;" I actually have absolutely nothing personally to do with the games themselves. Now, there is a difference between fanspeak (how much I think this or that monster is "cool") and verified information about the in-game universe and presented as such. Of course they are just a bunch of "fictional details," they are about fictional creatures. That they are notable enough as fictional creatures is obvious if you do not ignore a) what I and others have said about the editorial nature of the sources used by the articles' authors, and b) the precedent I have mentioned at least twice now about the aspects of highly notable over-topics. As I've said several times, there is flexibility allowed in the guidelines that you appear extremely unwilling to concede, despite the precedent that exists... that is not very helpful to a neutral discussion of the subject matter. You ask, insistently, "Why should these articles be exempted?" Well, why should any articles be exempted? The fact that exemptions are allowed (if this case even amounts to an exemption) shows that there are reasons to consider such things; and they would constitute what most of the !voters are consistently pointing out: extensive mention in places unaffiliated with the playing of the actual game itself, the notability of the overall system, the precedent of other system-aspects of other notable games/works of fiction, the gray area of just what constitutes an "independent" source (different authors, and so on), and the like. At the very least, that there may be exceptions reflected IN the policy make a mass-nomination misguided, and a mass-deletion against current and past consensus(es), extremely far-reaching, and destructive. ◄Zahakiel ► 14:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive mention elsewhere? Prove it. These are common mythological tropes (the ones that aren't are things I've never heard of anywhere, like digesters and chokers). As I've repeatedly said, the only precedent here is a longstanding one: that articles without any kind of independent existence might get deleted. --Eyrian 14:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You have, of course, read the list of references of each article? They are "elsewhere" from the game guides, and from the titles of the essays and articles mentioned they seem to cover details about the entities behavior, environment, etc. That is "extensive," as far as I am concerned. Asserting otherwise is simply that, an argument from assertion. I understand that you and I don't seem to have the same view of what constitutes an entirely independent source, but that is only one narrow aspect of all that I have said above. It may have been useful at the moment for you to fixate on that one, because you've never responded to the others, but I think it might be better for you to focus on the overall picture the !votes are presenting to you. I don't feel comfortable arguing with you over how very narrowly to apply a particular guideline, I don't think that accomplishes all that much; but I am content to just let the consensus speak here. ◄Zahakiel ► 14:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you be specific and name the references you feel are independent? I don't think any of them are. Not one. Name one you think that is, specifically. --Eyrian 14:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Except, these articles do have some kind of independent existence, since the editors of Wikipedia and the writers of D&D are not one and the same. So the question becomes, is that sufficient on its own? Perhaps, perhaps not. However, I do not think that an adamant no-tolerance policy is the best way to develop consensus here, or even all that well-advised. I still say it'd be better to try to work with folks and come to an agreement over the acceptable threshold for inclusion. Of course, that may not work either (in fact, I know of several categories of articles where I've tried the approach, but the established base of editors refuses to even admit there is a problem). But it would look better to at least try. FrozenPurpleCube 14:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. The acceptable threshold is the same as it's always been: Independent, reliable sources. Notability, notability, notability. There is nothing new here, despite what some D&D focused editors might think. The criteria here are the same ones that are applied to dozens of articles every day. --Eyrian 14:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha, so now you're accusing us of bias, then? I must most empathically protest. I have never been against these deletions, I only demand, only demand, mark you, that it be carried out totally, logically and across all of the hundreds of D&D articles that fail to meet the standard, instead of singling this particular subset out. All or nothing is the axiom. I'm sorry if you feel that is unfair. --Agamemnon2 14:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found it unwise to simultaneously nominate 200 articles at first blush. --Eyrian 14:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

But much more honest, as that's what being discussed here, isn't it? --Agamemnon2 15:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're replying to me or not, but I don't see how "Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources" applies, since nobody is asking anyone to rely on Wikipedia editors for any particular article content. At most, it's a question of Wikipedia editors being asked to decide what's appropriate for Wikipedia, which is not the same at all. As far as I know, nobody is arguing that everything in these articles can't be found in sources independent of any Wikipedia editor, but if they aren't, that's a particular concern, not a broad-based one. And no matter how much you beat the notability drum, it's not very convincing. Why? Because you're arguing it as the rule to follow, but not providing a sufficient argument as to why it should be applied. That is not convincing, it's rather the opposite in my experience. Seriously, you're not coming across as persuasive to me, and I think the biggest part of it is a failure to articulate your position in a meaningful way. Perhaps you might wish to start working from a position of what articles merit keeping, and which merging, instead of further AFDs? FrozenPurpleCube 23:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Official sources do not strike you as very neutral? You do know that these are fictional creatures, right? Whatever the authors write about these creatures is automatically true.--71.107.174.221 19:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all (or, at worst, merge into larger articles) - Notability is a guideline, not a rule. In my opinion, the proposing editor is trying to prove a point, which is that the fine points of the notability guideline are mandates from on high as to which articles are worthy and which are not. If the proposing editor can come up with a secondary reason than "we must have secondary sources!" to delete this batch, then he may have a point, but if that's all he's got then his argument is weak. Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, and in this case the consensus is clear. BOZ 15:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has always been enough. Again, it's not a matter of having to prove that notability applies, it's a matter of proving that it doesn't. Notability is a guideline, which means that it should be followed except when there is a good reason. What's the good reason? --Eyrian 15:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment ~~Nom's talk page is suggesting he's trying to alter WP:NOT to suit his aims in this AfD.~~-Text redacted by -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} Also on there is a thread that I find disturbing - one where he's chastised for ignoring consensus on an AfD for Cheshire Cat in popular culture. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 16:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so? I have made no reference to WP:NOT here. It's all about WP:NOTE. Please actually read the relevant pages (discussions, etc) before simply trying to sling mud. --Eyrian 16:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I redacted my first statement above. However, the second one should stand. I don't mean to sling mud, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 17:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap. I've explained my reasoning there. --Eyrian 17:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

However, the fact that you disregarded consensus is a bit of cause for concern, especially since it was an AfD. I understand your reasoning; what I can't fathom is why you would create a redirect instantly without asking for a review of the AfD or actually working to make the article better. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 17:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am incapable of making that article better. There is no better. It's a lost cause. If others want to try, the history is right there for them to work on. DRV has been avoided for the moment because I can only juggle so many things at once, and people should be given a chance to take a shot at improving it. This is, however, becoming increasingly tangential. --Eyrian 17:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I understand your concerns about the editor, Jéské; I think, though, that personal issues aside we should try to stick to what he's doing in this debate, which is saying, quote: "notability, notability, notability," when just about everyone else is saying that even if it were a rule, it would be ignored per consensus. A guideline allows even more flexibility, and due to the notability of the over-arching game, and the fact that the "non-independence" of the sources is a matter of opinion, a retension of these articles, even allowing for future discussion of them individually, seems pretty obvious. In any event, we still have to deal with this AfD as it stands. ◄Zahakiel ► 17:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no, Zahakiel, if the rule says one thing, and misinformed editors say another, the rule always wins, as the rule is determined by the community at large rather than a SiG. See Wikipedia:Consensus. Neil ム 21:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Oh, I've read it. Here's a highlight from the top: "Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community (or at least everyone who has looked at the page). 'Silence equals consent' is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time, consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process." Now, that's just about the content of pages. What you're talking about here is an entire set of articles that have remained for some time. But what I am talking about is the consensus of this AfD, which is even more clear. One editor is making a noise about pop/culture and trivia sections that have been on Wikipedia with not only the consent, but the active contribution of a large number of editors and administrators; then bringing that to bear on a massive deletion discussion. To lump all those content with the status quo together under the convenient label of "misinformed" is rather crass, certainly self-serving, and absolutely inaccurate. ◄Zahakiel ► 21:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: - What "rule" are you talking about, anyway? Notability? That's a useful guideline, when it's not lawyered to death. ◄Zahakiel ► 21:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are expected / required to illustrate the notability of their subjects. Failure to do so is usually a reason to rewrite the article. If it is impossible to show why the subject is notable, it's usually a pretty good reason for deletion (it's often a reason for speedy deletion). Yes, notability is a guideline, not a policy. That doesn't mean it's wrong. Neil ム 21:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I've got no problem with that. In fact, some of my major contributions involve and have involved finding reliable sources for articles that have long been without them. I certainly don't think the guideline is wrong; what I am saying is that I believe sufficient notability can be established from the sources provided. "Independent" is not something strictly defined in Wikipedia policy; it does not necessarily mean the material has to come from entirely different publishing companies, which appears to be the demand of the nominator while citing the WP:NOTE guideline as if this was an explicit requirement of the "letter of the law." It's not; the guidelines are intended to be more widely read than that... or they would indeed be policy. And again, even there policy is subject to IAR in some rare occasions, so even then it would not be iron-clad. This is orders of magnitude away from a clear-cut case of deletable material. ◄Zahakiel ► 22:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Not one independent source. Not one sourced explanation of why these fictional game components are of any encyclopaedic value. There is also not one argument to keep based in any kind of Wikipedia policy. All the sources do is prove these creatures exist; this does not make them notable. We do not have articles for each monster in Super Mario World or for each block in Tetris - how is this any different? I am aware that this has no chance of being deleted, as there is a very dedicated group of editors who love this stuff. It would have been better nominating just one article, as a test case. Neil ム 21:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh. Is this WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNOTEXIST? (Unsurprisingly wikipedia does have articles on Super Mario Monsters) Artw 21:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was thinking more like the little walking mushrooms and things. Bowser is a character, not a monster. Creatures in Dungeons and Dragons would be sufficient for all the generic creatures. Neil ム 21:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not as unpalatable as deleting all the content... but then why did you !vote for "delete all," rather than "merge all," which seems to be what you're referring to here. ◄Zahakiel ► 21:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because these articles are so numerous and overwritten (IMO). The effor required in merging would be more than the effort required to create a new article. Or even a set of articles (such as D&D fey, D&D undead, D&D humanoids, whatever, etc). Neil ム 22:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah... i've seen a lot of people try to invoke WP:ITSHARD to avoid doing what they genuinely believe is best for the encyclopedia. I think there would be people willing to invest that effort. ◄Zahakiel ► 22:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In re Neil's argument - that's one of the arguments opponents of the Mass Pokemon Species Megamerger used to try and justify keeping them in separate articles. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 22:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what (I think) Neil is saying. If the objective is a single merged article that complies with policy, it would be more effort to try and merge these articles than to just create the new one from scratch. --Eyrian 22:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes - if people preferred to merge the current articles, no problems. Neil ム 08:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would actually be somewhat concerned about the idea of a putative "Creatures in D&D" article. Would it be about the origins of the various creatures? Or appearances? Usages? Changes over the different editions? It might be possible to do something, but....I imagine it would be quite hard and a lengthy process. This isn't a simple subject, but a complex one that would require deep thought before proceeding. Of course, it you do want to start that process, you're welcome to do so, but I don't suggest starting from AFDs. FrozenPurpleCube 23:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "usage" would not be encyclopaedic, other than in the broadest sense. Neil ム 08:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also bear in mind that a few of these articles refer not to specific creatures, but rather to categories of creatures and how they fit into the D&D Mythos (for example, Angel describes how angels fit into the world's cosmology). The equivalent is an article on Demons in Catholicism; specific demons might not be notable, but the concept of demons would be. And does anyone think that an article on demons that only cited Church publications would be deleted because of WP:NOTE. I think instead the consensus would be as here appears to be; let's find less-dependent sources. OcciMoron 03:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and cleanup - Having thousands of short articles on every critter in the D&D meta-bestiary doesn't make sense, but they could be merged into one master list with links to separate pages for identifiable groups. The Golem (Dungeons & Dragons) article is an example of the kind of grouping I'm talking about. However, beyond that there should be more info on the antecedents of the D&D ideas... for instance, there is no mention in that article of the connection between Talos and the 'Iron Golem' despite the re-use of the name 'Talos' in D&D. The Jewish Golem tradition is mentioned, but the similarities in supposed construction between those and the D&D stone golems are not detailed. Review to make sure all examples are included (e.g. Warforged from Eberron, Crystal Golems from Psionics Handbook, Mist Golems from Greyhawk, et cetera), more references, and info on usage/influence outside D&D (e.g. 'Tiamat' now being called a multi-headed dragon in various media despite the original mythological being having only one head) would also be good. Individual articles can be kept for now, but the wikiprojects should be working towards merging them. --CBD 11:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It bears pointing out that the majority of the hundreds of D&D creature articles are absolute fucking garbage, their content either infinitesimal or nonexistent and they're laid out apparently according to some harebrained scheme concocted by the relevant Wikiproject, crewed, apparently, by monkeys. As such, something needs to be done, whether it is complete category-wide deletion and salting (which is what I advocate) or some limp-wristed merger compromise that will only lead to less bad articles, but no overall improvement in article quality. --Agamemnon2 11:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suggest trying to work with users in a more friendly and hospitable fashion than this. I certainly agree there's a lot of room for improvement, but there are better ways to obtain that improvement than this kind of thing. FrozenPurpleCube 14:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing you can do. No amount of magic-wand-waving will make these articles satisfy the notability guidelines. --Agamemnon2 16:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. Who was talking about that? I was talking about working with other users. FrozenPurpleCube 18:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry. I must've misunderstood your intent somehow. As it stands, I've really no interest in "assuming good faith" or "trying to get along". I'm too embittered for that anymore. I calls them as I sees them, and to me, a spade is a spade, if you catch my meaning. --Agamemnon2 18:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're embittered then that's likely to color your perceptions and treatment of others, and as such is not a good way to proceed, as it's likely to be less effective and more hurtful than need be. A positive outlook of improvement and working together may be hard to manage, but it's certainly important to Wikipedia as a whole. I suggest you see what you can do to improve your outlook. FrozenPurpleCube 18:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Some people never learn, do they. Burntsauce 17:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into a list. Wikipedia:Reliable sources says "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" (emphasis added) and "The reliability of a source depends on the context". I'm increasingly of the opinion that fans of notability as a concept are fetishizing "independent sources", to the extent that if it hasn't been mentioned in the Wall Street Journal it doesn't merit mention in Wikipedia. The sources used for these articles are reliable for the subject of Dungeons & Dragons. The fact that most of them are licensed media is irrelevant, or at least should be. The mere fact that there is sufficient interest in Dungeons & Dragons to support all these different sources in different media should be an indicator that Dungeons & Dragons subjects are notable. Wikipedia: Five pillars says that Wikipedia "incorporates elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." A specialized encyclopedia on Dungeons & Dragons would include entries on these creatures; therefore, Wikipedia can as well. Of course the articles can use more sourcing and real-world context, per lots of folks above; but I don't see a justification for deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How can a monster in a game use that game's rules as evidence of notability? Therefore, is every monster in every game that has ever been published notable? Why or why not? --Eyrian 19:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  - You obviously don't understand. THEY ARE NOT ONLY IN GAMES AND GAME GUIDES. These are creatures that frequently appear in numerous popular novels (such as the best-selling and widely popular Drizzt Do'Urden novels, as well as hundreds of other novels) and games (computer and video games and also old-fashioned pen, paper, and dice games).--71.107.174.221 19:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I get a funny image of a poor little kobold trying to argue it's notable by pointing to the rule book. More seriously though, it's actually a bit more complicated than just saying it exists within the rules. I would suggest having a special book about the "monster" (such as done with Beholders, Mind Flayers and Illithid) or the monster itself having some wider notability beyond just being in the monster manual, such as the Drow Elves. But honestly, I'm not convinced this is definitive, it's just a few brief thoughts and would need to be extensively examined to establish any kind of position or guidelines. FrozenPurpleCube 19:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Licensed books based on the game from the same publisher? Even if those weren't closely linked, I sincerely doubt there's any kind of substantial coverage. --Eyrian 19:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, fifty to a hundred pages on a given subject? I think something encyclopedic could be done there. YMMV. FrozenPurpleCube 20:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - To clarify: I think that in cases like this a strict interpretation of "sources independent of the subject" is contrary to Wikipedia's culture, goals, and established consensus. These monsters have numerous sources in the D&D novels, magazines, different editions of the game, and so forth. It's not just one source. I feel like if there are enough sources from different media, the subject is obviously notable and the fact that the sources have a licensing arrangement with the copyright owner is immaterial. In the case of major media franchises, the criteria in WP:NOTE are flawed, and should be revisited. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, merge, merge! For lack of "third party reliable sources". Presumeably some information has been published about these creatures apart from official manuals and licensed media, however, I see very little evidence that it appeared in reliable, published sources as defined in WP:RS. Whatever good information is in here can be accomadated just as well at a merged page. There is no need for all this drama about "you want to delete every D&D page!!!"; no, we want to merge the majority of D&D pages, trim excessive in-universe content, and create featured-article class pieces about their impact in the real world, which is the primary subject of Wikipedia after all. Eleland 19:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Who cares about third-party sources? This is fiction. Notability in fiction is measured by the numbers of the audience, not third-party sources. The reason that fiction doesn't have many third-party sources is because it is copyrighted. Duh. Wizards of the Coast would sue if another company copied their work.--— Quin 19:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nom asked why every monster in every game guide is not also notable. Look at WP:NOTE more closely. The guidelines for notability include more than just the hope for independent sources. While the argument that not satisfying one of those four criteria does not indicate a lack of notability, most monsters have no significant coverage in addition to lacking independent sources. Notable Dungeons and Dragons monsters, luckily, have both independent sources and significant coverage, most of the time. The ones that lack both, such as the Ssvaklor, also lack WP articles because they are not notable. Interestingly, Luke Skywalker lacks independent references. Have you nominated that article for deletion under your ridiculously strict construction of WP:NOTE? Unless you have been living under a rock for 30 years, I don't think you can argue that this character is "not notable."OcciMoron 19:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An oversight on that article, and I've let them know. I'm sure if I nominated it for deletion, it'd be taken care of. As for these articles, I have no such beliefs. Perhaps you should consider actually finding some sources rather than trying to find ways around notability? --Eyrian 20:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should find the sources. You are the one trying to destroy Wikipedia, after all.--71.107.174.221 20:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now, there's no reason to accuse a person of trying to destroy Wikipedia. It's best to assume good faith. Now that said, I do think the standards are mistaken here, and in many cases. Why? Because Notability wasn't built with the considerations of these circumstances in mind. It's a pity, but sometimes the rules are broken. That's why the spirit is more important than the rule. FrozenPurpleCube 20:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they broken? I find that they work excellently. --Eyrian 20:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you might want to look more carefully at the situation here. Or AFD in general. There are a lot of folks who find notability a poor standard. I suppose you could dismiss folks as simply ignorant and needing to go into "rightthink" but I think that might have its own perils as well. FrozenPurpleCube 20:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some people disagree, but I don't see any good reasons why. Regardless, the place to fight that battle is not here. Try WP:VPP. --Eyrian 20:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

And I haven't seen any good reasons to use that standard. Just arguments by default that this is the rule, so we follow it. Not persuasive. FrozenPurpleCube 20:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party sources are clearly required for WP:NOTE. Yes, it is fiction. Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries, nor is it a collection of fictional in-universe information devoid of context, commentary, or critical analysis. Without 3rd party sources, how can we write a verifiable article, or determine a neutral point of view? Without 3rd party sources all we can do is repeat what's in the Monstrous Manual; anything else would be original reserach. I personally agree that "notability" is the wrong way to phrase it - the real issues are verifiability and NPOV, which require 3rd party sources to be achieved. Obviously, any fictional work which becomes popular will be covered by such sources. D&D has received ample coverage, for example. D&D elves have probably received enough coverage to create a good article. Obscure D&D monsters have not. Eleland 20:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what you want to say. There's nothing NPOV troubling to me in "This is a Monster that appeared in Book X and is described as living in a given type of terrain, that looks like whatever it looks like" nor does it need third-party sources any more than I'd need third-party sources to confirm what is in a given episode of a television show. And I find context, commentary or critical analysis a secondary concern to accurately describing the fictional subject of an article. This isn't to say long, sprawling articles on plot are what I want, but rather that a good summary of the plot is of primary importance. And I'm not sure that the standards for fiction or notability really gave a good consideration to in-depth fictional universes. FrozenPurpleCube 20:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed not; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of the factual, not the fictional. --Eyrian 20:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Giving facts about fiction is still factual.--71.107.174.221 20:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, very clever. :) Zidel333 21:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optimus Prime is the leader of the Autobots in the fictional universe of the Transformers. That's a fact. Harry Potter attends Hogwarts in the stories about him. That's also a fact. Luke Skywalker? A Jedi and the son of Anakin Skywalker and Padme Amidala. All facts within the story itself. FrozenPurpleCube 21:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I wonder why we are not also having this discussion about Luke Skywalker, but I add to that the comment that the article on Padme Amidala should be considerably pruned as it contains many references to the films in which she appears, and of course, only the fact that she is played by Natalie Portman is notable because it is the only citation on that article which comes from an "independent" source. The Three Musketeers should also be grouped with these articles under nom's suggestion, because they do not meet nom's standards for notability. Dumas would be surprised, no? In fact, the article on books should probably be deleted as every one of its citations is- a book! This is clearly a conspiracy by book publishers and authors, a small community, to lead you to believe that books have had some kind of impact on human history. Shall I point out further how absurd this delete justification is?OcciMoron 21:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No argument has been presented as to why these creatures are non-notable. It could be argued, of course, that anything related to D&D is non-notable; it would be fun to see nominator try. RandomCritic 20:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

30 years of cutural impact is not insignifigant... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, that Coffee table book is...or at least, abominable. FrozenPurpleCube 21:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but with no prejudices against recreation if/when independent source can be added. Also, since this wikipedia isn't a game-guide we need redesign the articles with the "how has this impacted the real world" as the primary guiding light for these articles. If the artice can't be writen from that context then it's game cruft. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC) _{(side note: I love getting an edit conflict when the comment is "lol". ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC))}[reply]

I'm not seeing anything in these articles which would substantially matter to anybody playing the game itself. FrozenPurpleCube 21:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eyrian, these articles are much more notable than that Me and the Pumpkin Queen article you created.…--71.107.174.221 21:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, at least that one has third-party sources. --Agamemnon2 21:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. You'd do well to check out the history of that article. And no, they're not. Important? Maybe. But here on Wikipedia, it's notability that matters. --Eyrian 23:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep Any article about D&D and AD&D adventures, games, books etc will refer to one or more of these monsters. If all these articles were to be deleted, than it is possible that each of these articles will have to indiviually carry some description of one or more of these monsters.KTo288 22:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Delete, make D&Dwiki All the creature pages listed here are non-notable in a general encyclopedia, but might do well on a different wiki. Some are creatures that predate D&D in fiction and are notable by themselves, but not as D&D creatures. Imagine adding a note "An angel is also a monster in D&D and other role playing games" to the page on angels. It would be weird. There are a few fictional creatures that started life as D&D monsters for which one could make an argument of notability, but none of them are on this list. Maybe the rust monster, creeping coins and displacer beast could make it, but that's not part of this discussion. If this discussion comes out "no consensus", I'd suggest nominating the least notable D&D monster on its own as an AfD so that we can have a test case, and then moving up the list in batches. And to those arguing that it's too much work to clean bad articles out of wikipedia, that's hopefully not true, or we're lost as a project. --Slashme 08:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem with certain WikiProjects and inclusionists within them. WP:POKE went through the same crap with its articles, and there's still combat going on on Bulbasaur. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 09:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I found it took quite a lot of effort to prune that Gundam cruft some time ago. And I think it continues to multiply. MER-C 11:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly correct to say that these entries are not suitable for a general encyclopedia... and if Wikipedia were a general encyclopedia that would be relevant. However, since Wikipedia combines the contents of "general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs" we ought to be looking at that (actual) standard for inclusion. Is D&D notable? Obviously yes. Would a specialized D&D encyclopedia include these things? Yes. Ergo, they are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Which is why we are also creating articles on every species of animal in existence. You wouldn't find an article on the Naked-rumped Tomb Bat in any 'general encyclopedia'. You wouldn't even find one in most 'encyclopedias of mammals', but you'd find it in an 'encyclopedia of bats' and you find it in Wikipedia. Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons) is no less (indeed, far more) notable than Naked-rumped Tomb Bat and thus no less worthy of inclusion. --CBD 12:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it combines elements of them; either you can't read or you're cherry picking quotes to try and advance your position. 81.153.125.209 12:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Well, I can obviously read, so it must be that I am cherry picking quotes that advance my position. "Elements of". Ah, very important distinction. No doubt the 'element of' almanacs which Wikipedia incorporates is that it is 'published' only once a year! And the 'element of' specialized encyclopedias which Wikipedia incorporates is an 'in universe' perspective! Here all this time I was thinking it was the contents. That's it. Nuke the Naked-rumped Tomb Bat article. It'd never be found in a general encyclopedia. :] --CBD 09:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slashme suggested that we nominate the least notable monster here after this closes if there's no deletion. That's the wrong way to go, as further rounds of the deletion game are just....non productive. I suggest instead trying to work with the project to establish a consensus as to inclusion/exclusion. There are indeed creatures that can merit articles, and as far as existing mythological creatures and D&D is concerned, it would help to establish a position on that as well. It might be desirable, for example, to have a summary article discussing the issue, as one of the influences of the game. FrozenPurpleCube 14:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki then delete. I bet there's someone out there that can make use of these pages, but it ain't us. This is an encyclopedia, not an in-universe guide to D&D. There is no evidence that these fictional characters have had any substantial impact on the real world whatsoever.

Very few, if any, of these articles could be considered an in-universe guide to D&D. That would be something entirely different in nature. (For that sort of thing, I'd suggest reading one of the D&D books with a section written in that form). But any of that could be addressed with a rewrite if it were the problem. As for substantial impact on the real world, that seems a bit of an arbitrary claim, since several of these creatures have been the subject of art, miniatures, magazine articles and even books in the real world. FrozenPurpleCube 14:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Per the GFDL license, if articles are transwikied, they should not be deleted but be turned into redirects with the {{R from merge}} template on them.--ElminsterAumar 06:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This stuff reads like Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, and as such can never meet criteriaWikipedia:Notability (fiction). --Gavin Collins 22:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not these are kept, citing Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day is absurd given that they were created and published by a notable company as part of a notable RPG. Whether these individual articles are notable is open to question, but this argument smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTKNOWIT. -Chunky Rice 22:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, if you can take something you've made up in school one day and get it published across the globe, get several movies made around it, hundreds (if not thousands) of different novels, as well as various art, miniatures, and who knows what else, then I'd say your work might merit an article on Wikipedia. Besides, it's not like anybody is arguing that the individually created creatures merit inclusion by default. I think most people would agree that the threshold is higher than that. FrozenPurpleCube 23:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Default inclusion seems awfully close to what's being argued. Again, none of the creatures here are particularly important to D&D. Why should Digester be kept, but not Ssvaklor? --Eyrian 23:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is based on your approach to discussing this issue, which is instead of establishing a baseline of acceptance, jumped straight to the deletion roundtable. As I said originally, I think you'd have been better advised to discuss the issue in the project space. This might have served to focus the issue on developing a criteria for inclusion as opposed to engendering hard feelings that tend to arise from the "AFD" approach. It's unfortunate, but the method chosen stirred up the pot in such a way that may not fix things at all, but will instead leave everybody feeling upset. As for Digester versus Ssvaklor, I take no position on that question, I do not know that I would consider them any different but then again, maybe I would. I'd have to know more about them. FrozenPurpleCube 01:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep all Most of these seem like canonical D&D creatures. I might agree with deleting two or three in this list but a cluster nomination like this is not the way to go. The nominator should work with the D&D WikiProject to establish article inclusion criteria rather than randomly select some articles for deletion. --Polaron | Talk 01:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't know how much this helps with the notability issue, but User:Quinsareth was kind enough to find some third-party sources to add to Golem (Dungeons & Dragons), Angel (Dungeons & Dragons), Gorgon (Dungeons & Dragons), and Grimlock (Dungeons & Dragons), which according to the editor were "a few easily-found, official and third-party sources simply by using Google." BOZ 06:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call the DDO website (as added to Golem) a third party source. It's a licensed adaptation. --Agamemnon2 10:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mass deletion nominations like this one are nonsensical. Wikipedia has lots of articles about fictional creatures from specific works of fiction, including articles about Vulcans and Klingons from Star Trek. These articles are hardly different. Rray 11:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge, which means keep for now. I'm rather surprised- has no one yet linked to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Monsters? It seems that the WikiProject knew that this was a problem, and are (slowly) working on a new scheme. Some D&D creatures are likely too irrelevant to merit anything even on a list, or perhaps only merit a line or two, but that distinction is for editors more familiar with the topic to decide. It seems stalled for now, but certainly some editors who are willing to debate the matter here might also be willing to push ahead with a new merging scheme that would leave only the D&D monsters meeting general notability with their own articles (dragons, beholders, etc.).

I'll add that somebody else brought up D&D classes. To put my time where my mouth is, I'll just add that despite not being overly familiar with the latest D&D stuff, I've been working on merging the less notable of those as well. Compare the old template's entries with the current Template:D&D character class (though the job is certainly not quite done yet!). SnowFire 19:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- And what good would merging do? I agree with 71.107.178.64's comment, that "people could easily find these articles by using the search engine, typing the name in the URL, following a link from another article, or looking at Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures" and that "they don't need to be condensed and merged into a single page."--ElminsterAumar 06:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dungeons & Dragons is a very notable RPG. I don't see how elements relating to it would be non-notable. Salvatore22 22:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because notability is not inherited. --Eyrian 22:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not an explanation, that's an assertion without supporting argument. FrozenPurpleCube 02:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the argument that notability is inherited is the assertion without supporting argument. Notability pertains to a particular topic, not its parent topic. If notability were inherited, the entire universe would be notable many ontological schemes. An individual topic needs to demonstrate its notability. That is right there in WP:NOTE. Where does it make the exception that an article doesn't if it's parent does?--Eyrian 02:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

He's right there - there is no such thing as inherent notability or non-notabilty for the children of a particular article. Of course, a group nomination like this for a specific subset of the children of a subjetc seems to border on the asumption of inherent non-notability. Artw 02:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that's how it goes. WP:NNOT is a failed proposal. Articles need to prove their notability, or be deleted. --Eyrian 02:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There we are in agreement. Are you changing your vote to relist so that can happen? Artw 03:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles have had years come up with sources. The policies about notability and verifiability have always been there. I simply don't believe the sources exist in this case. That's why they got {{afd1}} and not {{[[Template:|]]}}. --Eyrian 04:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, notability is in this case nothing but a practice on Wikipedia. Is it definitive? Nope. In fact, it's explicitly stated that "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." . There's a reason for that. In any case, you may disagree with these creatures being notable because D&D is notable BUT the way to argue with that isn't going to be suited by saying "Notability isn't inherited" as if it were some sort of magic mantra. I'm afraid it isn't. Thus I continue to recommend that instead of simply reciting what's said elsewhere, you articulate a reasoning applicable to the specific situation. FrozenPurpleCube 03:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and my common sense tells me that random monsters from D&D don't deserve their own articles. And you've failed to provide any reason for an exception that doesn't fall apart on a cursory analysis. --Eyrian 04:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I don't think anybody here is going to say that "random monsters from D&D" merit their own articles. I think many people would accept a criteria that is more specific than that. Perhaps you'd care to start a discussion on the subject itself? FrozenPurpleCube 14:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite willing to do so, but I really ~~don't~~ think it would boil down to a restatement of notability. --Eyrian 17:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, whatever you think might happen, it would still be a better way to cover the issue in a way other than AFD. Try some of the existing wikiprojects, or the village pump. FrozenPurpleCube 17:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I made a mistake in my post. The correct meaning should now be clear. Notability is the bar that has been set, and it is the bar that always should be set. It's got very good reasons behind it, and exceptions should be made in individual cases, not general ones. --Eyrian 17:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep. These creatures appear in many novels that are best-sellers and are read by millions of people. They are a strong part of both the plot and the background. Deleting them would deprive many people of their wish to learn more about these creatures. Each creature article also contains a list of references where these creatures are featured in, so that people know were to look to learn more about them.--ElminsterAumar 06:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty clearly User:71.107.174.221. --Eyrian 06:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so now that your "arguments" are failing, you are relying on ad hominem attacks? I am not User:71.107.174.221. True, this is a new account I have just created, but I already know a bit about editing Wikipedia, and D&D is a fairly well-known subject, to say the least. Excuse me for stumbling upon your bad-faithed deletion nomination.--ElminsterAumar 06:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is that ad-hominem? I'm not saying you're a bad person; just that you've already contributed here. How convenient that for every one of your first contributions, you just stumbled upon a page I've been working on...--Eyrian 06:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so I suppose you are not familiar with the Special:Contributions/Eyrian page?--ElminsterAumar 06:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultus Ferox is clearly less notable than these D&D creature articles. Much more people know about these creatures than that German band.--ElminsterAumar 06:24, 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. PeaceNT 11:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

João Carlos Heidemann[edit]

Youth players are not notable as per WP:BIO and WikiProject Football standars —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 18:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Phew! Yes, these all appear to be youth players who have not made a senior appearance in a fully professional league and thus fails WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 21:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have not played in a fully professional league. Number 5 7 08:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can you imagine if every non-pro player was in Wikipedia? 70.21.254.188 18:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Corpx 03:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and Atlético PR is just one Brazilian FC. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:09, 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 16:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenio Corti[edit]

Article about a supposedly popular living author. Completely unsourced. There is an article about him on Italian Wikipedia, but that too is completely unsourced. This article (the English one) has been tagged as unsourced since June. --Tony Sidaway 18:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems pretty notable to me. There are plenty of reviews of his work on his website. Zagalejo 20:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be a bunch of Italian-language reviews of his books out there, though I can't add any to the article since I don't speak Italian. There's also this English-language review of his novel The Red Horse. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further review, I'm going to go ahead and say Keep here. For a non-English writer, there are an awful lot of library copies of his work: The Red Horse, The Last Soldiers of the King, etc. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, quite a good English-language review of The Last Soldiers of the King here, by a prof at CUNY. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable Italian Author. His most famous book, The Red Horse, has been translated into six languages, including Japanese. Nick mallory 23:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Authors who have books translated into multiple languages are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. But article should be expanded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.21.254.188 (talk) 19:01, August 22, 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 speedy delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Naturist Society[edit]

Reason the page should be deleted This article is about Naturism and has no information about the Greek Naturist Society, see discussion Andreas ^(T) 18:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am unable to evaluate this article. It's all Greek to me. --Evb-wiki 18:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comment made me look at the article, and then I nearly burst out laughing. --Rocksanddirt 19:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is an exact copy of the Article in Greek WP:el:Γυμνισμός. The Word "Γυμνισμός" (Gymnismos) translates as Nudism, and the content is indeed about Naturism/Nudism. There is no point in translating this content because it is redundant with the Naturism and the Nudism articles. At the end of the article, links to the Greek Naturist Society's Web site are added together with some promotinal text copied from that Web site. This promotional text has been translated into English. Andreas ^(T) 19:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe {{db-notenglish}} may cover such a situation. --Evb-wiki 19:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the promotinal content and then labeled it {{db-notenglish}} Andreas ^(T) 21:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if there is no salvageable content. --Dhartung | Talk 19:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - This is the english wikipedia. --Rocksanddirt 19:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you say delete in Greek? If this is redundant content, and seems to be just plugging the Greek Naturist Society, then we don't really need it. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:35, 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 – no sources to back up status/accomplishments, so it clearly fails WP:BIO. - KrakatoaKatie 06:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fazle Rabbi[edit]

This article is supposed to be about a highly accomplished writer--it gives a long list of his supposed accomplishments. However I'm concerned at the inadequacy of the sources. It doesn't seem to be verifiable. Perhaps we should pay some attention to finding out whatever about this fellow is verifiable and removing the rest, or alternatively we should delete it. --Tony Sidaway 18:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources. If the author adds proper sources I change to a Keep. 70.21.254.188 18:56, 22 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, --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 02:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads like a self-resume, dubious notability. --Hooperbloob 03:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:V Unschool 04:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Found a source - wiki article article seems to be a copyedit of that with extra information, some of which needs to be removed - Fosnez 11:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even the source Fosnez found isn't reliable, and a politician by the same name seems to have generated much more news. This Mr Rabbi is apparently non-notable. --Huon 16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like Mr Rabbi fails WP:BIO to me. Particularly, attending "conferences and international seminars" is hardly a claim of notability. DWaterson 22:07, 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 World's largest airlines.. -- John Reaves 16:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest airlines by category[edit]

This article is essentially a duplication of World's largest airlines. The other article has just had a speedy keep in response to a proposal for deletion, so this article with almost identical information (not laid out as well) and talk page is redundant. Harry was a white dog with black spots 18:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete add any info the original article is missing, then delete. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 18:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per "Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource" Corpx 03:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that this article is a duplicate of one that we have already determned should be kept. Harry was a white dog with black spots 09:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, in that case, speedy delete for duplicate content and tagged Corpx 16:12, 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 WP:NOR and lacking any verifiable sources, then redirect to Cult film. The article is inaccurate, as pointed out by Tony Sideaway, and it duplicates parts of Cult film and Cult following. The first AfD go-round elicited pledges to clean it up and improve it, but it didn't happen. - KrakatoaKatie 06:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cult classic[edit]

A long list was recently removed from this article and used to create a separate article, List of cult classics, which is now listed for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult classics). But I'm concerned about this article. The article seems to be the opinion of just one or two people, seems to have been written from a particular national perspective, and has been marked as unsourced since last listed for deletion in May, 2007. The article seems to have been written in such a vague way that it would be possible to replace the term "cult classic" with "popular film, book, play or novel" throughout.

It's poorly researched. For instance, Dumb and Dumber was far from the start of Jim Carrey's career; he had enjoyed considerable mainstream success in Ace Ventura: Pet Detective and The Mask. And his co-star Jeff Daniels was by then a Hollywood veteran, enjoying critical acclaim in Woody Allen movies such as The Purple Rose of Cairo, and box office success in Arachnophobia. It seems that this article has consistently failed to attract knowledgeable writers who can do justice to the subject matter, and we'd probably be better off without an article here. --Tony Sidaway 18:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, irretrievably OR. Corvus cornix 18:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete; I fully support the nominator's concerns, although it seems harsh to delete something that could be cleaned up. OTOH, OR would probably always be an issue with this article ('cult classic' gets bandied around an awful lot, and is rather a difficult term to pin down)... and once the OR is removed we'd be left with little more than a dictionary definition. EyeSerene^TALK 19:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for cleanup Considering that there are entire books about "cult classics" ([9], [10], [11]), it's hard to say that this topic is "irretrievably OR." With enough incentive, this could be made into a featured article, like B movie. Zagalejo 19:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was tried in May, at the end of the last AfD. The term B movie is well defined: a movie made on a low budget, originally intended to be viewed as a second feature in a double bill. It seems that the problem with this subject is that it is very vaguely defined. --Tony Sidaway 19:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was tried, and where? I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with that link. Zagalejo 19:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The link points to the first AfD, four months ago, where this was stubbified and nobody has made it any better since then. Corvus cornix 20:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:There is no deadline. There are certainly published attempts to define the term, as suggested by the book descriptions above. Zagalejo 20:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zagalejo's comments; I may be a film nerd, but I can't believe this is on AfD.... I'll look for refs when I get back to my uni's libraray (we have a great film section) Zidel333 19:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What's so hard about an article with entirely subjective criteria with absolutely no reliable sources, being deleted? Corvus cornix 20:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC), film nerd[reply]
Keep Content disputes should be cleared up on RfC on its talk page, not on AfD. Topic is certainly notable. Wl219 19:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOR is policy. Corvus cornix 20:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this isn't irretrievably OR. Definitions of the term do seem to exist. Zagalejo 20:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zagalejo, W1219 et al. I can fix it when I am back from vacation/wikibreak. Bearian 20:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the term itself is reasonably well-used, and as such, it is reasonable to cover it to some extent. I suggested redirecting this to cult fiction but that's been merged into Cult following instead. Which itself needs references. Sigh. This isn't a deletion problem. It's a making of decent articles one. FrozenPurpleCube 20:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am sorry that I have to agree on this one, but there's no excuse for an unsourced article about cult classics. So many books have been written about the subject that original research is unnecessary. The only decent part of the article is the popular joke. Mandsford 22:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So many books have been written about the subject that original research is unnecessary. No argument there! Which means that deletion is not the answer; clean-up is. If a topic is deemed notable, we don't usually delete it unless there there are problems with libel or copyright infringement. Unfortunately, I do not own any of the relevant books on this subject, so there's not much I can do myself. A couple editors have expressed interest in adding refs, so let's see what they come up with. Zagalejo 22:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The topic of this article overlaps with that of Cult following, and I don't see anything here that isn't, or couldn't be, treated in that article or in Cult film. Moreover, I don't think a viable description of a cult classic that would distinguish one from any other cult film or TV show or whatever is possible (as is shown by List of cult classics, which is very much a mixed bag). WP:OR seems a valid argument against this particular classification of cult phenomena. Deor 00:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had initially thought that cult following was just about the fans themselves, but the scope of that article appears to be much broader. So, OK, I'll concede that we don't really need a separate article for "cult classic". I'm still opposed to outright deletion, though, since "cult classic" is obviously viable as a search term and can be turned into a redirect. Zagalejo 01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; First, it's original research. Second, it mostly duplicates Cult film and parts of Cult following. How many different articles do we need on the same topic? Masaruemoto 04:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of this deals with film, a topic much better handled in Cult film. It is not terribly well written and I'm not sure anything in it is merge-worthy. Either redirect to Cult following or create a dismabig page linking to Cult film and the other relevant pages. Sci girl 04:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm pretty sure turning this into a redirect to cult film wouldn't do any harm. Ichormosquito 05:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Merge and redirect with Cult film. My following statement still stands, but most of the good encyclopedic content is already covered there. Are you shitting me? The term 'cult classic" is absolutely one of the top five most essential terms used in film studies and criticism. Get rid of the listcruft, and keep/expand a prose discussion of the history and use of the term. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cult film per above. Fireplace 03:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect This article, in its current state is completely original research and I see nothing to get it past WP:NEO Corpx 03:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because someone thinks it's poorly researched and doesn't like the list the whole lot should be removed? Poorly researched? Why don't we start going around all the other poorly researched pages aswell then and start deleting them! Can't we please just have a group of people try and make a better and more informative list please? I'm sure it could be a lot of help to people in the future. If not, can we try and make a list of genuine cult films elsewhere please? TeNova 12:22, 24 August, 2007 (GMT)
Keep It really just needs some citations added and general clean-up to make it into a strong keep.Salvatore22 22:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Cult Classics page! It really doesn't fall into other catagories as well as some people should like. Besides that, the reasons that other people list are completely bogus. People have already volunteered to clean it up as soon as possible, so at least give them a chance to before tearing it down!!! As it was already mentioned, Wikipedia would be half gone if all the articles that are 'poorly researched' were deleted, then we would be left with hardly any articles! Keep the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.178.181 (talk) 16:27, August 26, 2007 (UTC) — 71.3.178.181 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 18:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Lab Records[edit]

Non-notable label that fails to establish any notability Lugnuts 18:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Meets several speedy deletion critera. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 21:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP (7 Google hits for "Rock Lab Records"; not a criterion in itself, but not promising....). -- MarcoTolo 22:03, 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 Mr.Z-man 01:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sit on My Face[edit]

Delete - prod disputed based on the "iconic" status of Monty Python. WHile the Pythons are indeed highly notable, that notability is not inherited by every single thing they've ever done. The song does not appear to have been the substantial subject of reliable sources and thus is not independently notable. It also fails the proposed notability guideline for songs as it did not chart. Otto4711 18:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N Shruti14 (^T/C\^S/M) 18:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This nomination is concurrent with the nomination of four other Monty Python-related articles:
I shall voice my opinion on the nomination later, suffice now to mention it was I who removed the prod. __meco 20:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough to pass the bar. It was mentioned as a 'rousing anthem' in the Washington Post, and an 'obvious fan favorite' in the San Francisco Chronicle. The Seattle Times referred to it as a 'familiar' Python skit and PopMatters referred to it as a "Python Classic". It was featured in the Concert for George as one of Harrison's favorites. While I agree we should be careful to take the canon of a notable artist on a case-by-case basis, I think this one can stay. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 20:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - merely being mentioned in a review of a show or being noted in an interview does not constitute coverage that is substnatially about the song, which is the standard. They also performed Sit on My Face or George Harrison really liked it and the like are not instances of substantial coverage of the topic. Otto4711 21:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These quotes are from reliable sources that attest to the song's notability, not by virtue of "in-depth" coverage, but rather the choice of language in their description. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 21:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me where at WP:N or WP:MUSIC it says that passing mentions establish notability based on the words used in the passing reference? Otto4711 23:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eliz81. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The legal threats by the estate of Gracie Fields to have it removed from the album makes it notable. Dbromage [Talk] 01:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention in the article of these supposed threats. Otto4711 01:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned in Monty Python's Contractual Obligation Album where the song first appeared. The article can be cleaned up and referenced. Dbromage [Talk] 01:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The song is apparently banned on US radio and the FCC has fined at least one station for playing it.[12][13] Dbromage [Talk] 01:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And more coverage that the FCC finds the song to be indecent.[14][15] Dbromage [Talk] 02:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also cited in Taboo Tunes: A History of Banned Bands & Censored Songs by Peter Blecha.[16] Dbromage [Talk] 02:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable artist and well known song. Considering it was originally released over 25 years ago it's still reasonably well known as attested to by the sources, written in the last 5. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All four links posted above only give 1 line, trivial coverage of this. This does not constitute as significant coverage Corpx 03:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I do not think it is the intent of the "non-trivial coverage" requirement that a source must be entirely about the subject in order to qualify. Rather, the requirement provides a way of gauging whether there is enough material to write an article. I think that the sources about the FCC's reaction, the various reviews, and an issue regarding the French translation of the song noted in this article in The Guardian are enough to justify erring on the side of inclusion. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete – clear consensus. - KrakatoaKatie 07:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silly Job Interview[edit]

Delete - prod disputed based on the "iconic" nature of the source program. The article clearly fails WP:PLOT as it is nothing but a plot summary of a Monty Python sketch. The individual sketch is not independently notable and the notability of Monty Python is not inherited by all of its sketches. Otto4711 18:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This nomination is concurrent with the nomination of four other Monty Python-related articles:
I shall voice my opinion on the nomination later, suffice now to mention it was I who removed the prod. __meco 20:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to How to Irritate People, the first place it appeared. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's this guy, named Otto, who does a nomination, and then another guy named Meco says that there are other articles nominated and that he'll voice his opinion later, and an Indian chief named Hit-bull-win-steak says it should be merged, and then I come in and describe the whole thing for you, the reader. The entire Silly Job Interview sketch is recounted by the author; I liked the original better. Mandsford 22:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Hit bull, win steak. The sketch predates Monty Python's Flying Circus. Dbromage [Talk] 01:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources giving coverage & failing WP:FICT / WP:EPISODE Corpx 03:37, 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 11:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afonso da Cruz Araújo Junior[edit]

Youth players are not notable as per WP:BIO and WikiProject Football standars —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 17:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. May be added later if player meets WP:BIO & WikiProject Football standards. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 18:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, delete per nom. Bring back if he does play in a fully professional league per WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 21:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played in a fully professional league. Number 5 7 08:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; nn per WP:BIO and WP:Football. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:14, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Hilter and the Minehead by-election[edit]

Delete - prod disputed on the basis of the "iconic status" of Monty Python. I certainly do not dispute that Monty Python is highly notable but since notability is not inherited it does not follow that every single sketch from every single episode also is. This individual sketch is not notable on its own and the article is also a clear violation of WP:PLOT as it is nothing but a description/plot summary. Otto4711 17:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This nomination is concurrent with the nomination of four other Monty Python-related articles:
I shall voice my opinion on the nomination later, suffice now to mention it was I who removed the prod. __meco 20:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable skit, couldn't find reliable sources to establish notability. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 20:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete George Carlin once observed that there's nothing more boring than hearing someone else describe a dream they had last night. But George hadn't read THIS article. Mandsford 22:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails to establish sufficient notability. Zouavman Le Zouave 23:11, 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. PeaceNT 11:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Love Song[edit]

Delete - disputed prod. There is no notability for this song, as it has not been substantially the subject of reliable sources. It also fails the proposed guideline for songs at WP:MUSIC. The notability of Monty Python does not mean that everything they've ever performed is notable. Redirecting to the album article is also satisfactory but since the prod has been disputed, best to bring it here. Otto4711 17:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more info is added and passes WP:N Shruti14 (^T/C\^S/M) 17:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While this is one of my favorites, it pretty clearly fails WP:MUSIC, and the article itself is mostly a list of STD's. MastCell ^Talk 18:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This nomination is concurrent with the nomination of four other Monty Python-related articles:
I shall voice my opinion on the nomination later, suffice now to mention it was I who removed the prod. __meco 20:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MastCell. Couldn't find those reliable sources. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 20:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The original author of "Medical love song" mentioned all the STD's and made it rhyme and set it to music. This article is even better, though, because it EXPLAINS the joke to you. Mandsford 22:33, 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 – clear consensus. - KrakatoaKatie 07:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurant Abuse/Cannibalism[edit]

Delete - prod removed by editor stating that "It's Monty Python so no rules apply." Since the last time I checked, Wikpedia is not an anarchist site, rules do apply to this article, and it specifically violates the rule WP:PLOT. The article is a plot description of a Monty Python sketch which is not notable outside the show. The unquestionable notability of Monty Python's Flying Circus is not inherited by every five-minute sketch from every single episode. Otto4711 17:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shruti14 (talk • contribs)
Comment. This nomination is concurrent with the nomination of four other Monty Python-related articles:
I shall voice my opinion on the nomination later, suffice now to mention it was I who removed the prod. __meco 20:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But before it's deleted, please tell us what happened after they went to intermission. Was there a cartoon sequence, or did they say, "And now for something completely different"? I don't have YouTube, so I need this. Mandsford 22:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Danaman5 00:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Especially in light of the recently-concluded Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Dragons creatures, it seems there are reasonable disagreements regarding the encyclopedic notability of these creatures. As the article is sourced, policy does not demand its deletion, and the discussion below offers no definitive result. Xoloz 13:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Succubus (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Succubus (Dungeons & Dragons)

Nonnotable example of a fictional demon. Fails to have any substantial real-world impact, reported in reliable sources. Eyrian 17:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete - trivial gamecruft. IPSOS (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - seems like a reasonable article on a long standing D&D monster with classical roots. Possibly a merger should be considered with a broader subject (Succubi in RPGs, perhaps?) if such a thing exists. Artw 18:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment The_succubus_in_fiction might be a candidater for a merger, though Eyrian recently blanked that and replaced it with a redirect. Artw 21:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirecting an article is hardly "blanking". --Eyrian 21:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Significant creature within the D&D game, based on creature from mythology, that has been around from the start. BOZ 18:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you derive that significance? Please read WP:NOTE. --Eyrian 18:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete and/or merge with related D&D article --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 18:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Per BOZ and Artw.--Robbstrd 21:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Succubus in fiction article. there'll be published stuff somewhere.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I don't believe it. --Eyrian 22:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've seen what you consider to be likely or unlikely to have independent material out there and am concerned that you have jumped to conclusions in the past. The world of published material really is quite huge. No specific material jumps to mind straightaway but on the balance of what I know about the game, the creature and other material I am pretty sure there will be something. A more constructive way to improve wikipedia is by using notability tags rather than jumping to AfD. This approach is proving disruptive and upsetting to many users and will ultimately undermine WPs growth.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found it disruptive at all. All of Wikipedia's good articles continue humming along just fine. I know these games well enough, and I'm equally certain that there is nothing of importance. The succubus is a minor monster in D&D, quite aside form the signature few that it developed and popularised. --Eyrian 22:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Just because you are not interested in Dungeons & Dragons does not mean that D&D-related articles are not notable. Clearly people who have zero amount of fame or are only famous in their neighborhoods are not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia, even an online encyclopedia with hundreds of thousands of articles and a seemingly unlimited amount of space; that's what user pages are for. Fan fiction is also usually not considered notable. These articles, however, are notable. There are hundreds of thousands of other people, perhaps even millions, who are interested in Dungeons & Dragons. Let's look at the advantages and disadvantages of keeping or deleting these articles.

Advantages of keeping: These are creatures that frequently appear in numerous popular novels (such as the best-selling and widely popular Drizzt Do'Urden novels, as well as hundreds of other novels) and games (computer and video games and also old-fashioned pen, paper, and dice games); these articles have helpful, interesting, and detailed background information for those wishing to know more about the creatures; and the casual person browsing Wikipedia who knows nothing of the subject but wants to can easily learn by reading these articles or by simply scanning the first paragraph (for example, I was interested in the Star Wars Expanded Universe but knew absolutely nothing about it, so I read various articles that some editors are want to call "not notable" or "fancruft" and quickly became quite educated on the subject).

Disadvantages of keeping: It increases Wikipedia's bandwidth by an infinitesimal amount, or perhaps the subjects of these creature articles might feel offended by how they are represented in the articles and sue for libel. Also, perhaps some religious zealots might think these articles are blasphemy.

Advantages of deleting: Are there any? Perhaps appeasing editors who like to delete things or have a grudge against fiction, or perhaps to follow a guideline such as Wikipedia:Notability or WP:FICT. But how will that benefit Wikipedia?

Disadvantages of deleting: Basically, people will be deprived of everything I mentioned in "Advantages of keeping."

Merging: Not a good idea. This would create a giant page that would take forever to load and, when loaded, would slow down computers. Some might advise greatly condensing the information so that the page of merges is smaller, but that is completely unnecessary. People could easily find these articles by using the search engine, typing the name in the URL, following a link from another article, or looking at Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures. They don't need to be condensed and merged into a single page.--71.107.178.64 00:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's one way to add an outside source, and perhaps make the D&D succubus article at least slightly more notable. Wasn't there at least one major succubus character in the Planescape computer game? Maybe someone would want to add something about that to the article, if I'm remembering correctly. I doubt it will satisfy the editor seeking deletion, but what the hey. 24.136.11.57 04:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her name is Fall-From-Grace. You can read about her here. Turlo Lomon 08:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree with the reason for nomination. Addition reasons per Boz. Turlo Lomon 08:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd this is mentioned in a number of non Wizards sources, probably including the Book of Erotic Fantasy. Guildhouse Games made a campaign called "The Succubus Bride." It's pretty significant as far as tabletop gaming monsters are concerned. Sci girl 08:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about the general article about the demon. This is about the specific Dungeons and Dragons incarnation, which simply doesn't have such evidence. --Eyrian 12:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- The adventure I mentioned is intended for use with the Dungeons and Dragons core rulebook. It seems self-defeating to exclude non-Wizards sources from this discussion because they aren't Dungeons and Dragons branded, but demand independent sources.Sci girl 04:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be true if we were talking about a different article, but this is about specifically the Dungeons and Dragons incarnation of the Succubus. Therefore, a source must explicitly refer to that particular game. And yes, it's highly unlikely that such a source exists. That's why this article should be deleted. --Eyrian 13:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    - I don't understand how a campaign stating "Requires the use of the Dungeons & Dragons(R) Player's Handbook, Third Edition, published by Wizards of the Coast" doesn't explicitly refer to Dungeons and Dragons. Sci girl 01:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, no. The campaign module, being published by WotC, is not an independent source.The Succubus Bride may or may not refer to the D&D succubus, which I find highly unlikely unless it's licensed by WotC. --Eyrian 04:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
        How can it be both not independent and not refer to Dungeons and Dragons? As I stated before, it is published by Guildhouse Games, not by Wizards of the Coast; however it is explicitly intended for use with the three core rulebooks. I believe the succubus in it is from the Monster Manual, maybe advanced with a few character levels. I can check that. Sci girl 04:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, I'm sorry, I was confused; I thought you were referring to separate products. --Eyrian 04:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggest that this discussion be linked to the global nomination of D&D creatures higher up the page. Either all go, or they need to be considered on merits. -- Simon Cursitor 13:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (copied from larger debate) - Notability is a guideline, not a rule. In my opinion, the proposing editor is trying to prove a point, which is that the fine points of the notability guideline are mandates from on high as to which articles are worthy and which are not. If the proposing editor can come up with a secondary reason than "we must have secondary sources!" to delete this batch, then he may have a point, but if that's all he's got then his argument is weak. Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, and in this case the consensus is clear. BOZ 15:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/transwiki WP is not a game guide and no notability is established from independent reliable sources. Barrage of votes from a wikiproject should not be a reason to keep an article failing WP:N Corpx 03:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Dragons creatures. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep canonical d&d creature. --Polaron | Talk 01:30, 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 12:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Trust Portfolios[edit]

Article consists of promotional material for non-notable company Jeremy Tobacman 17:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless proven notable Shruti14 (^T/C\^S/M) 17:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline speedy as advertising. In any case, fails WP:ORG and is essentially promotional in nature. MastCell ^Talk 18:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, the article has been around for a long time, but as a non-notable company, it still fails WP:CORP. - MarcoTolo 22:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. — Malcolm (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DVD-R Tools[edit]

nn product without any 3rd party sources showing notability Carlossuarez46 17:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:A7. No assertion of notability, or sourcing. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A7 per Bfigura, tagged Rackabello 17:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An admin decided it was not speedy delete, but it does not assert its notability. Tiddly Tom 18:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:A7. _TheIslander 18:05, 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. PeaceNT 12:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britain's Greenest College[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Britain's Greenest College

More an unreferenced news item than an article. Merge into Pershore College or what? -- RHaworth 17:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, WP:OR and WP:COATRACK. No verifiable sources, and seems to exist solely to promote the college (an article which is also under-sourced). Also, I'd be against a merge unless someone sources the claims made in the article. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a press release. This is akin to having Academy Award for Best Actor be about Forest Whitaker. This is just one of several awards given out by HEEP and there is possibly an article in the Green Gown Awards generally, but this is not salvageable in that regard. --Dhartung | Talk 19:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here to justify an article (or more than one line in the college's article). Dominictimms 14:26, 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. TW is unwise in this case, as the neologism is unsourced, and potentially offensive. (All Wiktionary entries should be verifiable, of course; but, it is especially important for possible slurs to be well-documented. Xoloz 13:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Niggin[edit]

Dubious neologism Rackabello 17:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary, if worth saving, otherwise, Delete. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 17:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make Wiktionary entry Shruti14 ^{t c s} 18:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically what a transwiki is. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 21:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki Move - To wikitionary. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism. Not keen on a TW - the only source I could find was the Urban Dictionary (not exactly a reliable source, eh?). -- MarcoTolo 22:10, 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 keep. There was a consensus for the article to be kept and this position is underpinned by some significant media coverage. TerriersFan 22:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have called what I read below as "a consensus". Maarten1963 (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elspeth Campbell[edit]

Mild delete as this is a relatively uncertain area. Her claim to notability is as the wife of the leader of a political party. Of all the other British post war third party leaders' wives, the only one with an article is Marion Stein (the second Mrs Jeremy Thorpe) whose notability rests on her musical career rather than her marriage. There are no articles on Sarah Kennedy (that page is for another woman), Jane Ashdown, Deborah Owen, Jennifer Jenkins, Laura Grimond or Caroline Thorpe. Timrollpickering 17:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I would say mildly notable as the wife of one of Britain's 3 largest parties. I see no harm in having an article on her. --UpDown 17:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a brief description to Menzies Campbell. Plausible search term, but no obvious claim to notability. --Dhartung | Talk 19:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for her father and husband and as the article states she has input into her husband's career. Also is a personality in her own right. Has multiple non-trivial references so keep Kernel Saunters 23:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not transferable. Just knowing (or sleeping with) somebody notable is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 04:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Multiple good ref's mean she meets the basic criteria - she is notable in her own right Kernel Saunters 09:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per coverage from significant sources. Just like Laura Bush or any other first lady, I think the significant coverage puts her past WP:N Corpx 03:34, 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City Center Plaza[edit]

Microstub on a dead mall in Wisconsin. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. Tagged for orphan since April. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:N] and has been orphaned and is a microstub Shruti14^{t c m s} 18:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:N, would have failed rejected guideline WP:MALL. Edison 13:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N Harlowraman 20:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Champlain Centre North[edit]

One of two non-notable malls in Plattsburgh. Fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS. I've tried to source this article before with no luck.

I am also listing its defunct twin:

Champlain Centre South (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Champlain Centre South was previously nominated in a group nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre 2000 Nov 22,2006 (Keep) and Apr 27, 2007 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Champlain Centre South(No consensus). I do not think it should be bundled with the other mall in this nomination. Edison 15:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither article asserts notability and the former looks more like a directory list. Vegaswikian 06:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find a statement of the gross leasable are of the Champlain Centre North mall, but just adding up the retail space of the present anchors would equal at least a regional mall. Could not find articles with more than run of the mill coverage of routine events (Santa arrives, etc). Needs better sourcing to show satisfaction of WP:N or WP:ORG. The Souith mall should be separately listed. Edison 14:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:N Harlowraman 20:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Run Mall[edit]

Non-notable mall in Vermont, fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regional mall with 447,115 square feet of GLA. Nothing to show it is unusually notable. Edison 18:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Rutland (town), Vermont. Doesn't deserve its own article but is mentioned elsewhere so a redirect should at least exist. shoeofdeath 20:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mall not notable.Harlowraman 20:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge (Star Trek)[edit]

Unencyclopedic, doesn't require its own article. Could possibly be rolled into a Star Trek or Starship main article. Problems with WP:V Rackabello 17:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no real-world impact. --Eyrian 17:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
delete Trekcruft. Artw 18:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless expanded per WP:FICT. I believe, as the main sets for Trek series, these are notable and have received sufficient real-world coverage, but the article at hand does not touch on this. --Dhartung | Talk 19:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 00:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with User:Artw: delete, with option to transwiki to a trek-wiki -- Simon Cursitor 13:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and lack of real world sources Corpx 03:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. The members of Trek-wiki can write their own. Burntsauce 17:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Memory Alpha (the Star Trek wiki) already has a detailed article on this, so there's no need to transwiki. I believe that reliable secondary sources exist: for example, here's the set designer discussing the design of the bridge on the BBC's (now-defunct) Cult website. I vaguely recall hearing something about the U.S. Navy studying the layout of the Enterprise bridge and copying it for a monitoring station or something, but I can't find sources for that; perhaps more dedicated Trekkies will know what I'm talking about and find sources. If those sources can be found, the article should probably be kept; if not, deletion would be no great loss. If the article is deleted and its creators subsequently find sources, recreation shouldn't be a problem. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not cite any sources. --Coppertwig 17:48, 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 delete. PeaceNT 12:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Meriwether[edit]

Unsourced, no assertion of notability whatsoever. Could be a WP:CSD#A7 candidate actually. Hús ö nd 16:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:A7 and WP:OR. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in lacking notability Corpx 03:32, 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 12:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Gambolputty[edit]

Delete - prod removed by anon without comment. This fails WP:PLOT in that it is a plot description of a Monty Python character/sketch that has no real-world notability. Otto4711 16:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, although if there's a "List of silly names in Monty Python" or something like that, this would be a prime candidate. Given that he's not a recurring character, there's not enough that can be said about him for an article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of real world coverage Corpx 03:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see anything in the article to suggest the topic deserves separate treatment — no evidence of cultural impact, no real world coverage. Unlike Dead Parrot, say, I can't think of a time this has been referenced outside of the original Python episode. Not notable. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 08:06, 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. Neil ム 11:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald James MacGregor[edit]

The page fails to meet WP:BIO and WP:N - there is a single source which only lists his works, which were produced between the 1920s and 1960s, and have apparently not been produced since. From my interpretation of WP:BIO, volume of work is not a criteria for notability unless I am mis-reading it. In additon, all text on the page barring the list of works is unsourced and looks a lot like WP:OR without one. All of the external links found in the text are to the illustrators, which do not even appear to link to illustrations of MacGregor's books. Ultimately there is no significant coverage. It has met none of the criteria for WP:BIO, particularly none of the list of creative professionals (not widely cited, did not originate a new concept, no well-known work or body of work, and not a monument, exhibition, subject of critical attention or permanent collection. At minimum, to remain on wikipedia it would require significantly more sources than the entry in a library catalogue. WLU 16:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the opening sentence: "Little is yet known of Reginald James MacGregor". I'm pretty sure he's dead, so our chances of expanding the page further are probably minimal. WLU 16:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BIO should be applied carefully when dealing with historical persons as online resources can be extremely limited. In this instance MacGregor (or McGregor, both spellings are used, and usually with his initials R.J.) seems to have been a notable children's author of the interwar era and notability does not expire. Trim the WP:OR and leave as a stub. --Dhartung | Talk 21:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. :The mere fact that he had a long list of works published and re-published by well-known reputable publishers, and selling in large quantities over a long period, is in itself enough to establish notability, in my opinion. It doesn't matter that he's largely forgotten now, he was undoubtedly significant to many thousands of people over three decades. The 'single source' is the catalogue of the British Library, which really ought to be authoritative enough for Wikipedia. The fact that it's difficult to find more personal information about him shouldn't prevent WP having a basic article about him. On a similarly strict interpretation of the difficulty of finding personal information, we would have to delete the article about Homer, for example. And a similarly strict interpretation of criteria such as 'widely cited, originated new concept etc' would exclude any number of hugely successful but not critically well regarded authors (Harold Robbins, Jacqueline Susann, Jeffrey Archer, to name but a few). I agree that what there is in the article about him personally needs to be sourced, however. Why waste time and effort arguing about a small but useful article like this one? The time would be better spent deleting the many many unquestionably stupid or useless articles out there. This isn't one of them. Colonies Chris 21:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- Bduke 23:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- The coverage given by the British Library is trivial - it's just a list.
- With current sources, all you can reliably say about him is that he wrote these works.
- There is not a single reliable, secondary source providing information on him. If there were, I would not have AFD'ed the article.
- Print sources are valid, but no-one has volunteered them.
- Other articles don't apply. Further:
  - Homer has multitudes of secondary sources discussing him and his works.
  - Robbins has secondary sources [17], as does Susann [18], Archer has an article in The Guardian about him [19] and all three have had their works turned into films (Archer, Susann, Robbins) . WP:BIO does apply to all four and all four pass.
  - There's no sources saying he sold vast volumes of works or that his works were re-issued. If this is the case, provide a source saying so.
- WP:WAX - that other articles are problematic in no way impacts the deletion discussion of this one. If anyone turns up equally flawed articles, they should nominate them for deletion. As I have done. The argument that other articles do it has been recognized as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions because they do not address the reasons for the page being nominated in the first place. WP:NOT and WP:USEFUL both have thing to say about 'useful' pages - mere usefulness isn't encyclopedic. Stupid and useless articles can and do exist on wikipedia - Paris Hilton, Knife switch, Ottawa, Ontario numbered roads.
- Reginald James McGregor does turn up many more articles on google that relate to him as a playwright, but I still can't find anything substantial. I can't even find when and where he was born and died, and if the lead is any indication, it's unlikely that I or anyone else will ever turn anything up. WLU 23:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Wikipedia notability criteria for people depend heavily on secondary sources. With great devotion, and a lot of library work, someone might be able to come up with secondary sources on McGregor but there is no guarantee of success. I would not object to re-creation of the article if they were ultimately found. The article compares McGregor's novels with the work of Enid Blyton but she is way, way better known. EdJohnston 00:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Neil ム 11:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spartacus Enterprises[edit]

Contested prod. This article does nothing to establish the company's notability and currently reads like an ad--should probably be as notable as Good Vibrations or Babeland to have an article Katr67 16:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep while I search for sources. This is almost assuredly of local importance. If independent sources can be found then "reads like an ad" can be easily fixed. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll be willing to withdraw the nom if sources can be found. I'd do it myself, but I'm afraid what I might find would not be work safe. Katr67 23:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are numerous mentions small and large in the Willamette Week. Surely a company voted part of the Best of Portland in a reader's poll is notable? There are also some mentions in the Portland Mercury. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Best of...by reader's polls is not necessarily notable, depending on the poll--and the category. In this case, its "Best Naughty Attire (Local)" That last word is what does it. DGG (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Simply because something is only of regional importance, does not mean that it fails WP:N. But to assuage your doubts (hopefully), here are seven articles covering the company from AVN, the foremost adult industry media organization. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AVN links - shows coverage beyond the local region Corpx 03:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 11:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP and WP:N Harlowraman 20:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How does a company that has had significant coverage in multiple secondary sources fail WP:CORP? VanTucky ^(talk) 20:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. I'd reconsider my vote if sources were found by the close of the AfD. It is a concern that this company seems to get nearly all its coverage in the Portland area. The mentions at www.avn.com sound like reprinted press releases rather than stories written by a reporter. EdJohnston 00:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AVN often sounds like a booster because they try to be positive sounding. It's always tough writing about a vilified subject. But they are considered a source that is completely independent of commericial sex ventures, and do not reprint press releases. The fact that this company is a Portland metro area cultural institution is a strong plus for keeping the article. Normally, I lean towards deletionism (if you want to apply labels) but this company has been around so long in the area that it's like the Bono of the sex industry. So notable that one name only is required. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the 7 AVN links. After reading through them, I disagree that they're reprints of press releases. Yes, a number of them incorporate information from press releases, but I gathered the impression that they were not written by the company). — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, although it would be appreciated if the numerous sources and references provided in this discussion were to wander their way onto the article; if following their addition, there is still a feeling the article should be deleted, no prejudice towards discussion being reopened. Neil ム 11:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Brignell[edit]

Non-notable; fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. The only secondary sources ever provided are critical, and consist of links to Tim Lambert's blog and to brief coverage in the Skeptic's Dictionary. This is not "non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources." The article is a WP:COATRACK and POV fork to present Brignell's minoritarian views out of context. MastCell ^Talk 16:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete, based on Brignell being certainly less notable than Lambert William M. Connolley 16:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's literally nothing here. Primary sources like Brignell's self-published books and his personal web page can't sustain an article. wikipediatrix 18:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is poor, and POV-biased against the subject of the biography. But the solution is to fix it. The initial version[20] was actually quite good. Unfortunately, the solid informational content has been deleted, and replaced by almost nothing at all, except a couple of blatantly POV attacks on the subject of the biography. My vote is against deletion; rather, the article should be restored to its earlier, substantive, NPOV form. NCdave 21:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While the earlier version is indeed longer, it contains no additional secondary sources. It merely expounds at greater length on Brignell's views - so it suffers from the same lack of notability and compounds that problem by functioning as a POV fork and WP:COATRACK by regurgitating Brignell's minoritarian views out of context. The older version is actually less NPOV, because it gives more undue weight to his views without providing any independent sources to back up their notability. MastCell ^Talk 21:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 20:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His primary career was notable. For some reason, a recent ed. removed the discussion of it from the article. I have just restored it. That material is considered reliable--an official site is an adequate source. What he may have been doing since then--its a question of the reviews of his books. If he is regarded as an important guy who got things wrong, he's notable for that part also. But in any case he was formerly chair of his dept. at Southampton.-- among the information that was removed. I think it's been established that full professors and chairs of UK university departments are notable. The book he wrote then was removed also, and we can look for the other publications, but he would hardly have been appointed without them. southampton is a technologically oriented research university of very high order, and the information comes from its official site. , I consider the removal of this material as an accident, for otherwise it would have been an absurd attempt to sabotage the article by removing material showing unquestionable notability--absurd because it's still in the history, where anyone could see it and add it back, as I have done. I did not remove the questioned material about his subsequent activities. It's not necessary to show notability, and the eds. can dispute this part on the talk page, as I'm sure they will. DGG (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I am of the opinion that, per WP:PROF, even full professors require some sort of independent evidence of notability - and that is missing from all versions of the article. It would seem that the information removed from the article contained no independent or secondary sources, but simply a lengthy exposition of Brignell's views as sourced to his website. To me, the article fails WP:PROF either way, and I'd have nominated it whether or not that information had been removed. But DGG's comments do give me pause, because he always takes a very well-considered approach to AfD's. MastCell ^Talk 05:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for actual evidence for WP:PROF, there's the two published books, and the learned society fellowships. I'm working on a fuller list. the length exposition of his views in he orig. version bothered me too. i did not add it back when I added the academic documentation. DGG (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The books themselves don't convince me, although if the reviews and outside sources indicate that they're influential, that would be a different matter. The fellowships may satisfy the "notable award" provision, though I'm not entirely sure of that. MastCell ^Talk 20:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No more notable than a typical full professor at a research university (what we call Research I universities in the U.S.; don't know if the UK has a similar system). I strongly disagree that full professors and department chairs are prima facie notable. No secondary coverage outside his specialization. Articles on figures of borderline notability are serious BLP risks, as there are few people watching should they be vandalized or edited with malice. Raymond Arritt 03:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First holder of Chair at major university, now professor emeritus; two textbooks with a few citations on Google Scholar (7-10); I can't access his publication record, but as DGG points out, Southampton is one of the higher ranked UK universities for science & technology, and wouldn't give a Chair to someone without appropriate publications. His popular books, while apparently self-published, have decent sales figures; The Epidemiologists: Have They Got Scares for You! has an Amazon.co.uk rank of 271,452 [21]; Sorry, Wrong Number has one of 297,791 [22]. He gets a decent no of Google hits (16,800) for a retired professor, the great majority of the first few pages of which appear to refer to the subject. At least according to his website, his popular books have received several independent reviews in eg the Telegraph,[23] Times Higher Educational Supplement, & on many websites. He has also been used as an expert by eg BBC London.[24] I believe he not only meets WP:PROF, but also WP:BIO as an author. Espresso Addict 12:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if we find one more link to in-depth coverage such as the Telegraph's book review, he might make the cut. The BBC piece only features a passing mention. Sandstein 19:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's another review from the Telegraph,[25] plus some mentions there as an expert:[26],[27]; I can't find the Times HES review online, but it's quoted in full on Brignell's website, [28], along with others from Secure Computing & Journal of Economic Issues, and surely someone has access to check? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Espresso Addict (talk • contribs) 20:17, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Delete. For someone who is apparently mainly known for his controversial positions on scientific issues, one would expect much more substantial coverage by reliable sources, as opposed to the niche websites that are currently cited, if he were in fact notable. Sandstein 19:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that The Telegraph and The Times are "niche sources". They have a fairly large readership. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete Although I think he's worth covering and have worked extensively on the article, neither his own publications nor the rebuttals of his claims are reliable sources, which makes it impossible to write a decent article about his controversial positions in a way consistent with the rules of Wikipedia. His primary career isn't that notable.JQ 12:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brignell also notable as per his CV [[29]], at least two significant awards [[30]], and from [[31]]. Cited on BBC [[32]], book review [[33]], writes on spiked [[34]], [[35]]. Peroxisome^{I, personally, do not mean to take legal action against anyone on wikipedia} 19:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against recreation: his academic career may be notable (I don't see it in the articles Peroxisome cites, but his position suggests that he probably was), but his work since does not have independent external sources (the website is edited by him and the two books are published by "Brignell Associates" = SPA). I don't think his recent work is notable, and since that's what 90% of the article focuses on, it's best to delete. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Espresso Addict. These two Telegraph articles both cover him/his work non-trivially. They, combined with all of the other references, make a moderately good case for notability. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are also the following articles devoted solely to Brignell:
  - Gaitskell, Robert. "Smoking Facts Out Of Statistics", The Times Higher Education Supplement (March 8, 2002)
  - Sapsted, David. "Scientists 'using own cash to fund research'", The Times (London) (March 16, 1987)
- I can't find freely-available online versions, but they can be accessed via LexisNexis. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; if a expert comes, I will reconsider. Singu larity 18:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pressure extension[edit]

"Pressure extension" seems to be a known term in the engineering literature on natural gas. As a very specific topic, the article might be worth a merger to pressure measurement or similar articles. However, the present article is not suited for a merger. Its sources are very imprecisely cited, and it is almost incomprehensible (not even the symbols in the formulas are defined completely). In search of an expert, I contacted WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Technology, and WikiProject Energy, plus the original author; but I reached no one who could do a cleanup, or say where the article should be merged. So, as a last resort, I propose to delete the article as unverifiable. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 16:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like trying to get expert attention and do a rewrite would be more appropriate than sending it here. Artw 18:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As already stated, I tried, but did not find any expert who could even tell me whether this topic is notable, let alone a rewrite. --B. Wolterding 09:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. Delete, on the asumption that if it turns out to be important someone will cretae a better article on it. Artw 15:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a random extract from an engineering manual. Without sources or more context, it fails WP:V. Leibniz 13:19, 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 move. Note that during moving the article, someone managed to remove the AFD header from the article, which is not a good thing to do, and would technically invalidate this AFD. Neil ム 11:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of inventions shown on American Inventor[edit]

Most of the inventions in the article are not notable. The article needs to be moved to List of finalists on American Inventor, and list the 16 total who got to spend 50,000 dollars in season 1 and 2. Codelyoko193 _TalkEditor Review 19:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I said when I first nominated the page for AFD, lumping together a bunch of non-notable things does not make them add up to something notable. - TexasAndroid 15:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If you are recommending a move you might want to take a look at WP:RM. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move per nom. Slartibartfast (19 92) 20:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good news, Codelyoko. The article has now been renamed List of finalists on American Inventor. As to your suggestion that the author now cut it down to fit your personal preference, do it yourself. Mandsford 22:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This content is more appropriate for a fan site, rather than an encyclopedia. There is no notability for these "inventions" Corpx 03:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I have a really novel suggestion. Merge it with American Inventor. If the show survives several more seasons, the finalists can be moved to a sub page, but for now, the main AI article is not huge. - Crockspot 23:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MergeThe final four are already on that page, the only thing here is a tad more info and the final 12 finalists, which I'm not sure are particularly important. i ^said 00:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both Mansford's suggestion to keep and the above two suggestions to merge look pretty reasonable. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:03, 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. Singu larity 18:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Pierce Bridge[edit]

Contested prod. Article offers no information beyond location and no sources. Appears to be nothing special or notable in construction. Google has 21 unique hits without Wikipedia, a couple of local media reports on renovations, the rest as a place marker in directions or stories about bodies being pulled out of the river. Nuttah68 16:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not from the area, so I'm not intimately familiar with the bridge, but based on a little research the bridge appears to be at least 750 ft long. This is a rather sizable distance and hence seems like a significant structure. Right now the article is short, but I've seen stubs that are shorter. This article can be expanded to include the history of the bridge and the namesake (General Pierce) could be explored. VerruckteDan 16:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 750ft is nowhere near significant in terms of bridges and any notability General Pierce may have is his, it does not qualify anything named for him to an article. Nuttah68 16:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of sources that can be used to beef up this stub. The nominator's assertion that "Google has 21 unique hits without Wikipedia" is false because most locals refer to it simply as the Pierce Bridge. wikipediatrix 16:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No assertion of notability in the article, no significant coverage in third party sources is cited in the article, article can never be any more than a stub. At best, this could be merged into an article about the crossings of the Connecticut River. If it is true that there are "plenty of sources that can be used to beef up this stub," then those who wish to keep this article ought to use them. Notability among locals (which has yet to be established by citing reliable sources) does not necessarily mean notability enough for a Wikipedia article. Nick Graves 16:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Size does not make it notable nor does only being 750 ft make it not notable. What is needed are reliable sources. If these 21 google hits are sources, or other sources can be found, then it is notable. Just being there, and having a particular size, is not the point. If there are sources that can expand the history, then that is fine. Are there? And yes General Pierce can stay on his own page. I'm leaning toward delete since I see none yet, though if there are plenty that will be great. Obina 16:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh added as I wrote the above. These source call it the Pierce Bridge. The article should be called that and the full name mentioned in the intro. And some of these source should be added.Obina 16:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm working on getting statistics for all these crossings. Whether that's sufficient to you, I can't say. Denimadept 16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: On July 31st, the bridge in Minneapolis was like this then on August 1st it all of a sudden became notable, same could happen here. Davnel03 19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm inclined to apply WP:OUTCOMES here and say geographical locations such as bridges crossing a major river are per se notable. Wl219 19:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are the limits on that? For instance, VerruckteDan has said that while this bridge may be notable, US Route 3 Bridge over the Connecticut River is probably not. See Talk:General Pierce Bridge Denimadept 20:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep strong consensus exists that such structures are inherently notable. Alansohn 23:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Alansohn notes, the structure is inherently notable; additionally, there are independent sources (one from the council of government for the region, one from a newspaper) discussing the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many bridge or road articles have started as stubs like this one. The article is likely to expand and be full of relevant and notable information by the time the new bridge is open. The bridge was built in 1947, so I wouldn't expect to find many references on the web. Off-line references should be acceptable also; maybe someone needs to go to the library and look it up in old newspapers. - SCgatorFan 03:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for consistency within List of crossings of the Connecticut River. That was my rationale for creating I-35W Mississippi River bridge in the first place, and it became very notable (for tragic reasons) on August 1. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 12:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this really notable outside the local area? Just like any other structure which narrow scope of notability, I do not think this warrants inclusion. I do not think WP is a directory of bridges Corpx 03:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is precisely why we have WP:LOCAL and WP:BIAS. Notable local places are still notable even if local, as long as WP:RS exist. Wl219 03:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those are policies or guidelines Corpx 04:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So? Doesn't mean they're not worthy of consideration. Your comment is quite short-sighted. Wl219 04:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They should be considered, but should be given the same weight as other essays etc that have no backing through consensus Corpx 05:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major river crossings should be inherently notable like U.S. Highways and historical sites--Appraiser 18:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bridge is no less notable than other crossings of major rivers with stub articles. Eco84 | Talk 20:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the present bridge may be fairly new, the crossing that used to be at that location was one of the longest covered bridges of its time. I'm not familiar with the area but will try to see what I can dig up. There's also an old book "Crossing and Recrossing the Connecticut River" that should have historical information on the previous structure at this location which I'll try and borrow from the library on Monday. --Polaron | Talk 23:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll look for that too! Denimadept 00:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, here's a bibiliography! Denimadept 00:38, 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. Spare discussion, but sufficient in the case of an article lacking WP:RS (and thus, failing WP:V), where policy demands deletion. Xoloz 14:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robbins-Gioia[edit]

Nonnotable company, no independent sources, includes trivia such as the typeface used in the corporate logo. Disputed prod. NawlinWiki 16:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 16:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources means no assurance of notability. Nick Graves 16:38, 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 18:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Butt (tribe)[edit]

Totally unsourced. Could be true, but just as likely a hoax, given the name. The heading "Famous Kashmiri Butts" just screams hoax. Even if there is a core of truth, in it's current unsourced state any part of it could be hoax-fodder. IMHO just not useful as it is. TexasAndroid 15:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax or no, failing WP:V = delete. — Scientizzle 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not a hoax -- Butt is a common surname in Pakistan and Kashmir. No opinion on notability. NawlinWiki 16:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pathetic joke and hoax. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to be a common surname - possibly related to the name Bhat, possibly not, but some of the article is obviously a joke. Maybe someone (not me) could find out who inserted this bit: "Stin Keh Butt: invented an Arabian tool for cleaning" :) KZF ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's this edit by an IP account -- but most of the editors are IPs. --Dhartung | Talk 21:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Toilet paper? anyways merge it into Bhat per not meeting WP:N by itself. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources substantiating notability. Even if Butt is just an alternate spelling of Bhat, no source is provided documenting this alternate spelling, so merger with Bhat is not called for. Nick Graves 16:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely a joke. The "Stin Keh Butt" gives it away for sure. Useight 17:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking now that it's part real and part joke. Likely a real name that has been overcome by hoaxy data. So part of the question is, is there any way to separate the real from the hoax, especially given the lack of sourcing for whatever may be real. And is such an project worth the effort? And without any sourcing, I really do not think it will be worth the effort. - TexasAndroid 17:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minimal merge and redirect to Bhat (tribe). Butt is a legitimate variant of the name and is present in many people's names in India, but I can't find evidence that it's a separate tribe. --Dhartung | Talk 21:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Funny in a sophomoric way, but a rather obvious hoax. Salvatore22 22:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--SkyWalker 15:54, 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. Article completes lacks WP:RS; hence, there is nothing able to merged to any other article, consistent with the core policy WP:V. The keep arguments are very odd -- they argue for the notability of the code which is not really in question, as the code has its own article. This separate article here, as it is written now, cannot be allowed to remain, given the requirements of WP:V. If this content belongs with Konami code, it must be sourced first. Xoloz 14:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Konami code references in popular culture[edit]

Delete - fails WP:NOT#DIR, fails WP:TRIVIA. Otto4711 15:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a little different. The code is a Cheat code present in Konami video games. There is already an article for the list of games in which it is to be found. Need to think. Question: does this show the widespread awareness and popularity of the code? In what other ways can this be indicated? DGG (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same way as always: With reliable, independent sources. How is the importance and relevance of a particular cultural reference determined? It cannot be self-determining, so it must be done by someone else. --Eyrian 16:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Konami code. Instead of a link to a main article just put all (or part of) the information there. -- Magioladitis 22:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After reading the article, I see that the "Konami Code" is popular culture, partly because of its simplicity, partly because of the rhythm with which it can be chanted, partly because it's so silly, it's synonymous with dumb... "Up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right" Mandsford 22:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Look through the history for the main Konami Code writeup -- people are CONSTANTLY adding pop culture references there, and other people are constantly removing them. This subpage was created to provide an outlet, and most importantly, keep it off the main article. I'm obviously against merging it, and i feel that deleting it will have the same effect as merging it -- it would all migrate to the main page anyway. --Mike Schiraldi 03:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mike's WP:BHTT argument notwithstanding, the konami code in popular culture is how most people even know it exists (t-shirts, tv shows, etc). Most of the people chanting it these days aren't even old enough to have played the games mentioned, so something else is making it re-popularized recently. (note: prior statement is admittedly OR, but if the article stays, it can probably be sourced and worked into the article itself to show cultural impact on the gaming subculture) spazure (contribs) 10:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Prosify and Merge (with sources).. Eleland has a point, my previous keep vote was basically just WP:ILIKEIT seasoned with I've heard of it. The main article isn't so big that it couldn't use a cultural impact section, as long as it's sourced. spazure (contribs) (review) 02:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, list of minor trivia. —tregoweth (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge back into Konami code or simply delete. (Since it has been split off there, there is in practice not much difference). The current list by itself (separated from the main article) is not very meaningful and comes close to an agglomeration of unsourced trivia, but also rather short; especially if one takes out the reimplementations of the code, which have their own article that could be expanded to include web based games and maybe even game sites. The Konami Code article, however, is not so long either and can hardly count as one of those 'high culture' or science articles that should be kept free of trivia. Rather to the contrary, the code itself is part of popular culture and its notability seems also to stem from the same code being repeated, reimplemented and reproduced, and some of it can and should be mentioned in the main article.--Tikiwont 12:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Take a look at what the main Konami Code page [used to look like]. If we delete or merge, this is what it's going to look like again.--Mike Schiraldi 12:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not. Most of the stuff is completely unreferenced (as is the main article itself, BTW). I understand the problem and it is not a new one. Such lists are regularly split off from articles as some truce in edit warring. But they remain problematic or at least controversial and will then catch the attention of the general public. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orangutans in popular culture comes to my mind. Then we have more or less three alternatives, or sometimes rather factions:

Delete (and do not merge back),
Keep and do not merge back
(Selectively) merge back

I think this particular one is a case for the latter (and have now highlighted so above) because we 're talking about a pop culture phenomenon in any case and one article and one separate list should be able to accommodate all verifiable material.--Tikiwont 14:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivia. Interpreting a list of primary source references to indicate popularity constitutes original research, as explained here. --Eyrian 16:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep per spazure. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is trivia and a list of loosely associated items. Any cameo appearance in a "popular culture" medium would warrant inclusion Corpx 03:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possible sources for a "cultural impact" article. I tried to review them myself, but apparently articles about video game culture aren't deemed appropriate material for accessing from a business machine. spazure (contribs) 05:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge what is the point of having a Konami code article which doesn't talk mainly about its impact on popular culture? One would think that is the major reason to have the article at all. Eleland 15:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is one of the worst pages I have ever seen. The subject on it's own is barely notable for an encyclopedia, let alone a list of times it was mentioned. Do not merge back, just delete. Dannycali 17:23, 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. PeaceNT 12:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Stronge[edit]

Non notable. Being a knight doesn't make someone notable, neither do either of the positions he held. No non-trivial coverage in secondary sources, fails WP:BIO. Stramash 15:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this AfD nomination is the first edit by this user! --Counter-revolutionary 16:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Didn't you create this article? I see you neglected to mention that didn't you? Please show me where the British honours system is mentioned in WP:BIO, and please stop attacking editors. Stramash 16:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT Burke's Peerage. Bishonen | talk 15:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, the article states that he was the UK ambassador to Chile. My understanding is that ambassadors are considered notable. NawlinWiki 15:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The guideline that may have made them notable (WP:ROYAL) was rejected, there's nothing in WP:BIO about diplomats, and this is nothing more than a phonebook entry. Stramash 15:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is becoming daft now, I thought all of this non notable baronet business had been sorted out, and even if there were the remotest case for this person being of interest or not, there certainly is not for his father [[Sir John Calvert Stronge For God's sake what is wrong with this place these days, we don't need these people unless they have done something to distinguish themselves. Giano 16:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Very justified nomination but now greatly improved. It is a great pity, that as with the various members of the Arbithnot family, the only way that certain pages can ever hope to be improved is by nominating them here. Giano 07:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - a senior diplomat who received one of the highest honours granted by the British Government! --Counter-revolutionary 16:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ignoring the conflict of interest. That is not one of the highest honours of the British Government, it us a "dip service gong" handed out routinely to diplomats going to posts where the host country will be offended if they are sent anyone without a title. Half the present day residents of Dolphin square have similar decorations. I see we have others of this "illustrious" family who fail to even achieve that. Giano 16:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "other" you refer to was an MP. --Counter-revolutionary 16:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank God for that - and this one John Stronge? Giano 16:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'- I have no WP:COI. The nominator is apparently not a new user, no matter what his edit count suggests. With all assumption of good faith this seems odd. --Counter-revolutionary 16:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - honestly, my first inclination was to delete — as Giano says, a KCMG isn't really proof of notability — but a Google search reveals that Stronge's rather inept handling of affairs in Mexico (Frank McLynn refers to him as "the absurd bird-fancying British minister Sir Francis Stronge") was in part responsible for Henry Lane Wilson's success in arranging La decena trágica and the accession of Victoriano Huerta, who apparently asked Lord Cowdray to intercede (unsuccessfully) to have Stronge retained as ambassador to Mexico. I don't know that much about the history involved, but his role looks interesting; perhaps someone from WikiProject Mexico would be able to help? Choess 18:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the basis of a possible WP:POINT. Notable in own right per Counter-revolutionary. --Major Bonkers (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No ad hominem attacks please. Stramash 18:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't an ad hominem attack. I apologise if you see it as one.--Major Bonkers (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable under Wikipedia's own guidelines. The nominator has it wrong as you must have done something notable in your life to be knighted in the first place. If being knighted is not notable, then what is its point? Christchurch 18:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which part of WP:BIO does he meet? Stramash 18:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete phonebook entry! Thepiper 18:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very feeble keep. The fact that this cites three credible sources for his service in Mexico in "interesting times" and still doesn't rise above a mere directory entry is rather sad. Choess's comment almost convinces me that this deserves the chance to try to become an encyclopedia article. None of the other keep arguments have merit. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - notable enough, needs more work on entry. --Rocksanddirt 19:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK lets keep and ask "Counter-revolutionary" expand. Is there anything to add? The problem here is that certain editors are determined to have as many baronets as possible listed on the project. Now the reasons this is a problem is that they are sacrificing quantity for quality - and that damages the encyclopedia's reputation. I don't know if that is because they are unable to write a proper article, or there is so little to report on these nonentities, perhaps they feel akin to these people or maybe have a hidden agenda. I don't know. Whatever the answer Wikipedia is not a "phone book". These people need to learn how to write a proper useful page or give up! The reason for this being that I and quite a few others are sick of these daft sycophantic pages that achieve nothing but give their own relations a quick and very cheap thrill. Giano 19:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was not a baronet! --Counter-revolutionary 20:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FGS don't be so facetious, do you truly imagine anyone gives a damn wether he was a baronet or a knight. Only to the English are these things so important. Just write a decent page explaining why he is notable. Giano 21:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sourced claims of notability. Knighthood isn't the only claim to notability and the article has expanded since nomination. — Scientizzle 19:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe this individual does meet the notability requirements, and I've found plenty of references to him in The Times; I've revised the article based on the newspaper's obituary. -- ChrisO 20:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Per above. Bad faith nomination. - Kittybrewster (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the assumption that a) this is WP:POINT and b) his Envoy Extraordinary rank meant he was the de facto Ambassador to Chile as generally ambassadors have been considered a notable post, the politics of their being awarded notwithstanding. --Dhartung | Talk 21:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominating this article is WP:POINT?! The good faith is rather lacking round here.. Stramash 21:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is now expanded and sourced. He appears to be notable. --Bduke 01:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Choess's arguments, and based on the expansion of sourced content in the article since nomination. --Stormie 04:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Choess. It would have helped had this article been tagged as a stub in the first place, because it clearly had room for improvement, but it has now been expanded to the point where notability (per WP:N and WP:BIO) is clearly demonstrated and properly sourced, and there is eviently scope for further expansion.
I'm also very disappointed to see some of the way this article is being assessed by some editors. The include-anyone-with-a-title lobby don't have support of the guidelines, but a diplomat at ambassador-level from a powerful nation will frequently have been a notable position, paticularly in the days before air travel. It's depressing to see that the deletionists' apparoach was not ask for more evidence of the significance of the diplomatic role, but to argue for deletion because of the largely irrelevant issue of the title (see Talk:Francis Stronge).
I really hope that we are not going to find ourselves back in another long series of these sterile AFD debates, where the pro- and anti-title lobbies try to score points off each other. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Choess. Clearly notable and multiple references Kernel Saunters 11:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Key position as ambassador to Chile at the outbreak of WWI, also during and after the Battle of Coronel. Galloglass 19:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. CitiCat^♫ 01:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hood in popular culture[edit]

Delete - directory of loosely associated topics. The mere presence of Robin Hood, or a character who "aspires" to be Robin Hood, or who in the opinion of the editor who spots it may be in some way based on Robin Hood but lacks sourcing that says so, doesn't mean that the things bear any relationship to each other. Otto4711 15:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as a violation of WP:NOT. As pointed out, this list is a mishmash of adaptations of the Robin Hood story, characters supposedly based on Robin Hood, characters with Robin Hood like qualities, and even characters who have used the name Robin Hood with otherwise no connection to the archetypical character in question. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 16:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, though rewrite into a better organisation. This article now has references for overall notability of the topic. Per WP:N, it is not necessary to have sources for the notability of each individual item or sentence in an article. None the less, most of them can be found in reviews. Sourced, further sourceable, a topic everyone knows about. I note the nom. made no effort at all to look for even the most obvious sources--didn't even check Google/Google Scholar. (This is of course contrary to WP:Deletion policy and common sense.) Having a common cultural referent is a close connection. Some of these may not have a significant one. We of course do not nom for deletion articles that contain items which may individually not contribute to the article, we edit the article; before removing them, I'd want to do a literature search to see if there is a source for the significance any particular one. Even if characters merely use the name, they use it for a reason, and the critics may well have commented. I think that should satisfy all the objections given above by those people who have given reasons. Possibly 5% of WP articles have been edited to the level of detail demanded here, and I don't thing deleting the other 95% would improve the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, having a "common cultural referent" is not inherently an indicator of a close connection. I'm sorry, but as many times as you trot this particular pony out, it's still not true. I'm also curious to know how you know what I did or didn't do prior to nominating this article. Unless you're the pregnant girl in the cubicle next to me, I don't really think you're in a position to say. Otto4711 16:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made the assumption that had you seen you wouldnt have nominated. I really did, the sources are so pertinent. DGG (talk)

Keep, per DGG. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How does one reliably tell the difference between sources that establish the notability of "Robin Hood in popular culture" and sources establishing the notability of "Robin Hood" the man, the myth, the legend? Even if the overlap doesn't make this a POV fork of Robin Hood, I think this subject title looks like a WP:TRIVIA magnet. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 22:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, there's Something Completely Different: British Television and American Culture By Jeffrey S. Miller" [36] "John Drake, like Robin Hood and Lancelot of old, traveled from scenic locale to scenic locale, encountering and besting villains ranging from IRA terrorists ..." There's one academic author who thinks notability of RH in pop culture is a real topic. U Minnesota Press published it. DGG (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are once again making the faulty assumption that because something is mentioned in the same breath as something else that the two things must be related. The sentence you quote doesn't have anything to do with the supposed "notability of RH in popular culture." Otto4711 13:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is what an IPC should be... except for the one instance of someone who aspires to be like Robin Hood, this is about the retellings of the classical story in 20th and 21st century films, books, etc. There are even more that I can think of that aren't on the list. No reason to delete this, simply because it uses the obscenity "in popular culture" Mandsford 23:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford. Other "in popular culture" article editors should read this one and learn from it. Dbromage [Talk] 00:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the most part this is a decent article, I don't see the bulk of the references as being trivial or loosely associated. The music section could use a bit of work, but altogether it's not a bad or deletion-criteria article. Calgary 03:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, Rockin' Robin - A study of the outlaw Robin Hood's links with popular music. Dbromage [Talk] 03:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Both the article itself and the nomination seem to be based on a dichotomy between the archetypal figure and 'popular culture' interpretations or references. Such a distinction might be valid for subjects where one clear and factual topic is more or less accurately or trivially referenced or depicted in popular culture. But Robin Hood has always been a folk or popular tale being retold and modified from the beginning over the centuries, and almost always via some popular medium, be it ballad, tale, book or more recently film and TV. While it may be useful to distinguish between traditional and modern versions or different mediums in organizing the material, we shouldn't split-off and throw away some of it in bulk, but edit and maybe rename or merge considering also Cultural depictions of Robin Hood and the disambiguation page.--Tikiwont 09:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rework This is one of the few articles of this type which is worth retaining. Dominictimms 14:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing worth reworking, and riddled with OR. The references at the bottom seem to have no actual connection with the article body. This idea is strengthened by the fact that there are no footnotes, and rather than a prose description of the evolution and significance of depictions, we just get a list of trivial references. --Eyrian 15:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

a few of the ones cited here surely do, such as the one by Dbromage above. They show the article is sourceable; it doesn't have to be finished to be kept. DGG (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I continue to AGF, but I am getting a little impatient. The arguments of the deletors start out by saying there are no sources for the specifics or the general topic being notable. The sources are presented, and they say they are not relevant. Obviously relevant and specific sources are presented, and the response is that they are not in the article yet. I think it is clear that the objection is not to specific content or specific articles. If it were to specific content or references, then the articles would just be being edited, not brought to AfD in the first place. if it were to were to specific articles, the weakest only would be nominated. The only time when the good and the bad are all successively nominated is when the agenda is to destroy the topic. Otherwise, the nominations for the articles where the sourcing during the AfD was shown to be sufficient would be withdrawn. Those bringing the articles here are for the most part just deletors--they have no interest in improving the articles. DGG (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You've sourced nothing. Inserting a few references from which the article is not actually based doesn't constitute sourcing. --Eyrian 23:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Robin Hood is iconic - there will be references and commentray on its depiction out there, just probably in a library rather than online. Article quality per se is no grounds for deletion.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge the important ones back into Robin Hood Way too many trivial mentions + OR to keep this one Corpx 03:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sure, Robin Hood is very popular and important, but the last thing this place needs is more cruft about mentions in other media. Just because a subject is notable in itself does not mean that articles with trivial mentions of said subject are appropriate. There have been pages deleted for subjects far more notable. Dannycali 17:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and chainsaw away the unsourceable stuff. --UsaSatsui 15:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 20:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 this and several other articles on albums by the same artist. None of them assert notability (speedy category a7). NawlinWiki 16:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrical Dreamz[edit]

Non notable album, artists and no reliable sources found on google. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any evidence of notability. Not even an artist page on AMG... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:39, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C++ examples[edit]

This page is a list of examples of code in the programming language C++. It seems to be the sort of software guide prohibited by WP:NOT#GUIDE, no pages in article space link to it, and the main C++ page already includes embedded examples of code. As such, I think it should be deleted. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the (ancient) prior VFD discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/C plus plus examples. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (after merging any relevant examples into C++. → AA ^(talk) — 15:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unreferenced, and there's so little context the examples are entirely useless. -- Mikeblas 15:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-encyclopedic, unreferenced and basically useless. --MediaMangler 15:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Would wikisource want this? Corpx 16:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a manual. The main C++ article should have a few examples, but not an entire article dedicated to them. Useight 17:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. After !voting here, I almost proposed an AfD for Fortran code examples, but I actually think moving the examples from the Fortran article into a separate page worked out very well. The examples there are more fully developed and demonstrate the historical development of the language. The idea of creating a separate page of C++ examples might not have been that bad originally, if it had been followed through, but it doesn't fit with the current C++ main article. --MediaMangler 18:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is really nothing there of value, which isn't covered better and more thoroughly in C++ and C. In fact, most of the examples appear to be for what are basically C functionality, only with output through streaming. It is also inconsistent with the usage of '\n' and std::endl. IMHO, an article specifically about C++ examples should cover examples that show how it's substantially different from C, with a link to C code examples. If the C++ article grows to have many good examples, it would make sense to split off the article, but now is not the time yet. I would have said delete and redirect, but there is really nothing that links there in the first place. --Pekaje 19:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki & Delete To wikibooks, if deemed worthy. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 21:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing useful on it as Pekaje have said. WP is not a guide, whereas Wikibook already have its bit on C++. KTC —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:28, August 22, 2007 (UTC).
delete. kate. 15:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a technical help manual. Burntsauce 17:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic; but do the actual deletion after moving some useful code examples to relevant articles. -- Taku 13:08, 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. PeaceNT 11:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three section staff in popular culture[edit]

Delete - directory of unassociated items that have nothing in common beyond happening to have included a particular weapon. This tells us nothing about the weapon, nothing about the fiction from which use of the weapon was included, nothing about any relationship between the items (as there is none) and nothing about the real world. Oppose merger of any of this information to any other article as it is just as trivial as part of another article as it is as a standalone. Otto4711 14:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as meaningless trivia. Propaniac 15:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 16:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list of trivial mentions = loosely associated topics Corpx 16:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, but add references and and expanded the textual aspect of the article to better indicate context. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TRIVIA and per nom. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 00:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Trivia list and loosely associated topics. Masaruemoto 04:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Textbook-definition listcruft. --Agamemnon2 22:59, 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 12:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gods of rock and roll[edit]

If this isn't original research I don't know what is. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR with lots of POV for dessert. WebHamster 14:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inherently subjective article. NawlinWiki 16:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Funny, but no... ^^ Zouavman Le Zouave 23:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, it is original research with a lot of POV, the term rock god actually may have some merit being in an encyclopedia. It has been in use for a long time, and may merit an article. However, it would probably become a vandal magnet, with such things as "OMG THE EDGE IS THE BEST GUITARIST EVA!!!11!!!1!1!111!one!" and suchlike. Also, possible redirects, for example, Eric Clapton getting redirected to Rock God. Or something like that. Neranei (talk) 02:07, 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^♫ 01:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Shafer (baseball player)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article was previously deleted at AfD. DRV overturned this closure, with the consent of the deleting admin. Still, weak delete given notability concerns for minor-league ballplayers. Xoloz 14:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: several votes by sockpuppets stricken out. Voice-of-All 19:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —X96lee15 16:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep WP:BIO states all athletes who play in a fully professional league are notable. Shafer plays in the Pacific Coast League, which is 100% professional. If members of the baseball project want to conspire to keep minor leaguers from having articles, they should start their own encyclopedia. Sasha Callahan 14:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a lot of guidelines that are used for notability. WP:MUSIC, for instance. Corvus cornix 16:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correct, WP:MUSIC sets the guidelines for notability of musicians, albums, songs, and so. However, WP:BIO establishes the notability for people. WP:BASEBALL's anti-minor league position was formulated by a members of the project, and has no standing as an official guideline, but WP:MUSIC is a guideline.
  - Comment: Corvus, could you direct me to the guideline or policy establishing that only major league players are notable? There are those who define WP:BIO that way, but WP:BIO doesn't actually say that. Ravenswing 14:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Shafer was an All-Star in the Class AA Southern League in 2006,[37] which is a reasonable assertion of notability for a minor-league player. I'll go ahead and add the information to the article. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the specific notability requirements of Wikiproject Baseball regarding minor league players have been brought up, I thought it might be a good idea to quote the relevant section: "Most minor league players are not considered notable, but some players are as determined by WP:BIO." As such, the fact that Shafer has not played in the major leagues is not an exclusionary factor in and of itself to say that his article should be deleted. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, minor leaguers rarely qualify for articles, this is just another one. No notability. When he makes the majors, even if he only plays one game, then he qualifies. Corvus cornix 16:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to be the subject of "published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" as required by WP:BIO. Although some secondary sources do mention him (see google news result), I can't find any that give him "significant coverage" (address the subject directly in detail) as required by WP:N. —gorgan_almighty 16:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Making a minor league all star game is not a big deal, because it is still the minor leagues. If he gets called up, he can be notable, but MiLB players are really a dime a dozen (there are 50 rounds in MLB draft + sandwich picks). Person is also lacking "significant coverage" from independent sources. Corpx 16:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. During the recent discussion concerning minor league players, it was asserted, and not disputed, that being a member of an all-star team would make one notable. This player certainly meets that. He is also playing in a fully professional league which meets WP:BIO standards for athletes. The article is also sourced. I don't see why this was even brought up for deletion. Kinston eagle 16:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See the discussion here: [38] Kinston eagle 16:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was only a couple of users not everyone Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a mid-sized fish in a small pond still means you're swimming in a small pond. This being an encyclopedia and not the Directory of Everyone Who's Ever Been Paid to Play Baseball means it should have some minimal standards, and minor leaguers ain't it -- and that's on top of the sourcing problems. --Calton | Talk 17:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Calton's well-made point above, with its implications for a sensible reading of WP:BIO. Eusebeus 18:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (copying per the DRV) The minor leagues while they are proffesional, it's not the highest league there is for baseball and there is consensus that minor leaguers aren't notable. Shafer won't be in the majors for a while (if ever) looking at this link currently a earned run average of over 7.50 which means horrible even for the minor leagues. Also there is active discussion in the WP:BIO talk pages over the situation as tons of minor-leaguers been deleted in AFD before, and it may go to the Village Pump as well per User:DGG suggestion there. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. So, you're saying he isn't notable, and to prove your point you're directing me to a published secondary source that is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject which discusses him. That happens to be WP:BIO's first and foremost "Criteria for notability of people". Along with the criteria for athletes that they play in a fully professional league, this alone should be enough for his inclusion. Add into this the fact that he is discussed in multiple reliable, intellectually independent, and independent sources and that he further distinguished himself by making an all-star team, and there should be no question that he should be included. Kinston eagle 19:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have every minor-leaguer, not only him, you obviously have WP:BIAS for minor leaguers, if this article gets kept, that doesn't give you permission to restore the whole Kinston Indians minor-league baseball team articles which was validly deleted in AFD just to let you know. Again like I mentioned in the DRV, that is borderline at best for meeting WP:BIO guidelines and there is discussion on talk. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Making a minor-league all-star team makes him notable. I agree with Kinston eagle, the discussions seemed to indicate agreement with allowing all-stars to be accepted. Spanneraol 19:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was you and Kinston that I saw in the talk, not concensus, Kinston obviously has a WP:BIAS for minor league players, and many of his articles on them were deleted in AFD. So it's basiclly you. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. I have never had an article to be deleted. All those articles on Kinston Indians players were written by other individuals. Furthermore, I do not have a bias for minor league players, I have a bias for following the rules and the guidelines set out in WP:BIO which clearly allow all athletes who have played in fully professional leagues to be included. If you don't like the guidelines, work on changing those. Kinston eagle 20:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaranda, you must not have read through that thread... several other people in that discussion were in general agreement on the issue... Perhaps you should address your own bias on this issue. Spanneraol 19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok three users instead of two, one of whom is keep all minor leaguers who ever played, which that was quickly rejected still doesn't indicate consensus, I don't really have a bias with this as much as Kinston though, I just don't think they are notable, unless they are a top prospect, which he isn't. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, an older centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (athletes) also resulted in a general consensus that minor league baseball players who were league all-stars were notable -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- only a few editors discussed that, that doesn't indicate consensus. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was open for discussion for months, and listed with everything else that was open for central discussion at that time (that's how I found it back then). If nobody else was interested in the issue back then, so what? You build a consensus with the people who show up, and everybody who showed up agreed on that point. Well, everbody except Rob Steadman, but he ended up getting indefblocked shortly thereafter, so that really doesn't count. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there was any such consensus. Corvus cornix 20:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone including me thought it was too retrictive of course, and that's why it failed, but only a couple of users talked about minor-league players, I'm very supportive about reproposing that guideline, and rewrite from scratch but I need support though, we could discuss to death there, not here. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with re-opening it, if that's what you'd like to do. WP:CCC, after all. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see this discussion openned up again also. I would also like to see the a discussion run at the same time on the notability of players in lower tier soccer (european football) leagues. Sasha Callahan 21:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The whole question of whether he's a notable minor-league player is fairly mute in this case. He does not appear to have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as required by WP:N. That is a fundamental requirement of notability that applies to EVERYONE and EVERYTHING on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter whether he's a minor-league player, major-league player, or even if he's the 154^th person to walk on The Moon. If he does not meet the significant coverage in reliable source requirements layed out by WP:N, then he is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. —gorgan_almighty 10:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." In my opinion, the sources cited fit this definition quite well. Kinston eagle 10:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are you referring to? The 2 sources in the References section of the article only give him a passing mention, as being a member of the team. That's hardly significant coverage. If they had a whole paragraph about him that would be significant coverage, but a passing mention isn't. The two links in the External links section are not suitale for assessing notability, as they are not independent enough. —gorgan_almighty 10:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of publications that mention Shafer in detail; they just aren't in the article right now. For example, I'm adding his profile from the 2007 Baseball America Prospect Handbook even as you read this. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 12:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are reliable independent secondary sources on this person, then by all means add them. —gorgan_almighty 13:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete view - WP:N is the over-riding guideline and the article fails to include substantial, reliable sources attesting to the subject's notability. Bridgeplayer

The article contains more sources than many baseball player articles, whose primary sources are usually just the baseball-reference site. Spanneraol 20:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about this particular book, but the "Baseball America Prospect Handbook 2007" reference seems to be the only one that possibly offers significant coverage in a secondary source publication. In other words, it's the only reference currently in the article that might possibly be able to assert notability. —gorgan_almighty 10:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Minor league baseball players are well within the normal levels of notability required for biographical articles, which is why they comply with WP:BIO. AshbyJnr 20:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a borderline case of the policy, discussion is happening now. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this discussion happening? Spanneraol 23:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He plays in front of tens of thousands of people each year, any of whom might want to read about him. If someone is of interest to that many people with whom they have no personal relationship, then they are notable enough for Wikipedia to cover them. Brandon97 21:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:INTRESTING Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Minor league baseball players comply with WP:BIO. Any guidelines produces by projects should be consistent with the master guidelines. Renominating this immediately after deletion review is just a case of "I don't like it". Golfcam 09:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was the DRV closer that placed it here Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has been kept twice because it meets WP:BIO, period. (The deletion on the first nomination was a bad faith closure by an interested party in clear contempt of consensus that was rightly overturned, as the actual result was no consensus-keep). Casperonline 11:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - I saw some suspitious edits from the four users above, and I asked User:Voice of All for a private checkuser and he confirmed all of them as sockpuppets of each other. They are now blocked indef. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per notability - --Tom 21:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BASEBALL --Truest blue 05:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The original Delete argument was (and seemingly still is) founded in both the inaccurate assertion that WP:BASEBALL established specific grounds under which minor-leagues are deemed not notable, and upon the shaky premise that any such would trump WP:BIO's unambiguous phrasing. In fact, WP:BASEBALL has nothing more solid than "Most minor league players are not considered notable, but some players are as determined by WP:BIO," nor does WP:BIO support the popular fallacy that fully professional leagues are non-notable if they are not premier national leagues. I applaud WP:BASEBALL members for wishing to tighten up their criteria, as other sports Wikiprojects have accomplished, but do not support them using AfD as a stalking horse to bypass the need to establish -- and respect -- their own project's consensus ... a consensus they have not formally reached. Ravenswing 14:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the main (read: most valid) argument for deletion here is the lack of reliable secondary sources that give the subject more than trivial mention. —gorgan_almighty 13:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: That is your argument, of course. The argument of just about every other Delete voter is on notability grounds, and several are citing WP:BASEBALL as if the mere mention of the Wikiproject was enough. Ravenswing 14:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable secondary sources are required to establish notability. An argument of reliable secondary sources therefore IS an argument of notability. Several people have argued from the perspective that minor-league players are inherently un-notable, but WP:N takes precedence in defining what is notable or not. If there are non-trivial reliable secondary sources attributed to the article subject, then it is notable. If there aren't, then it isn't. The only contender for a non-trivial reliable secondary source in this article is the "Baseball America Prospect Handbook 2007" reference, but I don't know enough about that book to determine if it qualifies. In my opinion, arguments for and against this article should now centre on the suitability of that one source, since no one has found any others. —gorgan_almighty 16:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's reliable but it lists all minor leaguers, even the backups etc, in cases like this the book isn't really that useful Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If its all-inclusive like that, then it can't really be used to assert notability. —gorgan_almighty 16:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not much more I could add to Ravenswing's reasoning. --Djsasso 16:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ravenswing and WP:BIO. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 16:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:BIO "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis." WP:BASEBALL is not a Wikipedia policy. Smashville 19:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only one editor is WP:BASEBALL as an argruement though, and of course should be discounted, same with the WP:BASEBALL protest votes as well, like several of them above. The issue is that it's sooooooo borderline in WP:BIO that it really doesn't include them, as some people consider them to not be the highest proffesional league out there, there are tons of AFDs on minor leaguers that ended up as delete, this minor leaguer is no different than the rest. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, now the admin who deleted this article in the first gets to decide which keep votes are simply protest votes. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 19:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That fact that it is not the highest professional league has no bearing in this matter. WP:BIO only requires that they play in a "fully" professional league, not the "highest" professional league. All Minor Leaguers play in a "fully" professional league, as the minors are fully professional. Smashville 19:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is going to be discussion in the proposed athletes notabilty page, there is some comments in WP:BIO talk page though. I removed the WP:BASEBALL guidelines. I have to go to class so I'll comment in a few hours Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a discussion exists about something does not make it a policy. Smashville 20:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g1, patent nonsense (rock band allegedly founded in 1787). NawlinWiki 16:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Murphy Boys[edit]

Over the top band bio, fails notability, somewhat of a tongue in cheek WP:HOAX. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 14:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:42, 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 speedy delete (requested by author). PeaceNT 11:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Aznaran[edit]

More Scientologycruft, fails WP:BIO. This non-notable person did some affidavits in court appearances (and subsequently went back and recanted them). Gets 155 unique Ghits and most of them are blogs, personal homepages, and junk. wikipediatrix 14:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even I get more Ghits! ^^ Zouavman Le Zouave 14:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Deiz talk 14:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice. I think a short article could be done with enough sources to show notability, but this one isn't it—and it's too much of an unsourced BLP problem right now to let it stand. AndroidCat 16:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The sources are the affidavits she filed, the links are there. You can't just delete an article about someone who filed a seventy million dollar lawsuit against CoS, by pretending the person is non-notable. I see the wikipediatrix completely deleted the paragraph describing Vicki's recant, claiming it was unsourced, which was untrue. Suppress inconvenient truth much?S. M. Sullivan 18:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but personal homepages aren't valid sources per WP:RS and WP:V. wikipediatrix 19:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment 'a sworn affidavit reproduced on a personal homepage or personal website is another matter entirely. Viz, all the cites of affidavits and records sourced at Operation Clambake, in WIkiarticles here. Operation Clambake is a personal website.S. M. Sullivan 20:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

depends what the records are. I don't think a person's affidavit is not intrinsically reliable unless the facts have been relied upon in a judgment or reported in a RS. DGG (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--WP:Notable says a person may be notable if they made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their field.

Or, they may be notable if they are regarded as an important figure or are widely cited by their peers or successors. Vicki Aznaran was President of RTC and Inspector General, the same post held by David Miscavige, immediately before DM's rise. She left the CoS and sued the church for 70 mill. She was considered an expert witness by church critics involved in litigation against the church, and was used as such by them for several years. Did she suddenly become 'not notable' when she recanted, despite having been very notable and worthy of credence before? Or is the real problem that she's an unperson who must never be mentioned because of the recant? S. M. Sullivan 04:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For some reason, last night User:S. M. Sullivan blanked out the article and its talk page (despite "do not blank the article" being written in plain English on the AfD tag) and put up the db-author speedy delete tag, resulting in its deletion. Rather bizarre thing to do for someone who had just voted to keep the article, but I suppose that, as they say, is that. wikipediatrix 13:18, 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. Consensus seems to be that this list is too trivial. Proponents for keeping this information do argue that this information can be found in reliable sources and may be useful for comparison purposes; however, the counterargument of mentioning any germane changes in the season article(s) seems to be more appropriate in light of avoiding indiscriminate information, since there will be more context in those articles, and, as was pointed out, not all roster changes are noteworthy. — TKD::Talk 18:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day Starting Lineups[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The previous AfD for this list was closed as "no consensus"; DRV overturned this closure, but the consensus was too narrow to delete the article outright from DRV. The article is thus relisted. Delete, as an unencyclopedic list. Xoloz 14:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete its an non-encyclopedic list. If people really want to, the starting lineup for each season should go in each seasons article. Sasha Callahan 14:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The opening day starting lineups are notable.. as they are featured prominently here [39] and here [40] and are also referenced in the team media guide, which can be viewed here [41]. Having them on one page allows interested readers to easily see how the lineups evolved over several years, something that is harder to get from going to individual season entries. This meets the criteria for WP:LISTS as it provides both notable information on a single, well-defined topic, and navigational tools. Spanneraol 14:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same reason as before. Game #1 is no more important than game #48 (and in fact is less important than game #162 in a lot of cases) except for the possible exception of the starting pitcher. Folks at every other position are just the best players coming out of spring training, just as the starters for game #48 are the best players coming out of game #47. Throw in platoon systems and the starter for game #1 may not even be considered the best at his position at the time! Yes, Opening Day has a special significance in general - that's why it has its own article - but to list the starting lineup for every team for every season is far too crufty. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just as I had reasoned in the first AfD, this is a violation of WP:NOT and is information better suited to some sports almanac or Dodgers fansite. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. Having played in a particular game is not a notability standard. Where is List of Los Angeles Dodgers Third Game of the Season Starting Lineups? Corvus cornix 16:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we have an article on Third game of the MLB season? No. Do we have an article on Opening Day? Yes. ugen64 17:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - See my comment below. We have an article on Opening Day because it's a ceremonial big deal with the President showing up, etc. The game itself gets lost in the production. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 16:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the first AFD. A starter on the opening day could just as easily be traded the next day or called down to the minors. This is no different than a lineup for any other day of the year Corpx 16:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true for any article about any specific game. ugen64 17:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hence why we have so few articles on specific games in the system. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Round 2: WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOT#INFO, WP:N, just to name a few. I still fail to see "no consensus" from either the first AfD or the Deletion Review. Delete per the same reasons I gave in the first AfD. Ksy92003(talk) 16:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is enough WP:RS material out there to write an article on the topic. Every year, reliable sources make a big deal out of the opening day starting lineup. There is commentary, analysis, comparisons to the prior year and prior years, comparison to other teams opening day starting lineup, comparison to what the reliable sources predicted themselves, etc. For whatever reason, the reliable sources seem to think that opening day starting lineup somehow predicts how the team will do during the year and can be used as a way to get into the team management thinking. During the season, they look back to see whether opening day starting lineup had the projected impact. The list entries themselves can be sourced and the plenty of way in which the prose for the article can be developed. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources is the same from every line-up of every team especially if there is a key injury, etc. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above could be an argument to have a separate article on just about every roster move for every team for every season. And a few articles on roster moves that don't get made.--Fabrictramp 18:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, mostly I agree with Jreferee's point. Maybe you don't think opening day lineups matter but it's not your opinion that matters, it's whether the article's subject is considered notable and verifiable by reliable sources. The information is of course verifiable, and for whatever reason it is considered notable as well by many sources (if Opening Day itself is considered notable, then surely "who plays on Opening Day" is notable as well). To give an analogy - we don't have an article on the UEFA Cup semi-final because the UEFA Cup semifinal is not considered notable. Therefore, if someone created an article on UEFA Cup semi-final lineups then I would vote for deletion. However, we do have an article on the UEFA Cup finals because those are notable, and in addition each year has its own article. Now obviously, this (creating an article for each year) is unnecessary for Opening Day because the result of the game itself has little significance, but the lineups do and therefore an article about those is fine. ugen64 17:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article Opening Day is about the general concept of Opening Day. If we had an article about each Opening Day game by each team, those would be a good place to put the lineups per your argument. But we don't and likely never will. The actual particular Opening Day game by each team is simply not that important except as the ceremonial opening of the season. The President shows up, there's a little extra pomp and circumstance, etc. The lineup and even the outcome of the actual game get forgotten in it all. If anything, you could make a case to say that the actual game #1 is the least important and notable each season. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, opening day is something throughout the entire league. It's not something that only the Dodgers celebrate. And in fact, there is only one opening day, and on that day there is almost always just one game. This year it was the Mets and Cardinals. Every team has a first game, but only two teams play on the league's opening day. Ksy92003(talk) 18:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - wknight, if it is the case that the lineups get "forgotten", then why do the teams themselves keep lists of all their opening day starting lineups in the team media guides? Obviously the teams consider them to be worth remembering and worth a notice. Spanneraol 19:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - So just because somebody thinks it's important, that gives it instant notability? I think my kitchen sink is important, but is my kitchen sink instantly notable because of that? For every single thing out there, at least one person thinks it's important, so to say that "well, they think it's important. So should we" as a reason for having an article isn't valid. Ksy92003(talk) 19:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, by that method.. just cause YOU think it isn't important doesn't mean it isn't worth having an article on it.. which seems to be your main argument. I've indentified a number of sources that show it as being important.. but obviously the opinion of major league baseball doesn't matter compared to your feelings that it is unimportant. Spanneraol 19:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Importance and notability are two entirely different things. Importance is how necessary something is. Notability is how noteworthy something is. I never said the list wasn't important. I said it's not notable enough and doesn't mean a whole lot. Keep your facts straight. Ksy92003(talk) 19:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments in the last AFD and the DRV, also while it isn't a copyvio as simple stats, the formatting is and we are ripping off baseball-reference info, and that's very bad, we are not them, and of course we don't want that website to go out of service, we are already doing it for the seasons articles and that's enough. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons I gave last time. Definitely meets the definitions of WP:LISTCRUFT. If the information for a particular opening day is important, it can be in an article on that season. If the table is important, all that's needed is a link to baseball-reference. --Fabrictramp 17:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DRV - viz: listcruft. Eusebeus 18:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being so narrow a topic as to be utterly trivial. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT - Lists of indiscriminate information. Also, far too trivial per VanTucky Giggy ^Talk 23:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- trivial listcruft that's just plain ridiculous; how exactly is a starting lineup for an opening day notable enough to have its own article? The topic is to narrow. --Boricuaeddie 23:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list is clearly trivia and an indiscriminate list, violating the spirit of WP:NOT (though I don't think WP:NOT is usually a useful policy to quote in deletion discussions, as it's rather vague and hard to apply to specific articles). I admit I don't know a great deal about baseball, but the reasoning of the Keep !voters above seems flawed. Evidently both the Los Angeles Dodgers and the concept of Opening Day are notable; no one is disputing that. But notability is not inherited, and even where a topic is notable, we don't include all trivial information about that topic. This list of lineups may be important to baseball fans, but Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia with fixed standards of notability, which this list does not meet. Walton^One 16:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my thoughts in the first AfD:

"Opening day lineups are definitely more significant than any other game's lineups. As has been stated earlier, there is a significance to being a team's starting pitcher on opening day and the lineups are introduced much like they are at the All-Star game and the first game of League Division Series, League Championship Series and World Series serieses. I think it's fascinating to see the progression of a team's opening day lineup through the years. I'd also like to see information added to the article answering questions such as "Why did Mariano Duncan start in place of Steve Sax at 2B in 1985?". I believe that info would improve the article."

X96lee15 21:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The opening day roster is no more notable or significant than those of the next 161 games that come after it. This is the epitome of trivia, and the WP:ILIKEITs are not enough to keep this around. Tarc 01:41, 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 11:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Escape: Human Cargo[edit]

Contested Prod. Non-notable made for TV movie with little to mark it out for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Does not appear to meet the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (films) WebHamster 14:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in lacking reviews etc to establish notability Corpx 16:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A movie nobody watched, including the author of the article!Mandsford 23:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Its only claim to notability is IMDB, but even there it has no synopsis and only one review, and WP:FILM says clearly that one of the guidelines is "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." it has, to the best of my knowledge, only received the one review. Edit: That review was a "mini-review", so it shouldn't even count. Neranei (talk) 20:19, 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 08:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Duddy[edit]

Contested prod. I fail to see how this special effects technician meets WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 14:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to establish notability evidence. Zouavman Le Zouave 14:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 16:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in lacking notability Corpx 16:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Crash in a Volcano. The subject fails notability; I'd speedy delete this article, but for Duddy being featured in an episode of I Shouldn't Be Alive. However, there's nothing that's said here that isn't, or can't be, said in that article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I probably should have brought this here myself when my prod was contested. Article was created as one of a series of "famous family members". --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:22, 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 a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability and no sources. NawlinWiki 16:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warbears[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Not notable, written like advertisment. Oyster guitarist 13:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Zouavman Le Zouave 14:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claim to notability. --Dweller 14:16, 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 keep. Singu larity 08:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Estulin[edit]

non-notable conspiracy theorist; lack of independent reliable sources Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While this fellow is a wingnut and the only cited source is the Coast to Coast AM site -- on the Reliable Sources scale, somewhere between Erich Von Daniken and Tawana Brawley -- he is widely known in conspiracy circles and has nearly fifty thousand Google hits to attest to it, thus passing the WP:BIO bar of someone with a widespread cult following. Ravenswing 14:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Ravenswing. wikipediatrix 16:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concur with Ravenswing. He's well known in conspiracy theory circles. That doesn't excuse the terrible sourcework, of course... Bullzeye^{(Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts)} 16:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Evidently has made noteworthy contributions as an investigative writer. Ombudsman 04:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia: the tragic loss[edit]

Contested prod. This small documentary film is not in wide release and fails WP:MOVIE. It has one review that mentions a premiere in March, but the other cited source claims it will review the film once it has been screened at 'the American premiere' it will host at some unspecified time. Finally, the article is more about the loss of Columbia and criticism of NASA, for which we already have articles. KrakatoaKatie 13:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. KrakatoaKatie 13:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Could be mentionned in another Columbia related article if reliable sources are found for this documentary. Zouavman Le Zouave 14:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 16:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I didn't expect a movie about the Columbia disaster, but I'm not surprised that an Israeli filmmaker made one. Sad that it's more notable there than here, but makes sense. Mandsford 23:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main article.--JForget 01:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has reliable sources which discuss the film in detail, establishing notability. More sources should be added supporting the claims of a special mention at a Houston film festival and the Jewish film festivals it's been shown at, and the article should include information on how the documentary has been reviewed, but it seems clear to me that this film merits inclusion on Wikipedia. Incidentally, if kept, the article should be moved to proper capitalization. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and move to a page with proper capitalization. The film was reviewed in Variety[42], mentioned in The San Diego Union-Tribune[43], the Arizona Daily Star, and reviewed in JewishJournal.[44] --Pixelface 08:46, 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 08:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COPS SAMP[edit]

Contested PROD. This series (primarily, but apparently not exclusively, YouTube videos) is unsourced. Its only assertions of any significance are YouTube/website views, which aren't an indicator that it passes WP:WEB or WP:N. The only reasons that this wasn't, in my opinion, speedily deletable by criterion A7 are that it seems not to be entirely web-based (the lead claims DVD distribution) and that the YouTube popularity could be construed as an assertion of significance. Still, with only 34 Google hits, none of which seem to be reliable third-party sources, I don't think that there's enough reliable, independent content out there currently for an article. — TKD::Talk 13:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of machinima deletions. — TKD::Talk 13:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. References? Deiz talk 14:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and purge with fire: Bombs hard on any measure of notability; for instance, I'd love to see some proof that there are half a million page views and five hundred subscribers to this apparently insignificant work. This article involves the sole Wiki activity of User:Tenaciousd2005, its creator and principal editor, and so looks to be a WP:SPAM violation as well. Ravenswing 15:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPA rather than WP:SPAM? Deiz talk 15:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No; the reason being is that a SPA created to push a Youtube "series" by a "production company" likely has a corporate goal attached to it. Ravenswing 20:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. wikipediatrix 16:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not got enough (any?) reliable 3rd party sources, and I suspect a bit of WP:COI involved. Neranei (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 23:00, 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^♫ 01:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological List of Playboy Playmates[edit]

This is just a rehash of a larger and more thorough listing that are in the pages entitled: List of people in Playboy 1953-1959, 60-69, and so on. There's no point to having this page in addition to those others. Dismas|^(talk) 12:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I'm not proposing that this data doesn't belong here at all. I'm just saying it's duplicative when we have the other articles. Dismas|^(talk) 00:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, strongly. Nothing said in the nomination makes a case for deleting this nicely formatted index page. The playmate of the month is somewhat distinct from a list of all the people featured in the magazine. The list is self-referencing: to verify any given entry, all that must be done is to consult the issue at issue. Hostility to Playboy magazine is not grounds for deleting anything. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hostility? If you looked at my edits or the articles I've started, you'd see I'm not hostile towards Playboy or porn in general. The page is nicely formatted but it's a rehash of info that is already here and already in chrono order. Dismas|^(talk) 13:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My bad - I was responding more to an comment that appears directly below this, and which seeks to label something as "trivia", but that may be a bad edit to the AfD page itself, or not belong to this one. It doesn't appear on this page. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is more user friendly than the other lists, catering for anyone who wants the basic facts (who, when) without any clutter. Brandon97 13:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. However, the names of the months must be translated. Zouavman Le Zouave 14:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear organizational value here, akin to that of the US program schedules. I would honestly rather look at this page than the other lists, though I do see they have other things. But the concept of a Playboy Playmate is sufficiently distinct that it can merit identification. Given that it's a month-by-month thing, this would seem to be the logical way to organize it. FrozenPurpleCube 14:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. wikipediatrix 16:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. As nom says, this list is replicated in its entirety in the more complete "Lists of" lists, which are likewise organized into a table. "We like this table better aesthetically" is a poor reason to keep a duplicate article. Ravenswing 16:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I feel it's a great reason to keep an article of this type. The value of data is shaped by how accessible it is, and in this case, I think it's quite a bit higher in this format than the other. The fact is, sometimes redundancy is a part of presentation, and given that there's no real cost to having another page, but a real advantage, I find the argument of duplication warranting deletion lacking. FrozenPurpleCube 17:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have a list of List of Playmates of the Year and I see no need to document everyone who was a playmate/was on every issue of a magazine Corpx 16:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that issue would be addressed with regards to the other pages as well, not simply this one. However, I think you're perhaps ignoring the notability of being a Playboy playmate, which is actually a fairly notable bit of status. At least as much as being a pro sports player. FrozenPurpleCube 17:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a playmate is notable, but I dont think the same is true for a list of them. This would be like documenting the Big XII offensive player of the week since they started handing out the award. Corpx 18:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, being a Playboy Playmate is clearly far more notable than the Big 12 player of the week. It's closer to the Heismans or Superbowl MVPs. Plenty of women are identified as a Playboy Playmate in news articles, there's enough books and videos on them to show that there is an economic impact to the designation as well. FrozenPurpleCube 19:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would compare Playmate of the Year to the Heisman (we already have a list of playmate of the year) Corpx 00:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People get identified for *years* afterwards as a Playmate, I'd even say it's a reasonable criteria for notability in a person, much like playing in a pro-sport. I don't know that the same is true for Big XII offensive player of the week. But to be honest, I don't even know who gives out that award, and I really don't care. If you, or somebody else wants to develop a page about that, feel free, I've got no objection. I'd still say that it's more accurate to compare being a Playboy Playmate to something like winning the Heisman or a Superbowl MVP. Of course, if you win one of those you're likely notable for other things, but that's often true of being a Playmate. Doesn't mean this isn't a useful table. FrozenPurpleCube 02:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a Playboy playmate is no different than being featured on the cover or SI or TSN or ESPN the mag, or PEOPLE or any other magazine. While being a playmate is indeed notable recgonition, I do not think its any more notable than the other magazines Corpx 02:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is quite different. Being on the cover of those magazines isn't used to identify the person (though it *could* be used to demonstrate notability since it is recognition by a third-party and usually includes in-depth coverage within the magazine), while being a Playboy Playmate, well...it is an identifier that can be considered as defining enough to merit an article on the person. Much like say, being on the Yankees baseball team. This is an article which takes existing data about a given recognition and collates it. And as far as it goes, the articles on Sports Illustrated and The Swimsuit issue do go into some depth as regarding the covers. Whether or not they should go into further detail, I don't know, but I wouldn't object to it out of hand. I don't know about the other magazines to even guess whether or not there's anything to their covers, but their articles aren't exactly that good. Could use some improvement in a lot of ways. OTOH, there is List of athletes on Wheaties boxes which is somewhat similar in nature. I wouldn't mind a Chronological version of it. FrozenPurpleCube 03:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think that should be deleted too. I think the frequency of crowning the title is my problem. Somebody who is crowned every month is not worth documenting here. The same to the Wheaties box where it the frequency is also pretty high. Corpx 04:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a personal objection, and one where I disagree. Every month being too often but once a year not being too often is quite arbitrary. It's the notability of the title/award/whatever you call it that matters. Not the frequency. I sense that at least part of your objection is to the number of awards, but let's consider pro sports. Being a member of the Yankees, or the Titans, or whoever is sufficient grounds for an article. Do any of those teams add more than 12 players a year? I don't know, but I think it's quite possible. But hey, you want to nominate the Wheaties page for deletion, go right ahead. I suspect there won't be a consensus for its deletion. [45]. But hey, maybe I'm wrong and the plethora of third-party sources noting the various teams and individuals being on the box won't matter. FrozenPurpleCube 04:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think we have a list of Players signed by Yankees or Player transactions by the Titans. The frequency is what is making it pointless to maintain this list. Corpx 07:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once a month is hardly so frequent an updating as to make it pointless as it's hardly difficult. And I don't know how often the Template:New York Yankees roster is updated, it looks like there's a regular pattern of edits, but some may just be housekeeping. (And not to mention, but there's more than one MLB team to update) However 2007 New York Yankees season and the thousands of other sports with listing by seasons are clearly more frequent. I see a game every day this week. And there are lots of others. Portal:Current events requires frequent updates to stay current, don't you think? Sorry, but your argument is unconvincing, even if timeliness were a real concern in this case. FrozenPurpleCube 16:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Yankees article and it does not look like it lists (or mentions) every time somebody is sent down or called up, or the "transaction log" as they call it. Something similar would be the NFL Rookie of the Week or any other award that's crowed with such frequency. Corpx 16:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you need to look more closely at the template itself. Seems to me that it's meant to be kept up to date. Just like the season article is meant to be kept up to date. Thus your argument doesn't seem to be based on sound objections where there are clearly examples of frequent updating in existence.. I don't know that there's any particular notice given to being an NFL Rookie of the Week that compares to being a Playboy Playmate. Especially since any NFL player has an article by default simply by playing in the NFL. FrozenPurpleCube 17:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The schedule in the season article is kept because the season as a whole is worthy of coverage. If New York Yankees 2006-07 Schedule existed, I would also want it deleted. Corpx 18:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So would I, because there's no overlap that way in Baseball seasons. It starts in the spring and ends in the fall, unlike other sports which start in the fall and end in the winter of the next year or even the spring. But you *really* need to look at 2007 New York Yankees season. You are clearly missing something. Did you not read down the page? FrozenPurpleCube 18:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Brandon97 is right that this page is presented better than the other ones the nominator mentions. However I question the notability of the list (in either form), so I refuse to offer an opinion on which is better. If a later AfD lists both sets of lists for being non-notable, I will support Delete. —gorgan_almighty 16:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. Taken alone, this is an essential piece of pop culture that definitely is not trivial. But there is already a list of playmates of the year, so this is repetitive and useless. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an unneeded duplication of information stored in other articles. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I think this is a helpful concentration of the information found in other articles. I have yet to see any other articles with which this is an exact duplicate. FrozenPurpleCube 03:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially a duplicate of the list articles and really unnecessary. Has no context and is just tables. Wikipedia is not a directory. --Core desat 03:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Context is easily addable and a lack of said context is not a reason for deletion. And I see nothing in WP:NOT#DIR that explicitly prohibits pages of tabular data, in fact, WP:NOT#DIR (1) says "Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.". This page is exactly that. And I continue to point out, that this list collects information in a more useful form than found elsewhere. Sorry, but I'm just not seeing the argument for duplication being valid. If I'm looking for who was a Playmate for a given month in 10 separate years, I can look at this page, or I can what, look at a 3-4 others? Which is more effective? FrozenPurpleCube 14:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument of sorts. Yes, I'm sure that there might be someone out there with a burning desire to see a table where one can easily see every November Playmate in history. There could also be someone out there with a burning desire to pick out every Asian playmate from a one-stop chart, but that bit of trivia isn't reflected either. Ravenswing 18:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really do find it less than helpful when people just throw out Wikilinks without substantiating the connection to the situation. What exactly are you claiming is OCE about my statement? Are you arguing that there is no notability to being a Playboy Playmate? Is there some reason you're not seeing what's helpful about a month-by-month listing? And as far as mentioning ethnicity goes, that may or may not merit coverage in some form, however, that's a different discussion than this one, which is about representing in tabular form the existing information as to Playboy Playmates. FrozenPurpleCube 18:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is what others have said: this list is duplicated in its every detail in other articles. Those other articles even have the exact same tabular style as this one. It just is arranged in a grid rather than in columns. I have argued nothing else, nor has anyone else, and your suggestions (now several times repeated) that the popularity of Playmates are at issue or that people don't see what is helpful about a month-by-month listing (which already exists) are at best straw-man arguments. Ravenswing 19:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I disagree that the duplication is a problem. They don't provide the same factoring that this page does by condensing the information on one page. This is a more convenient way to do it. Redundancy is not a bad thing. And in any case, I did see that Corpx did express some concerns about notability, as well as a concern about updating it. Pardon me for discussing those concerns. And your remark wasn't clear as to what you meant, thus I asked for clarification. If all you're concerned about is the duplication concern, then see my existing reply. Redundancy is not a problem here. FrozenPurpleCube 20:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FrozenPurpleCube. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It is definitely a notable thing to be a Playmate, and the month-by-month listing makes sense, as Playboy is a monthly magazine. Neranei (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I find it funny that a list that big only has one redlink, and that's for the October Playmate of this year... I guess there must be a lot of devoted "for the articles" readers amongst us. --Agamemnon2 23:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid deletion reason, since this isn't a developmental article. FrozenPurpleCube 00:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FrozenPurpleCube RossPatterson 04:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the arguments to delete because of duplication are against policy, which says to merge and redirect, not delete duplicate content. However, this list is not duplicative in that by listing only the Playmates it provides a different navigational purpose than the various Lists of people in Playboy, so keep. DHowell 06:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep It's a nice listing and I find the information rather obviously notable, as well as non-duplicative.Salvatore22 22:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC) — Salvatore22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Garden of Earthly Delights in popular culture[edit]

Delete as per WP:Trivia. Apparently I have to do this myself since the nominator of the article has got himself banned for vandalism. If I can make one caveat it is that there is a public hygine issue here, it seems this kind of cruft has to go somewhere or it'll leak back out onto the main article. It might be better if there was a harmless refuse pit it could be buried in. Twospoonfuls 12:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - directory of loosely associated items that offers no illumination of the painting, the items which utilize some image that is or resembles the painting, their (non-existent) iterrelationships or the real world. Oppose merging any of this to any other article. It was clearly split out from another article because it wasn't wanted there and it's just as trivial in another article as it is in a separate article. Keeping it as a refuse dump is not in the spirit of the project and is not a valid reason for keeping the article. Otto4711 17:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Definitely interesting and potentially encyclopedic, but it needs references and should be written in a less list format. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because something is interesting doesn't mean it should have its own page. Dannycali 18:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I guess it is interesting, but it is bad trivia. Bulldog123 18:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsalvageable trivia. --Eyrian 22:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Per WP:NOT and WP:TRIV. Merging won't do, it's still trivia. Giggy ^Talk 01:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Otto. Dannycali 18:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very trivial, and no merging is needed. RobJ1981 17:32, 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 08:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Style[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I found only one substantiable claim towards WP:MUSIC for this artist, namely on his homepage: He claims that he made it to the "Billboard country top 40" (sic). I actually can't figure out what chart he is precisely referring to; Billboard has many, and certainly not all of them imply notability. Also, the Billboard web site lists his discography, but does not show any charted hits for him [46]. Maybe I am misunderstanding something here, since I am not familiar with the US music charts, but to me he seems non-notable. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 12:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Good job on the researching! Zouavman Le Zouave 14:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 16:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one apparently self-released CD, and he performs on cruise ships. Fails WP:MUSIC. The creating IP, User:80.138.81.57, is from Germany. I don't know if that's some sort of COI confict or not, since Bob's German, but it's curious. And the German version of the article has been deleted - [47]. Corvus cornix 18:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't released any charted singles, and performs on cruise ships. Plus, as Corvus cornix said, the German version has been deleted. Thus, fails WP:MUSIC. Neranei (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Peach[edit]

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO Epbr123 12:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Epbr123 12:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. Notability is not established, nor can be established with present information available. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 20:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability present with the article as it stands now. Tabercil 23:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dominictimms 14:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. --Coppertwig 17:53, 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. If individual albums are demonstrably notable, then pages can be created on them. However, a discography as suggested by WP:MUSTARD may consist of album names only, as are already listed at Harvest (band), and the general consensus seems to be against a standalone detailed track listing etc. MastCell ^Talk 20:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest discography[edit]

This is a discography for a Christian band. The band article has essentially one editor, User:Jamielang77. This discography has one editor, User:Jamielang77. There are very few inbound links for Harvest (band), all added by User:Jamielang77. User:Jamielang77 has some tens of edits, all to Harvest (band), adding links to that band from other articles, and adding this discography. In short, then, this is creeping fandom. This article is entirely unnecessary, adding a level of detail well beyond what might reasonably be justified. Cruftbane 11:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

For reference: I am the creator of the article.

User:Cruftbane failed to note that this is a notable Christian band, as established in the Harvest article's recent AFD discussion.

WP:MUSTARD states that "Pages on performers should have discography sections."

A comment that was made before in the Harvest article's peer review is that the article reads like a discography, instead of like an encyclopedia article, if the full discography section is included. I feel that the creation of this discography page helps to reduce the size of the main article, while still providing valuable information.

As shown by WP:MUSTARD alone, the discography article is not "entirely unnecessary" and does not add "a level of detail well beyond what might reasonably be justified."

Jamie L.^talk 14:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If a band is notable enough for an article, then that band's discography is as well, especially if that discography would make the main article excessively long if it was placed there. wikipediatrix 16:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete per nom. Indeed, pages on performers should have discography sections. I see nowhere where discography articles are mandated. As it happens, putting this in the main band article would not make it excessively long, and as a group that disbanded twelve years ago, it isn't as if much more is likely to be written. RGTraynor 16:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re: the statement "I see nowhere where discography articles are mandated," there is the statement in WP:MUSTARD's discography section that "If a simple system cannot accommodate an artist's entire discography, a subpage (preferably titled "<Bandname> discography") should be created using summary style."

Jamie L.^talk 16:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: True enough. What do you fancy there is about this band's discography that can't be accommodated by a simple system ... for instance, the one that comprises the article under AfD discussion? RGTraynor 20:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply What constitutes a complex discography? Is it one with more information re: the label, producer, band members, album histories, etc.? I can provide some of this information for most of the albums and would like to for the remainder. In other words, can I be given the chance to expand this article? I only created it last week. As it stands now, though, I don't think it would be too hard to simplify it. Jamie L.^talk 21:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: My take on that is that it would place undue weight on the importance on the individual albums; these aren't precisely the White album or The Wall. According to Amazon, the sales rank of Harvest's most popular album is #141,824. [48]. RGTraynor 14:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete per RGTraynor. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think the band is notable enough for every track on every album to be listed. The albums are listed on the band's page, so there's no need to merge anything. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re: the band not being notable enough for every track on every album to be listed. I've been comparing the discography to the discography of the featured article Slayer. I notice that Slayer's discography does include track listings. Obviously they are a more popular band; but it brings me to my question: at what point is a band "notable enough" to include the track listings with their albums? I would think this track information to be useful, especially on harder to find albums. Jamie L.^talk 21:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I think, as a rule of thumb, if an album merits a page of its own, the track listing is justified in a discography. There's a big grey area, but none of the albums we're discussing are notable enough for a track listing. Also, being useful to fans of the band does not justify inclusion, per WP:NOT. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Please see the album criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music). It states that "If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." I think it's safe to conclude that if information re: the album's history, label, producer, units sold, etc. could be provided, and if the band was notable, then it would be alright for the album to have its own page, as well as having a separate discography for the albums. Additionally, I wasn't saying that the track information would only be useful to fans; but also to those researching the band (e.g., those individuals researching charted Christian music of Harvest's era). Jamie L.^talk 14:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The discography is significant to warrant an individual article.--JForget 01:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under the assumption that it's not one of the all time great bands, a guess I make because not a single one of their albums is considered notable in WP. For a separate discography for albums that are barely notable themselves seems absurd. DGG (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. According to WP:N's "General notability guideline", "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." So far, I know that Harvest's albums "It's Alright Now" and "Only the Overcomers" have received such coverage. I'm sure that more of their albums have as well; but I have yet to do the research. Jamie L.^talk 14:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 18:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POLI-SCI.187[edit]

please evaluate against WP:MUSIC, I believe that is does not pass this test --Xorkl000 11:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely fails WP:Music: It's a mere tracklisting. The band itself is apparently nn (I know notability is not inherited but in this case this could be argued as I'm going the other way around). The article does not have any inter-Wiki links or external links for that matter. 1redrun 11:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails WP:MUSIC. Zouavman Le Zouave 23:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to article about series. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Instinct for Murder[edit]

This is an article on one of the nine episodes made of the TV series Star Cops. This is a minor topic that does not require a separate article for each episode made. The article itself consists of little more than a plot summary and there is not much scope for expansion due to the limited number of potential sources related to this subject. I see no reason why any significant points pertaining to this episode cannot be incorporated into the main Star Cops article where better context can be given to them. On the grounds that it contravenes WP:FICTION and WP:NOTABILITY, I propose it should be deleted. Joe King 10:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure plot summary and fails WP:EPISODE in lacking real world notability Corpx 16:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:EPISODE is not policy - far from it - and contradicts Wikipedia's longstanding tradition in which individual episodes of a show are notable for the exact same reasons that the show itself is. That this is the pilot episode would make it even more encyclopedic. wikipediatrix 16:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no longstanding tradition that individual episodes are notable. I could pull up lots of examples AFDs of this Corpx 16:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no problem with articles for individual episodes of series when there are a large number of significant books, articles, websites etc. written for them that can be used as sources such as with, say, Doctor Who or Star Trek or The Simpsons or even short-lived series like The Prisoner or Firefly but having articles for every episode of every TV show is plainly ridiculous; you wouldn't, for instance, allow articles for each of the 6,000+ episodes of Coronation Street even though it must be one of the most important television articles on Wikipedia. As I've said, there are precious few sources available relating to Star Cops, maybe two websites worth a damn and about half a dozen magazine articles. So, where is the material to give the real world context for this article to come from? - Joe King 18:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SMERGE Shorten and merge to the article about the series. Could not find substantial coverage of this episode in reliable and independent sources. Also per WP:EPISODE. Edison 17:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shorten and merge, possibly to a "list of episodes" page, per WP:EPISODE. Neranei (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Wikipediatrix. Academic Challenger 02:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TV episodes do not inherit notability from the TV series, and this is simply a plot summary. --Phirazo 16:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Phirazo.Harlowraman 20:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JuaNaxxxo[edit]

Musician autobiography. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 10:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - His only singles have been out in places like the Virgin Islands. He's not remotely notable. Plus, the only sources are LastFM and Myspace. Waste of time article. Porterjoh 11:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly meets - Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. - of WP:Music. However no sources are cited. Additionaly I doubt it meets WP:N - An artist without a real website and only MySpace to show these days? 1redrun 11:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per RHaworth. Onnaghar ^{tl | co} 14:44, 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 08:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horton's law[edit]

Cannot find anything to suggest such a term exists, no sources, when do a google search [49] only reference is to a Horton's law of stream lengths not this article's topic Davewild 10:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources. Seems to be WP:OR Seth Bresnett • (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, appears to be unsourceable. Fails WP:V. Jakew 11:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bigtime WP:MADEUP, and incoherent enough that it might well deserve an A1 speedy. Bullzeye^{(Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts)} 16:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, appears to be a neologism. NawlinWiki 16:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the "Horton's laws" I could find are quite what this article claims. There are actual scientific "laws" related to trees or drainage which are clearly unrelated. The closest I could find (and not very close) was from Huffington post.com 38 days ago, (but not retrievable at that site) reprinted at [50]. Scroll down to "David Horton: Whacko, Texas. Friday, July 13, 2007, 5:28:12 PM, where it says "the more the number of deniers decline the stronger will be the opposition. Call it Horton's Law, if you will." Specifically, it says as the number of deniers of global warming decreased, their vehemence increased. That is pretty trivial as a law, since the corollary would be that 'dedicated true believers would be the last to hold onto a belief". In the article, the "law" has been turned around a bit to involve terrorists. Delete it as a non-notable neologism failing WP:V or as WP:OR. Perhaps the article creator meant to name some other half-remembered "law." Edison 17:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Term is from this post [51] at the Huffington Post, but has not gained widespread use. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. --Fabrictramp 22:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, website with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 16:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leedsmeup[edit]

Non-notable and defunct website. (Disputed speedy.) -- RHaworth 09:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable as per WP:WEB. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day? --Dweller 14:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luchesi authorship controversy[edit]

Delete. Contested {{prod}}. This is a non-notable fringe theory. No case is made in the article about why readers should think the theory is notable. Just listening to the works will convince anyone who knows a bit about music that this theory's claim that Luchesi wrote Mozart's Symphonies nos. 39, 40, 41 and Haydn's London Symphonies is unlikely. RobertG ♬ talk 09:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Non-notable crankery. --Folantin 09:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "other views" section even says that other scholars haven't paid attention to Taboga's views. If no reliable source has discussed the theory except its creator, it surely fails Wikipedia:Notability. EALacey 10:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per EALacey. I would also submit that this article fails even to establish the existence of the subject: if nobody has disagreed with Taboga's claims, how can there be a controversy? Jakew 11:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a fringe theory, and a silly one at that. It has not gained wide acceptance or even notice, and does not merit an article. Merge any relevant content to Luchesi's article and perhaps redirect it there. And merge any other content someone can't stand to lose to "Ridiculous nationalist notions" or something. Mak (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rantings of one deranged fringecrank do not an encyclopedia article make. Delete this noxious nationalist nonsense ASAP. Moreschi ^Talk 14:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's one person's fringe theory, and has received no mainstream attention. Significantly, the current article on Luchesi in the comprehensive New Grove makes no mention of this, even though its promoter has been active for many years. Antandrus (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It has all the hallmarks of a fringe theory, indeed a conspiracy theory (nationalism, paranoia, obliviousness to counterevidence). However, the theory has been published in a scholarly journal -- see the Talk page for the link. My only discomfort with deleting is my belief that, in general, the scholarly literature should trump the views of Wikipedia editors. But I wouldn't much mind making an exception in this particular case. Opus33 17:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The point here is that we just can't write a whole article about one publication in one journal that no one else has even taken any notice of, as it's so ridiculous - that simply doesn't pass the criterion for notability. Moreschi ^Talk 18:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It might warrant a single line in the Luchesi page because of the published journal (not a particularly important journal even discounting the astounding discovery). This whole mess falls under Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The claims are so incredible that a single journal (one which rarely publishes and then generally runs conference proceedings on Catalan topics) does not count as an exceptional source. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:48, 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 Speedy keep, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki 16:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Jones 4[edit]

AfDs for this article:

WP:CRYSTAL Iks33 09:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. The Indiana Jones franchise is notable. The article has 62 citations.----^DarkTea © 09:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article cites sources for it's forward looking statements. I think it's widely known that there will be a 4th Indiana Jones movie and Information on it ranges from official studio statements to speculations in major publications. 1redrun 09:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep from crystal: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Recurring dreams 10:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep against bad faith nomination. The film is being made! Alientraveller 10:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:CRYSTAL is intended to exclude "unverifiable speculation", which manifestly doesn't apply to this well-referenced article. Does WP:SNOW apply here? EALacey 10:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Alientraveller 13:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the videos on the set are enough to verify that this is real. ColdFusion650 11:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certain to be made. Brandon97 13:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Almost certain to be made and supported by many reliable sources. Zouavman Le Zouave 14:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable even if it *doesn't* take place. FrozenPurpleCube 14:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability guidelines for films. The film is in production, and the project, being part of a notable franchise, warrants its own article. Request a speedy close based on the overwhelming consensus to keep. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film is part of a very major franchise and is in production! "WP:CRYSTAL" and that's it... what a terrible nomination. --Canley 14:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep. WP:CRYSTAL isn't valid when you've got sources out the wazooty verifying it! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 15:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Solidly sourced to remove this from the realm of speculation. Agree that this is rapidly headed for a snowball closure. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Assuming a good faith nomination, but the film is pretty well set at this point; making it quite notable. — RJH (talk) 16:17, 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 08:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bede RFC[edit]

Delete. Unreferenced, and not notable. RobertG ♬ talk 08:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I added Importance and Unreferenced templates in March, and no action has been taken on them. Google turns up a little coverage from student media, but nothing that would show notability or allow us to reference most of the material in the article. EALacey 10:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As loathe as I am to provoke the ire of the "Yale University Beer Pong Champions". Bullzeye^{(Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts)} 15:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable amateur/college team. NawlinWiki 16:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No sources. Zouavman Le Zouave 23:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Windows and Ubuntu Linux[edit]

According to the deletion policy page:Content not suitable for an encyclopedia. The article has been almost duplicated from Comparison of Windows and Linux with very little topic specific info. These thoughts can even be found on the page's discussion page. Acetylcholine 06:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No need to compare one linux distribution in particular, and per above. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 07:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYNTH. Thin Arthur 08:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Which comparison? 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista or what? Which Ubuntu version 1.0 or 7.04? Carlosguitar 09:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Jakew 11:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH - We're not a software comparison site Corpx 16:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I assume that this article was created as a result of this discussion. —gorgan_almighty 11:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. In this case, Wikipedia is not for comparing apples to oranges. --Agamemnon2 23:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. @pple 17:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political change[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Page earlier deleted. Recreated with near-empty content. Concept per se does not exist as a subfield of political science; all political science is the study of political change. Please note that a google test obviously will not work for something which is a common phrase but a non-notable subject for an article. In the absence of a common definition or field of study that this article would encompass, any contributions would obviously be OR, like it is now. Has been a stub since creation 10 months ago. Prod removed by creator. Hornplease 06:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. It does appear to be a common term in political science. I don't see how contributions would be OR when Google Scholar alone finds 91,400 uses of the term (examples[52][53][54][55][56]). I'm sure it can be reliably expanded. Part of the problem seems to be it wasn't tagged as part of any Wikiproject (I have now done this). Dbromage [Talk] 06:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I did mention that Google is not a reliable indicator for a common phrase, right? Hornplease 07:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I did mention its use in Google Scholar which is a good indicator of scholarly usage rather than overall Ghits. Dbromage [Talk] 08:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, I include Google scholar in my concerns that "hits" are an inappropriate indicator. Using a phrase is not an indication that that phrase deserves an article. For example, "full strength" gets a similar number of google scholar hits. But naturally, it would not be a reasonable article title, as there is no coherent article that can be formed around all the uses of this phrase. "Political change" is a similar problem. Article titles in the social sciences are completely devoid of information in some sense; a doctoral thesis I just read was titled "three articles on structural change", but of course that was a catch-all phrase and one of the articles was about decolonisation in Algeria, one on postcolonial theory, and one on linguistic modification. Hornplease 08:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. —Dbromage [Talk] 06:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Several scholarly definitions of political change.[57][58][59] Dbromage [Talk] 08:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And every single book you cite will have a definition of political change for the purposes of the book. It is the sort of phrase that is a free-floating signifier which people use to clarify their arguments. For example "a conception of political change" should be read as "a useful concept, which I shall henceforth refer to as 'political change'". The author would be surprised to learn that we think it has external validity. Hornplease 08:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't support your assertion that some hypothetical future contribution to the article would "obviously be OR" when it hasn't happened yet. Any OR can be dealt with editorially. Putting it another way "If the article contains OR, trim it."[60]. You also haven't explained why the subject is not notable (see WP:JNN) or which (if any) Wikipedia policies the current article violates. The nomination seems rather flawed. Dbromage [Talk] 08:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence has been provided that there is a coherent article that can be formed under this heading. The first line of WP:N is that "..no original research is needed to extract the content." This is a poster case of where the only way that content could be 'extracted' is to write OR. Political change is too amorphous a phrase to be a reasonable article title. Any content - like the current stub - would be OR.Hornplease 08:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence has been provided that there isn't a coherent article that can be formed under this heading since it hasn't been written yet. As I said above, any OR can be dealt with editorially. We still only have your assertion that "any content" would be OR. "If the article contains OR, trim it"[61] seems reasonable. Dbromage [Talk] 08:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence has been provided that this subject is notable. You've provided google hits. I have explained at length why, for a common phrase, that is an unreliable indicator. You have to make the case that an article can be created here; you have not demonstrated notability for the concept, or even demonstrated that a concept exists. "Definition of politcal change", as you linked, has less than ten results in Books; and those, as I specify, can each be seen to have no external validity. Consider one of the results, which says "...it need not be assumed that Easton wished to come to such conclusions but these examples do reveal a lack of care in his definition of political change..." What this means is (a)the author of the review recognises that a definition of political change is mutable (b) the definition of political change can be chosen to aid the formation of an argument,in this case Easton's. Further, there are no definitions of political change that have been studied as definitions in themselves; there are no secondary sources for it. Implication: we will choose definitions that are in themselves primary sources; we will be creating original research. That is not our purpose here.

Sheesh. Occasionally I worry about Wikipedia. Hornplease 09:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pwned. :) Thin Arthur 08:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever that means. Hornplease 09:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. It's only a stub and not POV. Enough with the crystal ball gazing about content that doesn't exist yet. Thin Arthur 08:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a stub for a year. And the point I am trying to make is that any content would be OR, given the nature of the title. Hornplease 09:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete WP:WINAD; if you believe there's something more to write here than a circular definition, you've got five days to demonstrate your belief. I'm really unclear as to what could be written here. Theories of how and why political change happens? (Can anything be said about this in general, divorced from the specific political system?) A bunch of examples which eventually get split off into List of political changes and Political change in popular culture? Per User:Hornplease, this is just an unremarkable combination of two English words which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. cab 11:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above - this does seem to fall under WP:WINAD. This is just a definition and at best is a blanket, generic term for any number of concepts. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Although I try never to do "per nom" !votes, I don't think I can come up with a better reasoning. That title is clearly a common phrase and the nominator has demonstrated that a universal definition for it DOES NOT EXIST. Secondly, WP is not a dictionary. Also, procedural delete because thirdly, any article on "political change" would be accommodated FAR BETTER on a country by country (or constituency by constituency to be pedantic) basis. There is simply no need for an over-arching article under this title. Seriously, what type of content would go in here besides the definitions by numerous different authors? Zun aid ©® 16:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is not limited to articles on subfields of political science, we also write about notable concepts from such sciences, and political change, with close to 2 million Google hits and 7,000 in printed sources, including hundreds in book titles is certainly notable (just as social change); just browsing some of the above printed academic sources shows well that much effort has gone into defining this concept. The fact that the article is substub/dismbig is no reason for deletion; there are ample sources to expand it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:article's creator, with two edits, to create in October 2006 and deprod. Hornplease 00:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Cab. (1) We have a stub that hasn't been improved in nearly a year. (2) We have a premise that violates WP:OR. (3) We have neither references nor sources. (4) The stub consists of the puerile statement "Political change refers to the concept of change in politics." No, really? (5) We have a dicdef of sorts without a particular widely recognized definition. (6) This is a classic example of the limitations of Google hits. "Red balloon" by the same test gives three and a half million Google hits ... should we on that basis alone have a Red balloon article? RGTraynor 17:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Nobody has yet provided any conclusive proof that the premise violates OR. So far there is only one assertion and echoes. Only one other user picked up that "If the article contains OR, trim it" are the nominator's own words from another AfD. Since it's only been tagged as part of a Wikiproject for less than 24 hours of its 10 month history, why not let some actual experts see what they can do with it? Dbromage [Talk] 23:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. As I actually mention in the other AfD, there is a difference between being inherently OR and containing OR. I'll pass over the snide implication that I'm not an 'actual expert'. I do expect that people will read the argument (which differs from an assertion) that I have made and decide whether or not it is indicative. Expecting "conclusive proof" of a negative is perhaps an exercise in futility. Hornplease 00:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: Agreed. That aside, Dbromage, while you're fighting the this-isn't-OR corner hard, that's far from the only severe issue about this article. Given that, the premise being OR is simple: we dispute (and do not believe there is evidence to support) that this is a widely-recognized phrase with a generally accepted definition. Everyone knows what Manifest destiny or Gunboat diplomacy mean, and there's no dispute as to the particulars. RGTraynor 14:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article that has nothing to say, and it says it. Appointment, resignation, elections, inheritance, revolution, social change. That's it. Mandsford 01:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the question here is whether any decent article could be written that wasn't just a huge OR-synthesis or "quote farm" of all these google hits that people have mentioned.. Eleland 22:55, 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 08:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Pink[edit]

Article apparently created by the subject himself raising WP:COI issues. Reads like an advertisement, with a little POV language, and absolutely no publicly verifiable, third-party reliable sources. A Lexis-Nexis news search produces no hits for the name “Jonathan Pink,” “lawyer,” “attorney,” “Los Angeles,” etc. also calling into question the notability of the subject per WP:N. A google search yields similar results with hits registering only for self-published articles on blogs and the corporate website. J Readings 05:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A self promotional article about a non notable individual. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:A7, as well as the reasons noted above. --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete on grounds that this reads as pure self-promotion, i.e. spam--Gavin Collins 08:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barely asserts notability, but nothing here that couldn't be said of thousands of other lawyers. NawlinWiki 16:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a whole lot of results that makes mention of this particular individual which does not seem to be very famous. COI Issues, not sources, OR and POV, fails in multiple ways and can easily be a CSD A7 and CSD A11 nominees.--JForget 01:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect. Those was no support for this to continue as a standalone article. All the material in this article is already in the Pepsodent page with the exception of the image that I will move across (and add a fair-use rationale). TerriersFan 20:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irium[edit]

All of the information in this aticle is covered in the article for Pepsodent, and there is virtually no additional information that could be added, making this article hopelessly redundant. Calgary 05:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but redirect. Incidentally I cannot corroborate the Pepsodent article's claim that irium is also the name of a radioactive compound; if it is we may want to keep and give it a hatnote. --Dhartung | Talk 06:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'm pretty sure that the mention of irium being a radioactive compound is meant to refer to iridium, not irium. I'm not certain, but it's my best guess. Calgary 06:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Irium is not an element. Feel free to consult any current periodic table of elements to confirm that. Irium seems to be a trade name/identifier for "Sulfuric acid, monododecyl ester, sodium salt" [62].1redrun 09:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pepsodent. It's unlikely that enough can be written about "irium" to justify an independent article. However, I don't see a need for deletion. EALacey 10:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom really no additional information to redirect.Harlowraman 20:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Singu larity 07:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hygena[edit]

Non-Notable contestant on reality show. See Crystal Clark deletion discussion. Tinkleheimer 09:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Against It's too early right now to make a delete call on Hygena. She may turn out to be the season two winner, and an article would be required. Take note that Feedback has his own page. Another good note here is that Hygena was a guest at Comic Con this year and on the panel for the show. --GrashDaStampede 22:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In that case then articles could be used for all contestants, and then when each one is sent home, that article could be deleted. But that makes no sense to me. None of the other contestants (besides Mr. Mitzvah) has an article, so why should she? Tinkleheimer 02:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Exactly per GrashDaStampede's argument, even though he was arguing for Keep. It is too early to make the call; if she wins, she becomes at least somewhat notable, but this isn't a crystal ball, right? Delete. --mordicai. 03:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note also that the article is technically on a fictional character. I'm not sure that winning a season of this program makes a character notable. Maxa megalon 2000 05:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Who Wants to Be a Superhero?. If she wins, undo this, and give her an article. Giggy ^Talk 05:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really hate to have to say this, but I agree with the Delete action. Usually I'm not impressed with deletion attempts, as they are sometimes somewhat POV themselves, but with this, the precedent is set with the first season. At one point, IIRC, most if not all of the characters had a page, but they have been absorbed into the main page. Season two should be the same. Unless we're going to have a page for every contestant on both seasons - which I think sets a very bad precedent - we have to limit it to the series. I would like Major Victory to have his own page as well, but that is not the way this article group is designed, and we must have consistency. VigilancePrime 05:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL, she might be doesn't grant her any kind of real notability. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the above comment hits it on the head. That she might be the winner and might become notable is not the same as notable. Hell, I might become notable myself someday in the future but unless I actually do, I don't get an article. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Giggy. If she wins, give her an article; if someone more notable named "Hygena" somehow comes along, then we can put in a disambig. Bullzeye^{(Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts)} 15:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fictional character with no real world notability Corpx 16:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Grash, although I'm aware that's not how he intended the argument. WP:CRYSTAL means you don't write an article on spec; you write it when the subject becomes notable, not before. RGTraynor 17:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the bitch.--293.xx.xxx.xx 11:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless she wins the competition, delete the article. If she wins, re-create it and re-name the article Melody Mooney. Rollinman 03:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As of now, she isn't notable enough. If she wins or somehow does something else of great significance, then re-create the article. —Mears man 04:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest one of three options: Keep, merge, or redirect without deleting. Should be mentioned in some context, because a contestant on a multi-season show and the show is NOT over yet. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's too early to make an article! Unless she wins, fix it up a little.- Sing66
Delete I'm changing my vote as compromise. I'd rather this article be deleted than stick around because of a lack of consensus. Not notable enough to have her own page. TommyP 18:02, 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 redirect. Singu larity 07:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Babin[edit]

Non-Notable Model who appeared on America's Next Top Model. Did not win the competition and article states nothing else notable about her. Tinkleheimer 00:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to America's Next Top Model, as she's not notable herself, but the article should be kept for those searching for information about her. Giggy ^Talk 05:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - seems a fair enough compromise. If someone more notable comes along we can always add a disambig, right? Bullzeye^{(Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts)} 15:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - No notability outside show appearance Corpx 16:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apparently she has gotten into acting [63]. Therefore has gained more notoriety. -- Thefreemarket 22:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Freemarket. Academic Challenger 01:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to have a major role to be considered a notable actor/actress Corpx 03:43, 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 redirect to Gordon B. Hinckley. Singu larity 07:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standing for Something[edit]

WP:BK notability concerns. A mention in Gordon B. Hinckley article should suffice. Article has been tagged with notability tag since May 2007 with little to no progress having been made in establishing notability. SESmith 04:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gordon B. Hinckley, it does not assert notability for its own article. I don't think we even need to mention it on his. Giggy ^Talk 05:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to author (Gordon B. Hinckley. Perhaps mention the book in a little blurb on that article. Useight 05:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Note, I just checked Hinkley's article, it already mentions the book. Useight 05:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gordon B. Hinckley. Singu larity 07:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stand a Little Taller[edit]

WP:BK notability concerns. It appears to be a book made up of collected quotations by Gordon B. Hinckley. A mention on his page should more than suffice. Has been tagged with notability tag since June 2007 with no progress having been made at establishing notability. SESmith 04:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gordon B. Hinckley, it does not assert notability for its own article. I don't think we even need to mention it on his. Giggy ^Talk 05:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to author (Gordon B. Hinckley. No evidence of notability. Perhaps his article can have a small section dedicated to literature. Actually, I just checked, there already is and this book is on it. Useight 05:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Gordon B. Hinckley is the only article that links to right now. –SESmith 05:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC) (nominator)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 07:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bro (subculture)[edit]

Strikes me as entirely made up. Pascal.Tesson 03:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V. Possibly WP:MADEUP or WP:HOAX. Dbromage [Talk] 04:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even in the best case, this is a neologism. In the worst, it is something that was just made up one day. Reso lute 04:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete - i live in the 714 area code in southern California. I know some people who are bros, and this article is extremely accurate. The bro sub-culture is mostly found in southern-California, in the Unites States, so if you don't live around here, you are probably not familiar with these types of people. If you don't believe the article, read some entries on Urban dictionary lol, not that creditable, but still proves a point thats its not made up. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bro Ryannelson714 04:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response What the article really needs is citations. Even if the article does exist, without any relieble sources to support the information, the entire article is original research. Calgary 04:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that I have speedy deleted (CSD#G1) the article Bro Hoe which was also started by Ryannelson714. That being said, Urban dictionary is indeed not what we're looking for as a reliable source. In any event, while the subculture itself may be legit (and this has yet to be established), the article itself is clearly junk. Excerpts include fantastic BJAODN such as "Bros can be seen chilling with their female counter-part of the Bro, the Bro Hoe." Pascal.Tesson 04:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response How is the article junk, this sub-culture is purely regional. I can find one website http://www.flatbiller.com/ that shows some examples. Also, search people from the 909 American area code on Myspace to look at further proof that this sub-culture exists. Ryannelson714 04:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. They are not reliable sources. Dbromage [Talk] 04:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Then what would be a reliable source? Ryannelson714 04:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Explained in reliable sources. See also general notability guidelines to determine whether the subject is notable enough for inclusion. Dbromage [Talk] 04:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Again, proving it exists isn't the only issue. Even if we could prove that the subculture exists, we need to prove that all of the information in the article is factual, which can only be done by citing independent sources. If said sources do not exist, even if it is because the subculture is regional, then I would suggest that the lack of third-party coverage means the subculture is not notable. If said sources do exist, consisting of more than just proof that the subculture exists in some way shape or form, please add them.

As far as reliable sources go, WP:RS says it all, including "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Websites may be acceptable, but more so if they are reputable, and involve editorial review. Self-published sources generally aren't reliable because anyone can publish them (hence the name). Calgary 04:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response http://groups.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=groups.groupProfile&groupID=102763674&MyToken=80bde370-6c02-4670-a606-2e1e8ae02e11

http://groups.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=groups.groupProfile&groupID=101088837&MyToken=4fff113f-dbc8-4b89-b0f7-402582361347 http://groups.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=groups.groupProfile&groupID=100451790&MyToken=51b57c42-8977-4991-9385-d1dc6d1434f1

Those Myspace groups are peer-edited, can those serve as proof? Ryannelson714 04:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response As I understand it, a MySpace group is not an actual publication, just a sort of community setting. And again, there's the problem of self-publication. Calgary 05:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism lacking in reliable sources. Myspace groups are not reliable sources, sorry. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I really doubt this exists. Even if it does, nobody cares, it sure as hell isn't notable. Giggy ^Talk 05:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Dbromage. Even if not literally made up or a hoax, it still fails WP:V by a long shot. --MCB 05:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response How 'bout this, some if is about the college "bro" a different type of "bro" http://howto.thetunafish.com/?p=26 Ryannelson714 05:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How 'bout finding some reliable sources, such as "peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers". Dbromage [Talk] 06:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if the supposed "subculture" exists there isn't any real proof that it has any real degree of notability. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced, possibly made up, and, even if true, has notability issues. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:MADEUP and nom's summary. I'd like to take this opportunity to say again, for the umpteenth time, that MySpace is NOT a reliable source. Bullzeye^{(Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts)} 15:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT, WP:OR, WP:V and probably WP:BULLSHIT as well. "Monster Energy Drink, the official beverage of the active Bro." If that's the case we're all set. Someone put us in touch with the Official Bro Governing Council and we can get verification. Ravenswing 18:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense. Corvus cornix 18:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response This is a subculture, just like skaters, surfers, emos, punk, goth, computer nerd, gangster/chavs, and others. nobody dictates how these genres of youth cultures are, they just become, evolve. just like hippies, it started somewhere, now its probably the most recongized subculture in the world, it didnt take scientific papers or political documents to tell the hippies what they are. Ryannelson714 20:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the "most recognized subculture in the world" (something I would find hard to believe, but hey ...), then surely you will have no problem coming up with the reliable sources which prove your contention? Corvus cornix 20:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In his defense, I think he means that hippies are the most recognized subculture in the world. Ravenswing 14:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't see why this hasn't been closed per WP:SNOW, the consensus can't be clearer. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism that lacks sourcing and assertion of notability. Patently fails WP:NEO. Blogs and myspace communities are not reliable sources. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being unsourced, neologistic and original research. You can't get much more deletable than that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ha delete then , I don't even care. I hate bros anyway. I just thought debating would be fun. I lost. lol Ryannelson714 07:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You'll get your wish, about three days from now. Ravenswing 19:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even amusing. SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 18:47, 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, no consensus. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 16:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pitfight Team[edit]

No sources and no information; practically a blank page with little notability short of a trainer and former champion fighter Thesaddestday 03:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - After the changes made to the article it now has content. The numerous third-party sources help with notability, though it needs more help. Thesaddestday 00:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is nowhere close to complete. The sources and information will come as soon as I can find them. I want these team pages to eventually look like every other team page on Wikipedia but this will take time and I am taking it step by step. Please allow me the time to finish them. Unak78 04:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Contentless page that doesn't assert notability. Please fully write articles before submitting them. Giggy ^Talk 05:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still delete - Despite sources and whatnot added, the article still doesn't appear to be notable enough for Wikipedia standards. Giggy ^Talk 22:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even as an advertisement, which this appears to be, this wouldn't be compelling. As an encyclopaedia article it fails badly. Jakew 12:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In response to User:Unak78, please remember that we're not necessarily judging your article on it's current state of completion, but on the overall notability of the topic. It does not appear (to me anyway) that the topic is notable enough per the above policy to be included here. Please read the policy carefully and make changes to the article if you feel it can be made to meet those standards. Thank you. Bullzeye^{(Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts)} 15:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not the place for entries about local businesses with limited notability outside the local community Corpx 16:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links from reputable sports and news souces to show that this one of several broad-based and professional Mixed Martial Arts associations linked with organizations like the UFC, Pride FC, or WEC
Iceman.com, One of the articles on Chuck Liddell's website
Sherdog.comLiddells fight finder profile on Sherdog.com which lists him as a Pit fighter under Association.
ESPN's MMA page ESPN's affiliation with Sherdog.com Unak78 16:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CBS Sportsline- 'Iceman' looking to avenge loss to Jackson in '03 Here is an article on CBS Sportsline which references Chuck Liddell and John Hackleman preceding Liddell's matchup Quinton "Rampage" Jackson in UFC 71 .
ESPN Page 2- This guy scares you? ESPN Page 2 preceding UFC 71. This article is written by ESPN columnist Allison Glock for ESPN The Magazine references both the Pit and Hackleman to Chuck Liddell
Sports Illustrated.com-Ultimate Regimen: A fighting champion gets intense Sports Illustrated article referencing Chuck Liddells training regimen. John Hackman is referenced in this article as well.
UFC.com- Hackleman Keeps It Old School for Liddell
The Boston Herald- UFC notebook: Liddell, Ortiz truckin’ on ‘Route 66’Unak78 16:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MMA Weekly- TRAINER SAYS CHUCK IS "ON HIS GAME Unak78 21:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yahoo Canada article on new reality show covering the training of Pit team member and WEC fighter Antonio Buenellos Unak78 22:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Although notablility is not inherited, the third-party sources provided make me lean towards a keep. The article needs serious help though. east.718 at 17:54, August 21, 2007
Keep The article appears to be in substantially different form from when it was nominated. While it needs work, it's sourced and cited, and if it sticks around, it will improve even more. Gnfnrf 05:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Re-written since nom, expanded and sourced. Notable topic, a well known fighter is based there & others have used it to train pre-fight. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are third party sources from reliable publications, however they refer to it as "The Pit", so renaming the article may be one place where it could be improved. Mixed Martial Artists rely heavily on thier teams and promote their teams when they fight. The styles and techniques of many fighters can be accredited to one team in most instances, so merging is not an option. The teams are also immediately notable to those who spend time viewing the sport through the media of television. But television references are more difficult to reference on short notice for this discussion (although WP states that all forms of media are eligible to establish notability) , so we can utilize sites like ESPN, SI.com, etc who do provide articles and information on the various training camps. Granted, while I admit that the article needs work, this is an argument for cleanup, not deletion. Unak78 10:10, 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 helpful and useful isn't a reason for keeping. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek versus Star Wars[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete This article is almost entirely original research. I see no independent, reliable sources for what is essentially a long-running nerd argument. --Phirazo 03:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Only one reliable source is quoted (the Forbes article). Dbromage [Talk] 03:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Star Trek versus Star Wars seems more of a forum topic.Kessingler 03:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Oyster guitarist 03:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you go to the Forbes link and click on "Star Wars Vs. Star Trek", it compares some differences such as the amount of books, video games, and money made for both sagas. But it's definitely not enough to warrant its own article. Almost all of the article is OR anyway. Spellcast 04:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost entirely original research, discussing a series of arguments occuring on internet bulletin boards. Calgary 04:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who cares? Giggy ^Talk 05:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be original research; no sources for virtually every piece of content in the entire article. --Haemo 05:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the article contains OR, trim it. If the comparison itself, as well as its effects on fandom, is non-notable, then I do not think I would be able to find references in the LA Daily News [64], Salon [65], the Philadelphia inquirer [66], and the Chicago Tribune[67], all within a minute of looking around. '(I wish to stress that when I say 'references', I mean the articles quoted above are entirely about the comparison and its effects on fandom.) Hornplease 06:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Salon article is an editorial and is already mentioned in the article, along with a heaping helping of original research about fan reaction to the article. The Tribune and the Inquirer articles are the same article, which is mostly interviews with fans. I'm still looking around for the full text of the L.A. Daily News articles, but the blurb in the link screams "news of the weird". I don't see how an article can be built from these sources. As for trimming OR, if you remove the OR from this article, there won't be anything left. --Phirazo 00:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC
  - Comment Certainly there's OR. I don't see how the Brin article and a follow-up book does not help us here. Are we claiming that being the subject of an opinion article is not helpful in evaluating notability? I didn't realise that the Trib article and the PI article are identical; but that does not change the fact that (a) Knight-ridder ran it in several papers and (b) it is an indicator of notability. I quite agree that our current rules on RS even for fandom exclude a great deal of reliable online sources for uncontentious material (a problem, in the opinion of individuals such as Teresa Nielsen Hayden), but the various links provided indicate that an argument against notability fails, given that the comparison is the subject of multiple published sources satisfying current rules. The actual OR involved is a content problem, not something inherent to the subject matter. (For a distinction, see my comments on the 'political change' AfD immediately above. Hornplease 00:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ and rewrite/expand I think the subject of the matter is worth an article. After all, these are two huge fanbases and they do collide in many occasions. Article would need to be expanded with external references though, and much of it would need to be rewritten. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 07:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC) - Moving forward to normal Keep. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 18:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced fancruft. Thin Arthur 08:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Two huge sci-fi franchises which do cause discussion and comparisons. However, a rewrite may well be in order, as the article is a bit long for the subject. The title isn't really encyclopedic, either. Delete Seth Bresnett • (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Can you think of any published comparisons that could be cited in such a rewrite? Jakew 12:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactally, Strong Delete fancruft DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I accept the point that a sourced rewrite isn't really possible. Since I don't think the article in the present form is tenable as an encyclopedia article, I've changed my vote. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now that the charge against the article is "OR" rather than "non-notable", this can and will be easily addressed by sourcing. Akerkhof 15:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If and only if such sources actually exist, which has not been demonstrated. If all the content has to be removed for sourcing problems, this is equivalent to deleting the article. Zun aid ©® 15:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As with any synthesis article, notability of the concept being synthesised into a topic must be demonstrated by referencing independent sources that have ALREADY made the synthesis. Without such third party referencing this article is fails both NOR as well as notability guidelines. Zun aid ©® 15:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems like the links that Hornplease provides would blow up the SYNTH argument against, as well as address your comment to my vote. Is your position that those links could not be successfully incorporated into this article? Akerkhof 16:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly three unique third-party independent articles? For possibly the two largest sci-fi franchises in history? Methinks this demonstrates a lack of real-world notability. These articles make the comparison, they don't discuss the comparison as a phenomenon i.e. their use in any Wikipedia article would be as primary sources, not secondary. Compare: "A few Reliable Sources have drawn a comparison between...", which still requires the synthesis of the Reliable Source material into Wikipedia, whereas "The Reliable Guide to Star Wars and Star Trek documents the comparisons made by various other sources and poses the question: why does noone seem to care?" Primary sources do not establish notability, and to my mind do not adequately address SYNTH issues either. Zun aid ©® 14:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While some of the sources do provide synthesis, the majority of this article is original research and not cited. Also, just because a reliable source compares two science fiction movies does not mean that an encyclopedia should have an entry on it. Let the secondary sources do the synthesis Corpx 16:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as I enjoyed such debate in my younger days, the result of this article can't be anything but original research. --Farix (Talk) 18:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per OR, POV, WP:V and non encyclopedic cockadookie Rackabello 18:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Awash with OR. Most of the above links are unsuitable (requiring registration), although probably enough to establish notability. This article attracts a significant amount of POV editing and trolling that it wouldn't hurt to lose ;) EyeSerene^TALK 18:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whether or not the online copy of an article requires registration has nothing to do with our ability to source it. And we shouldn't delete articles because of vandalism. Ichormosquito 19:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, although it does make it difficult to check out citations (maybe no more so than using sources from, say, a library book, but with such a contentious article I believe it is a factor). Also agreed that vandalism is a cleanup, not a deletion, issue... my comment was more in the nature of mentioning losing it as an added benefit than a deletion argument, but I obviously expressed it badly ;) EyeSerene^TALK 20:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite The article needs to be rewritten, but there are many third-party sources out there that have made this synthesis. Here are some more: Forbes Erie Times News The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The Star (Malaysia)[68] Ichormosquito 19:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source better Ichormosquito references make it clear it is a notable topic despite flaws as written now. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hornplease's are relevant too, especially the one from Salon.com. Ichormosquito 23:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wikipedia is not the place for trivial fancruft like this. This is a non-notable topic - how many reliable, published sources solely and significantly deal with comparing these two? not enough to assure notability, that's for sure - that is a ripe breeding ground for OR. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wouldnt have thought so till I looked at the references. The subject is in fact the subject of significant discussion. We dont remove articles because they might , sometime in the future, have OR.DGG (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, whom I have been noticing making some pretty good arguments here lately! :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has been much discussed and is a notable topic. There has even been a documentary made about this rivalry[69]. A well sourced article can be written on this notable topic. Davewild 19:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator, this is all WP:SYNTH and violates our no original research policy. Burntsauce 17:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. Jay32183 20:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is real, the debate exists,that some editors see it as frivolous doesn't stop it from being real. It is notable in how the online fan communities have formed and consolidated in their opposition to each other.KTo288 22:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is defined as having significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. You have to show that, you can't just say "Oh, it's notable". Jay32183 22:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as extremely frivolous fancruft. Besides, a Star Destroyer could blow Enterprise-D into pieces faster than Picard could say "Make it so." --Agamemnon2 23:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This page details a unique look at a fan debate that has existed on the Internet for quite some time. Alyeska 22:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I also suggest a moratorium on submitting this article for a deletion vote. It has, afterall, survived three previous attempts. Any more attempts will simply be a waste of bandwidth. Pretty Good Satan 00:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Trek and Wars are both hugely influential scifi fandoms. The issue of crossover debates between the two is a minor factor, but one with a lot of history and argumentation behind it.

-PeterVerkhovensky —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.221.45 (talk) 01:54, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep i dont know how much you are aware of internet history as a whole, but the STvsSW era was a big part of the subculture.

For the same reason we dont delete articles about napoleon's war campaigns or even stuff about myspace is because the information exists and wikipedia is supposed to act as an encyclopedic entry which at least attempts to document as much as possible. To delete the SWvsST article would be like saying "its ok to destoy some history based on what i feel like now", its simply a biased judgement based on ignorance of the fact.TTMSHU 03:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Anytime someone cites "fancruft" as a reason for deletion, that deletion is automatically suspect, because all the term means is "something I don't like," which is not a valid reason to delete anything. Furthermore, this debate has played a very large role in Internet subculture, and is notable for that alone, as demonstrated by the multiple references to it in various media linked above. Rogue 9 04:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason for deletion is actually that the article is completely unsourceable original research. Jay32183 04:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you want proof that it exists and is a large phenomenon? That can easily be provided in a matter of minutes; I'm tempted to tell you to learn to use Google. I'll give the article a look and see what I can do with it, but given that it's survived three deletion attempts already, I see this fourth one as nothing more than a waste of AfD's time. Rogue 9 04:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is the responsibility of those wishing to keep material to provide sources. People wanting to delete articles do not have to prove none exist. Find sources or don't say "keep". Plain and simple. Also, no reliable sources will exist. This is a fanboy debate. It will always be original research and never have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Jay32183 05:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If that were the case, source citations would be asked for. You know, all those pages that have comments that original research needs to be removed and sources added. Instead the article is just nominated for deletion without consideration given for improvement. Alyeska 05:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        In this case the article cannot be improved. It is impossible. This article is 100% original research and always will be. Deletion is the answer. You should not be offended that articles get nominated for deletion. People calling for deletion have no obligation to try to improve the article, they only have to consider the possibility of improvement. Jay32183 05:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can't help but notice the pejorative language. I will say keep if it so pleases me to say keep, and in fact it does. The article documents a widespread and highly notable Internet phenomenon. That you don't like that fact due to your apparent dislike of "fanboys" is of no consequence. Rogue 9 05:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You will be ignored if your "keep" is simply a vote, and not a contribution to a discussion about how this article does or does not fail policy and guideline. Jay32183 18:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Did you even read my initial entry? It does not fail policy because the topic is mentioned in multiple media sources and is well documented across the Internet in general, and guidelines don't matter. Rogue 9 05:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never knew that reporting fact was original research. You know, all those external links in the page happen to source the claims given. Calling this entire article original research with no chance for improvement is incredibly short sited and arrogant. Your saying that your right and couldn't possibly be wrong. Don't give the people you disagree with any chance to improve anything. Alyeska 15:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Forbes article is the only reliable source independent of the topic and it isn't being used for anything meaningful. There is no defense within policy or guideline for this article. The article fails WP:N as well. Jay32183 18:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lets see, source material in inadmissable, you must have indepedent information from acredited news agencies. You can't just read it with your own eyes. Oh yeah, thats logical. Alyeska 19:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic is required. Try reading Wikipedia:Notability before claiming something is notable. Jay32183 22:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just like the Trek page Jean-Luc Picard meets the requirements (rolls eyes) Alyeska 02:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What does any other article have to do with this one? --Phirazo 02:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The point being, that page is nothing more then "fancruft" and certainly not notable. And yet, its perfectly allowed. Alyeska 03:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Your argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't hold water. These two articles are completely different. Picard is a Star Trek captain, there is certainly information to be had on that. This article is about a nerd argument. Any article about it will neccessarily be a mostly a novel synthesis of existing sources, with a few sources that merely prove the argument exists (the Forbes article). --Phirazo 16:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The primary arguments given against this page is that it is fancruft and that it isn't notable. Those are the two arguments. Those exact same arguments can be made in reference to fictional characters who have entire biographies detailing them. Whats more, Picard is a fictional character and so the information isn't real whereas this page is detailing real information. Alyeska 18:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That's an argument to delete that article, not to keep this one. Jay32183 18:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Not true. Established precedent. Others articles that supposedly violate the given reasons to delete this article (fancruft and notability) exist and are allowed to exist. Therefor no violation exists and this article should not be deleted. Alyeska 18:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No, that is the fundamental flaw of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. They aren't necessarily "allowed to exist". Does that article have an AFD that resulted in "Keep", not "No consensus"? People wishing to delete an article have no obligation to nominate all articles of similar condition, especially when sourcing is the issue. Some unsourced articles do have sources out there and people will get them if they don't have to do it for 5000 articles all at once. Also, the reasons for deletion here are notability and original research, not fancruft. Fancruft isn't actually a reason for deletion because it's completely subjective and basically it's the WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC argument. Jay32183 18:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Did you just completely fail to notice that this article has not one, not two, but three AFDs that resulted in "Keep," not "No consensus?" Rogue 9 05:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I am not talking about one or two, or even three pages. I am talking about hundreds, quite possibly thousands of pages that detail fictional characters who have absolutely no notability and are definately fancruft. How about the entire cast of characters from Star Trek. An average of 7 characters per series over 5 series, thats 35 character pages. Or how about the pages detailing characters from the X-Men universe. Or what about Star Wars pages? These are pages that will never get deleted unless there is a massive shift in consensus. There is no fundamental flaw. These pages are not merely tolerated or allowed, they are encouraged by the practices of Wikipedia. And to use reasoning such as fancruft and notability as a reason to get rid of other articles while allowing fictional character biographies is a classic double standard. Alyeska 18:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I know you are talking about that many pages, and they do, in fact, all need to be deleted. Trying to delete them all at once will end in "no consensus", but one at a time will not. There are some that do have the sources, Padme Amidala and Palpatine for instance. Jay32183 19:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I seriously doubt many will be deleted at all. And sources does not equal notability. Just do a little research on Brian Peppers and Stolen Sidekick. Alyeska 22:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notability = significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Read WP:N, that is the actual policy. Jay32183 23:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, the vast majority of character bios don't meet this requirement. I still don't see them getting deleted. And I really doubt you do either. Paradigm shifts aren't a common site afterall. Alyeska 23:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Other stuff should be deleted too" is not a reason to keep. It never will be. Those article do not meet a speedy criteria, so they require AFD's. Don't complain that a particular article was nominated for deletion while acknowledging that it fails policy. Jay32183 23:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Alyeska, are you really suggesting the article should use bulletin boards for sources? That is about as unreliable as you can get. --Phirazo 02:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So to be clear, the only part of this article that is really objectionable to you is the newsgroup /message board history part? Because everything else (I realize that is 50% of the article) is readily sourced. I count at least 8 sources in this very AFD, two of which, the Forbes article and the salon article, verifies most of the introduction and "Major issues" section and are already cited. We can delete the history if that's what is getting everyone's knickers in a bind. Akerkhof 02:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The whole article is a "newsgroup /message board history". It all has to go. --Phirazo 16:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If your point is that message boards are unreliable as sources of information on other topics, then fine. But if the article needs to source the fact that something is widely discussed on message boards, then the discussions themselves seem a perfectly adequate source, given that they're right there and readily obvious. Rogue 9 05:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Self-published sources, such as message boards and blogs, are generally held as unreliable sources for anything. Besides, any sourcing from message boards will be a novel synthesis of the arguments presented there, since the author would have to characterize the debate somehow. This is not a trivial or obvious thing to do, and is something that would require a secondary source. --Phirazo 15:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The bulk of the keeps boil down to WP:ILIKEIT votes, but that doesn't change the fact that this is synthesized original research. There is no indication that this topic has received any kind of significant coverage by independent secondary sources. RFerreira 22:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for linking to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I can't help but notice how many delete votes violate this very page. Alyeska 23:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suggest you redirect your comment below the actual comment or "vote" you feel is in violation, rather placing such general commentary below my own. Failing to demonstrate non-trivial coverage by independent sources is firmly grounded in policy as a reason to delete. RFerreira 23:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was thanking you for linking that page which let me read it. Alyeska 23:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I had linked to it more than once already to show why your arguments weren't acceptable. Jay32183 23:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What's unacceptable is your apparently virulent wish to destroy information in a project that's attempting to accumulate the sum of human knowledge. If you want to do that, get out. Rogue 9 05:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That's the WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. This article topic does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. It fails WP:N. Not one argument for keeping the article addresses that, except to outright lie. Jay32183 19:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "violate" is the wrong wording when talking about WP:ATA. WP:ATA is an essay, and the idea is to help editors make good arguments in AfDs. --Phirazo 01:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are many Wikipedia articles on fiction a pit of unverifiable fanboyish cruft? Yes. Does this give a free pass to all articles on fiction? No. Simple as that, really. --Phirazo 21:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Everyone is just ignoring everyone else here. The delete people keep saying that this is synthesized original research, and the keep people keep saying that there are multiple links demonstrating secondary synthesis of the remaining parts of the article. I think we have enough.. uh... debate to now receive the "consensus" decision from the mods. Akerkhof 22:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what's happening at all. The delete people are actually saying that this subject does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. The keep people are saying "I don't care what the policy is, this article stays". The problem will continue beyond this AFD if the people saying "keep" don't understand that what they are saying is factually wrong. Jay32183 23:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seems like it to me. Also, the delete people keep moving the goalposts, as you demonstrate in this very thread. First, there is no way to write an article on this subject since there will be no secondary sources found. Secondary source found. Well, they don't provide synthesis. Article providing synthesis pointed out. Well, there aren't that many of them. Multiple sources found. Well, they aren't in depth coverage. To which I retort that the Forbes article verifies everything that the article says. Yet still we have delete votes being cast on the basis of the impossibility of finding articles providing synthesis. Talk about being factually wrong. If the article has a crime, besides its existance as documentation of "fanboy cruft", is that it elaborates on these points using primary sources to provide context. This can be fixed, if it needs to be. But for instance, using google groups as a primary source to provide a post count demonstrating levels of activity is entirely appropriate, according to my reading of policy. Akerkhof 15:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The "goalpost" has always been the same: add reliable secondary sources to the article. No one has done this. All that has happened to the article over the last week is that the "History" section was removed. No one has actually sourced anything in the article. People have been claiming this article is improvable, yet no one has actually done so. --Phirazo 16:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is going to keep going in circles. Can a sysop please close this? --Phirazo 00:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a really bad idea to ask for that. It almost guarantees a closure of "no consensus" even though there is a consensus to delete. All of the keeps are against policy. Jay32183 02:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Says you. What the hell do you call this, this, this, this, and this, then? If it isn't a widespread and influential Internet phenomenon, how is it that I can find this, this, this, this, and this with a single minute of searching? This article documents a widespread, influential, and inclusion-worthy phenomenon, albeit poorly. That calls for a rewrite, not deletion. And you are still neglecting the indisputable fact that this article has survived three deletion attempts already, making this one a frivolous and redundant waste of time. Rogue 9 03:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Message boards containing the debate are not independent of the subject. There is no evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. The significant coverage is all in primary sources and the secondary sources only confirm the existence. That fails WP:N without question. The only way you can want to keep this article is if you do not understand policy. Jay32183 03:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, you're telepathic? I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you know my own thoughts better than I do. Anyway, do you not read? Forbes, Salon, and the Knight Ridder news service are all independent of each other, and last I checked "multiple" meant "more than one." It's time to end this ridiculous quadruple jeopardy, if nothing else so I don't have to put up with you sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending this whole thing doesn't exist. Because as long as we're pretending to be psychic, I might point out that the nominator's statements earlier in this debate point to the motivations for initiating this discussion being summed up by personal dislike. I mean, dismissing it as a "nerd argument" is supposed to mean something in the context of whether or not to keep it? Come on, now. Rogue 9 04:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The part you keep missing is "significant coverage". It needs to be covered in depth. Multiple sources mentioning something is not the same as multiple sources giving significant coverage. There is no significant coverage independent of the debate. Forbes does not have significant coverage of "Star Trek versus Star Wars". Jay32183 05:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Calling someone on WP:IDONTLIKEIT is only really relevant when that is the only reason to delete. --Phirazo 12:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please why is it original research it is very helpful as a comparison yuckfoo 05:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we compare what can be referenced from the sources given to date (even including those links above to which my "requiring registration" objection still applies) against the current content of the article, about all we can really verify is the first sentence. To take the Forbes article as an example, this does provide verification for the existence of a SWvsST debate... but not for anything else. The Forbes article itself goes on to compare things like books printed, awards won etc for each franchise via the slideshow, but it does this without analysis and therefore makes no synthesis. Thus we can't cite this for anything other than the existence of the debate itself. That such a debate is notable (even if only within a minority niche) is provable. Whether this fact is worth an entire Wikipedia article is another matter. EyeSerene^TALK 17:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not properly referenced no third party sources. Harlowraman 20:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for an entirely useless vote. Its clear you haven't looked over the article nor have you read this page. There are 3rd party sources. Alyeska 22:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect all to their respective albums. Singu larity 07:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a Bow (song)[edit]

Nothing notable about this song. Not released as a single, nothing special happened because of it. Article is empty but for infobox (I would go with {{db-empty}}, but I'm giving the article creator a chance to add content). Image used is actually the album cover (since there is no "song cover"). Giggy ^Talk 03:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Giggy, your opinion on the music is utterly of no use here. Please stop providing it.)

I am also nominating the following related pages, which are in the same situation, created by the same person:

Delete all as not meeting the requirements at WP:MUSIC by a wide margin. They don't even play 80% of these songs live - how in the world can anyone consider them notable? (I do, however, disagree with the nominator on the quality of "Take a Bow"......) fuzzy510 04:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the other songs on Black Holes are so much better. Like Exo Politics (nommed here, but it's bloody good). Anyway, we aren't here to discuss my correct taste in music :P Giggy ^Talk 04:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - I concur with Fuzzy. None of these meet the specific song-page requirements in WP:MUSIC, and there's no evidence to suggest they can or will anytime soon. Personal taste is no factor at all. Bullzeye^{(Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts)} 15:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The question to ask is: has notability been established enough for a fully fleshed out article to be written about these songs, from independent secondary sources, individually? answer: no. Zun aid ©® 15:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album article(s). This doesn't require an AfD, just be bold. Corvus cornix 18:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there were one or two, I would. With this many, I decided to go this way just to be safe. Giggy ^Talk 23:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect If there was anything in the article, it could be moved back to the album article - as it is, a sinple redirect would suffice.Nigel Ish 21:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect them to their respective albums (not singles, not-notable). — mæstrosync ^{talk&contribs}, 00:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - They should all simply redirect to the respective album, regardless of whether or not information on the specific song is there. At least someone who is searching the topic will find a relevant subject. NSR77 ^T_C 18:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I don't think anything here really cries out for a full article. Salvatore22 22:25, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State Line, Pennsylvania[edit]

None of these places seem to be notable, much of the detail in the article is unsourced, and the few sources / external links that are provided do not seem to be reliable sources. Most of the wikilinks to this article are from its inclusion in three Pennsylvania county nav box templates (so every place in those counties now links here). Once those are eliminated, it is linked to from very few articles. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aren't most towns inherently notable? Zagalejo 04:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Settlements of any kind are notable. I actually kind of like the idea of combining three places with the same name in the same state into one article, though it might need to be cleaned up a little. Reso lute 04:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and interesting way to disambig different places in same state. Nate 05:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:OUTCOMES, generally settlements of any size that pass WP:V are notable. For categorization purposes this should point to three separate articles, though. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:RS and consequently WP:V. Jakew 12:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Unverified" does not equal "unverifiable", and there is no such thing as an unverifiable real town. Either it's a hoax, or it's verifiable, and no-one is suggesting it's a hoax. Brandon97 13:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's ok. I'm not proposing to delete the towns, just the article. Since Wikipedia is not supposed to be an indiscriminate collection of information, I believe that reliable sources need to be cited that support facts about the town other than its existence, and I haven't found any in the article or elsewhere. Hence, in my opinion, the article fails WP:V (among other policies & guidelines). I understand if others disagree, but that is my assessment. Jakew 16:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Dhartung and split into three separate articles. Per WP:OUTCOMES, any settlement is inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 13:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Towns are inherently notable. Brandon97 13:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the precedent of towns being notable in WP:OUTCOMES. Also, how hilarious is the prospect of spending an hour and a half driving from State Line, Pennsylvania to State Line, Pennsylvania, per Mapquest [70], then on to the third State Line, Pennsylvania. Hope people are careful to give accurate directions when ordering merchandise. Edison 18:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real places are notable. Corvus cornix 18:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at topozone.com and the US Government Geographic Names Information System to see the locations of these various "State Line" settlements. If we're looking at incorporated political entities:
- State Line in Franklin County, Pennsylvania appears to be part of Antrim Township, Pennsylvania.
- State Line in Bedford County, Pennsylvania looks like it's in Londonderry Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania.
- State Line in Erie County, Pennsylvania doesn't show up in the GNIS, but according to the picture at state-ends.com (the cited source), it appears to be part of North East Township, Pennsylvania.

Normally, I'd suggest a merge/redirect to the incorporated political entity, but since this is a link to three different (and ambiguous) place names, I'll vote to keep this article for the sake of disambiguation. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for most of the same reasons listed above, especially the disambiguation. Dincher 20:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per near-complete consensus that places are notable. I know it's summer here in the Northern Hempisphere, but do I feel WP:SNOW in the air? Alansohn 23:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is so silly. If there's snow in the air, then it's a flurry of ignorance. Some people seem to be impressed that someone has located three "towns" called State Line, Pennsylvania, while others seem to be in love with the author for putting all three together in one article. Folks, none of these places are towns! State Line, PA, 17263 has a post office in Franklin County, so people do get their mail there. There is apparently a neighborhood near Erie, PA with that name. Bedford County doesn't have a State Line community. If settlements "of any kind" are notable, why don't we have articles about subdivisions, tough neighborhoods, and trailer parks? I'd quote the rule about WP:TRIVIA, but this is too boring to call trivia. Mandsford 01:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford County doesn't have a State Line community.

How do you figure? It's listed as a "populated place" at the GNIS. Zagalejo 01:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of these are incorporated places under Pennsylvania law (they are not cities or boroughs or towns). They are, as noted above, part of townships (which are incorporated municipalities). They are listed in GNIS and you can find them on the PennDOT maps for the counties in question, but other than that there is essentially no other information on them online (saying it is in a place or near a highway is information from the map). The Mapquest links do not currently work, the zip code is for a post office box, not a place (according to usps.gov), the weather link is for Hagerstown, Maryland, the restaurants link is the PA state tourism website and does not list State Line, and the Franklin County statistics are unsourced. Franklin County, Pennsylvania has seven boroughs, fifteen twonships, and four census-designated places. If every hamlet (place) is truly notable, then there are more than 50 others just in Franklin County (by the PennDOT map). If these are all notable (and not just places to be mentioned in the township articles, for example), then we need a lot more stubs made (that will never be more than stubs). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, settlements such as these are notable and worth of encyclopedic note. Burntsauce 18:03, 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 Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability. Tango 15:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuanton Mall[edit]

Very difficult to red page on the Staunton Mall, a non-notable dying mall in Virginia. Mall fails WP:RS and WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TPH. No reliable sources are ever going to discuss this. Giggy ^Talk 03:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources. Oyster guitarist 04:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:A7 --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:48, 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. — TKD::Talk 10:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of rappers who reached number one on the Hot 100 (U.S.)[edit]

Is this necessary when we already have List of artists who reached number one on the Hot 100 (U.S.)? This would be better served as a category. For example, we have Category:Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles and Category:Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs number-one singles. If this is kept, it should probably go under Category:Billboard Hot Rap Tracks number-one singles. Spellcast 03:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A category would serve the purpose better, not to mention Wikipedia is not for lists of internal links. Useight 05:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree that a category would be better. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree dont need category's and lists --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The question posed is, "Is this necessary when we already have List of artists who reached number one on the Hot 100 (U.S.)?" The answer is, no, not if all those artists were doing hip hop. Nor do I see this as a category. However, the list could be better, such as at least giving a nod to what hit single reached #1, and when. Mandsford 00:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 06:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Belfort[edit]

non-notable fighter (no fights), limited google hits; prod declined NeilN 03:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. Major google hits are from forums and non-reliable sources. Carlosguitar 03:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ Delete A good sign of a non-notable article is when the only link provided is a MySpace. No multiple, third party sources asserted on this person. Spellcast 03:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not speedy' Speedy is for no assertion of notability. Inadequate assertion is for AfD. I've declined the speedy. The article will go very smoothly in the normal 5 days. DGG (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, two different roads to the same outcome. Spellcast 03:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and has unreliable sources. Oyster guitarist 04:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is sadder than a fighter with no fights? NawlinWiki 16:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only thing sadder than a fighter with no fights is an article on Wikipedia about one. Burntsauce 18:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When he gets a professional fight, I'd say he becomes eligible for an article. --Agamemnon2 23:13, 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. Few sources available to verify claims of 'holiness', and one of those sources is a near-verbatim copy of this article. Given its hibernation period of more than a year (except for vandalism), it seems unlikely more sources can be found and the article won't improve. - KrakatoaKatie 08:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Virsa Singh Ji[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Nomination for PROD-deletion in August 2007 of an article discussed at AFD in December 2005 with an outcome of keep ... procedural nomination. The original AFD was brought with the reasoning "Vanity article on obscure person", obscurity based on a low number of Google hits. The re-nomination for deletion is accompanied with the rationale "This article has been tagged as lacking souces for over a year. Articles require independent, reliable sources verifying their content and are presumptively original research in their absence." The if it lacks sources it must be OR reasoning appears to be on the rise lately, something which I do not at all agree with. Nonetheless, the article has sat essentially unchanged - and unreferenced - since it's 12/2005 previous trip here. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero sources (of any kind), shameless personal fluff page that fails both WP:NOTE and WP:BIO with flying colors...quack? Bullzeye^{(Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts)} 15:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources providing significant coverage are provided Corpx 16:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I found a few sources: Ludhiana Tribune, Hinduism Today, which seem to confirm that he is of at least some importance among Sikhs. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:29, 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. Consensus is that this topic is inherently a novel synthesis. — TKD::Talk 17:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio presidents[edit]

Maybe this article can be saved. There are versions in the history that are better than the current one (if anyone reverts to a different one, please make sure to add the AfD notice). The problem is that, though this is a good topic for a history essay, it's not an encyclopedia topic unless what the various people discussed here have in common is clear and incontrovertible. I think it can't be; I've looked for sources (perhaps not as hard as you will, so feel free to prove me wrong on this), and all I can find are Ohio pride-type websites and opinionated pieces about corruption in the Ohio Republican party. This could be a subsection in Ohio, since no one would deny that the sheer fact of Ohio's 8 presidents is of interest, and if the corruption charges could be sourced one could imagine an article History of the Ohio Republican party in the nineteenth century, or some such, that would detail them, but as it is, this is original research and either not NPOV or, essentially, trivia. I'm interested to hear other opinions. Chick Bowen 02:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR and trivia, as stated in the nom. The article basically says "there were seven US presidents from Ohio- now here's what happened to have occurred while they happened to have been in office." The only actual information is completely unrelated to the actual point of the article. -- Kicking222 02:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the past revisions original research seems to be a problem. As far as current factual information goes, all we have is 8 presidents from Ohio. The article in the past attempted to assert the historical notability of "the Ohio presidents", as though they were a subject of significant interest in American history. Now, I've never heard of these "Ohio presidents" as a group before, and I have a sneaking suspicion that this is because they are not an actual subject of study. Either way, going with the old revisions is clearly accepting original research, but to remove the original research, all we are left with is the names of 8 presidents connected by the fact that they are from Ohio. Neither are grounds for an article. Calgary 04:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Any desire to merge viable content into say List of United States Presidents by place of primary affiliation? FrozenPurpleCube 05:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really, WP:SYNTH is in play here. Writing articles about "Presidents from Ohio" cannot really be done without the synthesis because you're tying up people who are not directly related Corpx 05:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to the New York Times [71] or the Washington Post[72]. There is probably more, given that there is a ton of study of state influence on national elections, which well, leads to things like candidates being selected because they were from Ohio. [73] is one example, though more are about Virginia than Ohio, Ohio does crop up there. Whether or not the current contents of this article reflect any of that, I'm not sure. FrozenPurpleCube 05:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the free preview given by the NYT and Washington Post articles, I see no synthesis in there and nor do I see any reason to suspect much synthesis in the articles themselves Corpx 06:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I'm reading it a bit differently than you. However, I think the adoption of the slogan "Mother of Presidents" (split with Virginia), is enough to show some potential there. May not be best in this article though. FrozenPurpleCube 14:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because of availability of such reliable references as Buckeye Presidents: Ohioans in the White House (Paperback) that can and should be cited in such an article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at the index here, and all it does is talk about each of the presidents separately, and not synthesize a relationship. Corpx 05:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's not just the content that's OR, it's the topic. Of course there are any number of sources about those guys, but we need sources that point to a relationship. Chick Bowen 22:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All this is is synthesis of disparate topics. It's worthwhile to mention in Ohio, say, that it's the birthplace of N Presidents, but it's not enough of a connection to discuss them all in the same article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually, some of us would deny that the sheer fact of Ohio's 8 presidents is of interest. It's one of the less interesting bits of presidential trivia, like all the presidents who were born in Virginia, or all the presidents whose first names began with "J". I do like the attempt to add a cool sounding comment about "the apogee of graft and corruption in U.S. public life" to an otherwise indiscriminate list of topics. Besides, there are Ohio Governors, but no Ohio Presidents. Mandsford 00:51, 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 delete. Singu larity 06:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Up the river, down the river[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This underwent AFD consideration in May 2006 with an outcome of keep; in August 2007 it was nominated for deletion via the WP:PROD path ... therefore, this is a procedural nomination. The May 2006 AFD was brought on the reasoning "One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion" relisted on AFD individually. The Aug 2007 PROD reasoning consisted of "Article does not establish notability, violates WP:NOT." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thats nice, get your grove on here in wikipedia, which just happends to have the latest drinking games in town. If you ask me, that whole section of drinking games could be summed up in one detailed article (since when a drinking game has its own article page?).Kessingler 04:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are found to establish notability Corpx 05:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing there establishes notability. Giggy ^Talk 23:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a pretty notable game, at least in the Midwest (I've played it many-a-times), but check to make sure sources can be found. If not, well, delete. hmwith talk 22:45, 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. Singu larity 06:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susumu Kuno[edit]

Delete - Individual's notability not established within the article per WP:BIO. Article has been orphaned since 2006. Djma12 ^(talk) 02:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 03:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. NN and unlikely to improve. Barring a miracle, of course. Bullzeye^{(Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts)} 15:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Fg2 10:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Far be it from me to suggest that Kuno is anywhere as significant as any Pokemon, Japanese voice actor or of course Japanese cheesecake model, but he has had several books published: the article only lists those published in English, which include a couple from eminent university presses (one from what's arguably the most eminent linguistics publisher of them all, MIT). My copy of Tsujimura's Introduction to Japanese Linguistics (the only relevant book I have within arm's reach) fails to give such vital information as Kuno's height, weight, surĩsaizu, handedness, star sign, or which rival's linguistics text he tore up or cried over, but it does manage to cite Kuno's work on a number of pages, leading to six sole-author items in the bibliography as well as a number of coauthored works. Kuno's not on TV, doesn't run on Playstation or Wii, doesn't wear undersized bikinis: does he matter at all? Oddly enough, I'd have thought that he did, so I'd say keep. But maybe that just shows I'm weird or something. -- Hoary 13:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he really is that notable, would you mind expanding on the article and adding more sources? The article has been an orphaned stub for over a year and has little notable content. Djma12 ^(talk) 22:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it has the content it needs. His academic work. That they have been published by the places that did is what shows them notable and well-recognized by his peers. DGG (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — highly notable author of several published, important works, linguist and academic; numerous published references. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 13:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several of the articles are in Communications of the ACM. a high prestige journal over a very wide field. But this is reasonable, he was Professor of Linguistics at Harvard. They do not appoint undistinguished people to professorships there. He has passed numerous peer-reviews in his life of much greater stringency than here--or perhaps someone is really under the delusion that our standards are or ought to be higher? Perhaps someone thinks the editors here have better judgement in these things? DGG (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is not with this individual's credentials, they seem impeccable. I'm merely pointing out that the article as it stands is far below standard. Normally, I would just say that it requires improvement, but it has been tagged as orphaned for over a year now. If you would like to improve the article so that it meets WP:BIO standards, by all means. Djma12 ^(talk) 23:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it's marked as a stub. That's the whole point of the stub markers: to indicate an article is lacking in information and needs to be expanded. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further, one probable reason why it's (near-) orphaned is that linguistics -- real linguistics, not droll lexicographic oddities and moral panics about the alleged decay of the language etc etc -- is poorly represented in en:WP. This is because, despite the best efforts of such people as Steven Pinker, real linguistics is of interest to a smallish percentage of people, and a smallish percentage of these are ready to write up substantive matters at short notice. (Those few who are ready tend to be hard at work on their PhD theses, their own papers, helping others with their PhD theses, etc.) Thus such an everyday linguistics notion as scrambling is nowhere explained and hardly mentioned in en:WP, and thus there can be no link to Kuno from Scrambling (linguistics) or whatever. -- Hoary 10:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and Hoary. AfD is not the place to point out that an article is below standards. Rather, the appropriate project (if any) should be notified so that the article can be improved. Keep in mind that there are thousands and thousands of articles that fall under WP:JA, and we can't possible keep close tabs on all of them. A simple note would have sufficed. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kuno is highly notable and is essentially a household name among linguists. The article may be lacking, but that is only reason to improve it, not delete it. Bendono 05:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- suggest adding redirect from "Festschrift" to "Substantial recognition as an expert by ones peers." -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Could you rephrase this suggestion? As it is, I don't understand it. -- Hoary 09:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep. I think the point is that the article contains a wikilink to festschrift, when it describes a pair of festschrifts devoted to Kuno, but that it may not be obvious to non-academics that a festschrift is a sign of substantial recognition. I don't see a need to change the article itself, but I agree that this is important evidence for passage of WP:PROF #2 or #6. —David Eppstein 19:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly what I meant. Sorry about the bad joke. I'd regard a Festschrift as about as important as a Time magazine cover for determining the importance of a researcher. To get a Festschrift a whole group of your colleagues have to decide that your ideas and publications are important. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Kuno is a significant figure in Japanese linguistics. With all the other crap that gets to stay in WP I can't see why anyone would think this article is taking up too many bytes. Djiann 22:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Beating a dead horse here with my Johnny-come-lately vote, but it's pretty obvious that the article will be saved for the reasons stated above. J Readings 23:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation here, please ask me if you need any more details (or correct me if I'm wrong ^_^) Thanks, Majorly (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spells in Harry Potter (3rd Nomination)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is an AfD relist as directed at this DRV. There is not enough reliable source material that is independent of Harry Potter for this article to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Without such source material, the topic fails Wikipedia:Notability. The article also fails as a list, such as not including unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources per Criteria for inclusion in lists and not adhering to that criteria with reliable source material. With AfD #1 closed after ten hours and AfD #2 closed because AfD #1 was not taken to DRV, please keep this Afd #3 open for at least five days. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reference better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- References alone doesn't make something notable, or let it pass WP:NOT#PLOT. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is the only thing that makes something notable. Reliable independent media coverage is the definitions of notability in Wikipedia. Voting by Wikipedians is 100% subjective, voting by media outlets in deciding to cover a topic is an objective measure. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. As noted in the first deletion debate, there are secondary sources which can (and should) be cited. But even if there weren't, I think the primary sources would be sufficient. To quote from WP:PSTS: "...there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources. An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." I think this applies. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This seems absolutely clear-cut to me. GlassCobra 04:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per Bfigura, provided individual entries are purely descriptive and there is no WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Dbromage [Talk] 03:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete fancruft. Every little spell will be listed? who else could have an interest in this article but Harry Potter fans?. Isnt there a harry potter oriented wiki around?, if so, this article should belong there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kessingler (talk • contribs).
- Comment Right, because, you know, there aren't any Harry Potter fans. Nope. Definitely not millions and millions of them from around the world. As Alethiophile exemplified, Harry Potter is a global phenomenon. GlassCobra 04:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But is there any evidence Spells in Harry Potter are a global phenomenon? The notability of the work does not extend to every facet of a fictional world described in that work. David Fuchs^(talk) 18:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some evidence, but I admit to having not yet found any secondary sources discussing "Spells in Harry Potter" as a general topic: Avada Kedavra in Google News, accio and "harry potter" in Google News, Alohomora in Google News, Expelliarmus in Google News, Expecto patronum in Google News, Wingardium Leviosa in Google News. Ichormosquito 18:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to the Harry Potter Wikia. In other words, export from Wikipedia, import to Wikia, reconnect all the links. Make this a fully connected process, and the readers won't even notice a difference. Great info, but it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. The Harry Potter Wikia works just like us, it's run by the community, and since it's specific, more control specifically to the HP editors. -- Ned Scott 03:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction or fantasy-related deletions. —Dbromage [Talk] 03:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikia is not "just like us", it is a profit making business. Brandon97 14:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cut the bullshit. Wikia is not a non-profit company, and that is all. Organizations and companies that are not listed as non-profit are not evil. All content generated by Wikia, shared by Wikia, and so on, is 100% free to use for any reason whatsoever. We can even take content back from Wikia and put it on Wikipedia. I'm really tired of this idea that an organization is bad if they don't list themselves as non-profit. Wikia is an excellent project, and is supported by the Wikipedia community and vise-versa as a supporter of GFDL content. -- Ned Scott 01:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, transwiki per Ned Scott, or, at most, merge with Magic (Harry Potter). WP:WAF says that in-universe information needs to be backed up with real-world sourcing to make it encyclopedic. There needs to be information written specifically about the spells, or it isn't notable enough to have its own separate article. Furthermore, notability is not inherited. Just because Harry Potter is notable doesn't mean that the spells in the books are. bwowen talk•contribs 03:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously. I direct you to the first and second noms, whose keep votes really summarize my argument. This is notable. Just about everyone who's read the books is shouting these spells at one another. If you can have articles about obscure porn stars who nobody's ever heard of, one of which I AfD'd and got a spasm of Keeps and a one-hour close, then you can have articles listing the spells in a series that almost nobody's not heard of. Somebody Else's Problem^{(aka Alethiophile)Ask me why} 04:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a fine article. It might be made better by a short description of the current Harry Potter cultural phenomena--this would give it sufficient outside sources and place it in its proper place of current real, not just fictional, world significance.
- Comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Dbromage [Talk] 04:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. That is not policy, but only a guideline. Useight 05:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's not a matter of what people are saying, it's a matter of coverage by credible sources. bwowen talk•contribs 04:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Try using good judgement, if obscure fancruft articles seem to be the bane of wikipedia, why should this be the exception?.Kessingler 04:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Bane of the encyclopedia"? Surely, those are vandals, or our justified reputation on articles like "Palestinian Liberation Front", or the inherent instability and increasing difficulty of maintaining quality? This is a matter of specifying the bounds on how much readers should be able to learn, and if tightening those bounds seems like a comparable issue, then there's something seriously wrong with perspective and I have to suggest a re-evaluation of priorities and probably a trip outside to look at the clouds. --Kizor 05:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Though i hate to be doing forum-like comments here, i must say that although your comment seems passionate, its an argumental falacy as we are talking here about a promoting a minor topic on a fiction novel. That has little to do with "bounds on how much readers should be able to learn", but more with the obsene amount of "trash knoledge" [sic] that abounds in wikipedia, you name the multi-billion dollars bubblegum franchise out there, its [sic] got its own article based on nothing but merchandising here in wikipedia... and it has probably survived 6 proposals for deletion because of poor judgement on behalf of the fans (we have special dedicated wikis for a reasson). Though there are many issues and problems in wikipedia, there's sadly far more focus on nerd articles than in real important academic issues (for any doubt, please see "Wikigroanning").Kessingler 05:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ooh! I've long wanted to talk to someone who thinks that disproportionate coverage of different subjects is actually harmful to Wikipedia. It could prove really educational for both parties. Can we discuss this in more detail elsewhere? --Kizor 21:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As previously stated in the DRV, the spells are collectively a very major plot element. I'm a firm proponent of improving over deleting, and there have been mentions of several books that can serve as proper references in the article on top of the improvement that's already been occuring. These books include The Sorcerer's Companion: A Guide to the Magical World of Harry Potter by Allan Zola Kronzek and Elizabeth Kronzek and Magical Worlds of Harry Potter by David Colbert. One user has already stated that he has a copy of the latter book; I'm sure he'd be willing to help source the article if he weren't so busy trying to defend it from deletion. As per XDanielx's excellent list: "There are articles about spells in Harry Potter, and there are lists of spells from Harry Potter (external links), but there are (probably) no articles which discuss lists of spells in Harry Potter. In this case, following WP:N, we do not treat lists of spells in Harry Potter as the topic, but rather Spells in Harry Potter." Further, "just as exceptional claims require exceptional sources, mediocre sources can suffice for claims which are trivially true, such as 'the summoning charm is a spell in the Harry Potter story.'" The uproar over the lack of sources for facts that anyone with eyes can plainly see is totally unfounded. This is a clear choice to me. GlassCobra 04:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of sources, we have a lack of real world information on these individual spells. -- Ned Scott 04:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fortunately, the existence of movies and their special effects makes at least some of that doable. I bet somebody could find Wingardium Leviosa's special effects documentary. A song too? And of course, it'd also be possible to connect the spells to works in other literature. FrozenPurpleCube 05:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uber mighty keep. The argument regarding verifiability seems ludicrous to me - the information is factual, uncontentious, and comprehensively substantiated by multiple uninterested secondary sources. We do not need a Harvard Law Review article to establish that the summoning charm is a spell in the Harry Potter stories. The references listed in external links do a particularly fine job already. A topic which is intimately related to a story that sold 325+ million books is notable. I gave a more comprehensive spiel which I won't repeat on why I think this article does pass WP:N on the DRV, but whether I was correct or not is really just a trivial technicality. If it were true that the article in question failed the minutia of WP:N, WP:FICT, or whatever similar policy, then that policy should be ignored without hesitation. The topic does not need explicit criteria, because there are no ambiguities any larger than an archaeon. There are a finite number of spells involved in the Harry Potter stories, and we can identify names and descriptions for nearly all of them. This is clearly an issue of virtually no relevance to the potential of the article and if it's even worth discussing then that should be done on it's talk page. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per Ned Scott and WP:FICT. Will also support delete or merge consensus. — Deckill er 05:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be a consensus to keep in previous discussions, so I suggest solving any problems on the talk page instead. Really, working with other editors is important, not just using AFD over and over again. FrozenPurpleCube 05:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hahaha! Come on, this is Wikipedia! Why work with other people when you can just delete things? It's so much easier! GlassCobra 01:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Transwiki An encyclopedia is not a fan site. This, to me, is no different than a list of cars in <video game> or list of maps in <video game>. This stuff belongs in a fan site/specialized encyclopedia. Corpx 05:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have to dash, but suffice it to say that we are a specialized encyclopedia. --Kizor 05:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - To me, that refers to law encyclopedias/medical ones, not ones created and edited by fans of a work of fiction. If what you're saying is the case, there'd be no need for the transwiki function here Corpx 05:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unfortunately, the page doesn't seem to say "law and medical only." I also believe that we have no need for a transwiki function (WP:NOTPAPER), but this is neither the time nor place for that. GlassCobra 05:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Due to the free availability of the media-wiki software, anyone can create a "specialized encyclopedia", but that does not mean all the contents should be merged into the mothership Corpx 06:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think WP:IHATEIT is really a strong argument for removal. The required sources exist (as I've noted above). The only real question seems to be: does this meet WP:N? Per User:Ichormosquito's note below, I think it does. --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ichormosquito's keep reasoning is based on sources that have yet to be found (through 3 AFDs) and is contrary to what WP:FICT is saying. My reason to delete this article is the lacking of real world notability (among others), not WP:IDONTLIKEIT Corpx 06:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that more secondary sources would be great, but if I'm reading WP:PSTS correctly, they're not strictly necessary in this case. But since I'm lacking a New York Times article devoted to spells in Harry Potter, I suppose I'd have to argue that the survival of this article through 2 AfD's suggests a consensus on notability. (A weak argument, I confess). --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources can be used to cite information, even though that practice is looked down upon by some editors. However, primary sources cannot establish notability. As for the first two AFDs, they look to me like a barrage of WP:ILIKEITs and WP:ITSUSEFULs and both were speedy closed (inappropriately too, in my opinion) Corpx 06:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to clarify: WP:FICT was substantially changed between the first and second AfD. My argument is based on the assumption that editors haven't had time to adjust. Ichormosquito 06:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I don't think editors should underestimate the importance of this AfD. The guidelines at WP:FICT have recently undergone some changes, and I think this debate will influence whether those changes are realistically applicable. The question to answer: should editors be faced with a heavy burden to produce real-world information, when an article's subject is already a significant component to an extremely notable work? I myself have no idea. I think the shift toward real-information is a good one; but on the other hand, we shouldn't ghettoize articles too hastily. According to the current WP:FICT, an article should be kept if there exists an obvious potential to produce real-world sources for it. It also states that the onus should be on the article's defenders to find these sources. Although little or no real-world content has been produced thus far, I have no doubt it exists. I ask the closing admin to allow the article a stay and to strongly encourage that editors find reliable, real-world content directly related to Spells in Harry Potter within the month, before the inevitable 4th AfD. Ichormosquito 05:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per the many good reasons listed above. --S.dedalus 05:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)**[reply]
Weak Keep per the reasons listed above, esp. User:Ichormosquito --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 05:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, per previous three debates (AFD, AFD2, DRV) it is obvious there is no consensus to delete this, and the only reason it is relisted anyway is process wonkery. >Radiant< 07:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Both of the previous AfDs were closed prematurely, as decided in the DRV. This isn't going to be speedy kept, and will be up a minimum of five days. bwowen talk•contribs 09:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ironically, the DRV was also closed prematurely. Does that strike anyone as funny? "I'm going to prematurely close this because things may not be prematurely closed". >Radiant< 09:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not evaluating the article at all, but instead on a technicality that we had 3 AfD pages formatted. Two AfDs were closed before relevant discussion could be made, and that, in no freaking way, is an indication that something should be kept. Remember Elonka's RFA, where the first few days she had well over 90% support? The existence of a flaw in the AFD process does not support keeping this article, and should never prevent us from having a proper discussion on the matter, where more people have time to give input. Furthermore, it's not a vote, and arguments based on policy and guidelines are generally given more weight than ILIKEITS. -- Ned Scott 01:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, speedy keep. Shocking though the curt attitude was, on reflection, I cannot disagree with Radiant!'s analysis. --Kizor 08:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very very weak keep for now. This discussion is essentially a continuation of AFD1, AFD2 and DRV where there was no clear consensus. I understand the feelings of the Potter fans but they have to provide secondary sources and assert notability. Thin Arthur 08:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve as I and others have continued to state, this article is not worthy of deletion. What I do not understand is why we keep having AfDs and DRVs that end up with the same results. Instead of arguing about it we should fix up the problems we have instead (you can list them here). Just keep in mind you deletionists that there are sources we can put here. Will that make you happy? THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 10:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and gut any OR on etymology. Spells being you know a major element of HP, having an article on spells might actually make sense! Having already been noted by others that there's reliable sources that can be used, one should note that notability is the pillar of Wikipedia inclusion citeria, and there can be no doubt spells in HP is notable. For the quoters of WP:FICT, I quote just one point while you use it to debate away in this AfD - "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". When the debate turns into what should be included in the article and how it should be presented, I encourage editors to participate in the article's talk page. KTC 11:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: magic is certainly a central aspect of Harry Potter, and that's why there there's Magic (Harry Potter), but there's nothing notable, in the real world, about the spells themselves. Miremare 18:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response To say something I've been saying, we can't merge it just because it's magic. All objects and potions would have to be merged into Magic (Harry Potter) including central plot aspects such as the Horcruxes and the Deathly Hallows, and yet, there is no argument to there existence. Are they not essentially plot details? Are they not magic? There are, but no would would dare take them down. There has also been significant amount of work done to all of these articles and moving them to a place that would do nothing short of destroy them would be pretty insulting. While I don't think that's a real factor, it should be taken into account. Therequiembellishere 22:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response I agree that it would be unfortunate to lose anything that people have worked hard on, but that isn't necessary. Anything in the article that isn't already there could be copied to the Harry Potter Wiki (and probably should be anyway). But when it comes to merging, we just have to be selective and choose the most importasnt things for inclusion and discard that which isn't. This is, after all, exactly what the editiors of any other fiction-related articles have to do. Miremare 22:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Three nominations in one month... My goodness. The reasons for wanting deletion haven't changed. They boil down to "I don't like it" and "I don't understand it". Some have noted a supposed lack of sources. The sources could be improved, but that is not a good enough reason for deletion. The reasons for keeping are that it is clearly notable to anyone with a pulse. It is clearly useful, and a significant part of the Harry Potter series. I've summarized my thoughts twice before. My opinion hasn't changed. Continual nomination doesn't change the fact that this is a notable topic and it should stay. nut-meg 12:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these fabled multiply third party, independent sources I keep on hearing about? David Fuchs^(talk) 16:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these "fabled" sources have been listed here for you. You could also do something crazy like an Amazon search and find them yourself. But the proper thing to do here is give time for improvement of the sources. Nominating it every week and decrying the lack of sources is not helpful, and points to an underlying reason of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. nut-meg 01:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sorcerer's Companion and The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter have been mentioned once or twice. The Beacham's Sourcebook, Exploring Harry Potter, seems like a worthwhile read as well. As for the etymologies, I maintain that the bulk is in intelligible Latin and that giving editors' translations of foreign words together with the original forms is acceptable from for references, let alone these, but it helps that a moment's incompetent journaling found Verbatim, a language quarterly, and Harry Potter Through the Looking-Glass, a scholarly essay. These feature loads and add some background information and context, to boot. An user has already noted that he has one of the first two books and that it works for this purpose, and sworn to get on that. Give it a while, AfDs very seldom fix articles. Often they keep that from happening. (Just an essay, but chances are you've seen that.) --Kizor 18:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are several non-fiction Harry Potter books on the market. Brandon97 14:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but they are not the base of this article. --B. Wolterding 14:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Come on, now. Earlier this year I found sources for an AfD'd webcomic - Sosiaalisesti rajoittuneet - that swung a 2-3 vote to delete to a 6-0 vote to keep, that despite the fact that they had in no way been the basis of the article. Integrating them is a matter for cleanup, if of anything, in no circumstances one of deletion. --Kizor 21:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per WP:FICTION. The article does not contain sufficient real-world content. It's merely a plot summary. --B. Wolterding 14:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete or transwikki to the Harry Potter Wiki. None of the keepers seem to acknowledge the point the nominator makes: This article needs real world secondary sources to establish its notability. That it is notable "in-universe" is not in any doubt, but we live in the real world, not inside the Harry Potter universe. Notability can only be establish by referencing out-of-universe (i.e. real world) sources. I also don't buy the argument that real world sources "must be out there/can be found". If so, why has nothing been done about it before this 3rd nomination? Editorially, the correct procedure is to trim items that don't demonstrate real world notability. When, as a result of such trimming, the article would effectively be blank, the correct procedure is then to delete. Lastly, a small appeal to the closing admin: please weigh the strength of the arguments based on the reasoning presented and do not use the weight of numbers. Zun aid ©® 15:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason that these sources haven't been added before the third nomination is that this is the third nomination in as many weeks. Someone has a mission and they aren't going to stop until this article is gone. I imagine the reason its been nominated over and over again is that those that want it deleted so badly do not want other editors to have a chance to add the sources. nut-meg 01:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, there is real world reference. PeaceNT 15:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Magic (Harry Potter) the only spells that even have close to the necessary real-world context are Expelliarmus and possibly the unforgiveable curses. Matching up Latin in WP:OR and describing the spells in the detail we have is against WP:PLOT. Will ^(talk) 15:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To redirect you would need to merge a lot of this information, and then the Magic article would be too long. nut-meg 01:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frag - my opinions on the article are already logged and noted in the other afd, but to specify the crux: no third party, independent sources. Fan sites and JKR, along with one article on about.com, do not count as multiple third party sources. David Fuchs^(talk) 16:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you count CBBC as a fan site? PeaceNT 15:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, major Harry Potter plot element, useful list. NawlinWiki 16:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:USEFUL. David Fuchs^(talk) 18:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and especially the part: In spite of this, there are some times when "usefulness" can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest (as in the New York phone listing example) or a matter of opinion as in the restaurant guide example. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how broad a segment of the population will consider a piece of information "useful." Melsaran (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is referenced, though not thoroughly, but it verifiable, and using the book as a source is perfectly fine. Additionally, "Spells in Harry Potter" is a complex matter, it is, therefore, reasonably necessary to keep the article with the purpose of explaining the many complicated terms. Without this page it would be hard for the readers to comprehend the bewildering spells used in quite a number of other Harry Potter-related articles, which, in turn, cause them trouble understanding articles, [that is to say the page is needed here on Wikipedia, transwiki-ing to some other Wikis is not a solution] Also, for the record, this material is by no means "fancruft", material on etymology, for example, is entirely encyclopedic. PeaceNT 16:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A complex matter, but a complex in-universe matter. --B. Wolterding 16:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Shall we delete anything related to ceratin fictional works? I think not.nut-meg 01:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think it makes any difference, that's what the "in-universe" tag is for. PeaceNT 16:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAF and WP:NOR should be read here. The etymology is the only non-fan reference in the article, and is entirely original research. David Fuchs^(talk) 18:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. PeaceNT 14:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a possible transwiki. Most of the list is just trivia and, with regards to the etymology, original research. Very few of the spells have any external references, and even those don't actually talk about the spell or the spells role in the series. Most instances is when an editor using the terms or phrases as metaphors to jazz up their writing, much like they would use phrases like jumping the shark or beyond the pale. But such usage of metaphors doesn't denote the notability of the spells, but the metaphors themselves, which would make a much better encyclopedic article. --Farix (Talk) 17:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The same problems remain: no proper sources, questionable notability and relevance (all anyone really needs to know is in Magic (Harry Potter), anything further is just of no possible interest or use to anyone other than Harry Potter fans, and this isn't the Potter wiki, which is where this stuff should be), and seemingly suffering from a major case of OR. In the event of a no-consensus, I hope those saying "keep and improve" will strive to do what they are voting for. Miremare 18:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a lot of articles that are of no interest to anyone other than fans of their topic. As one who has contributed to many Sonic the Hedgehog articles, I would think you would understand that. nut-meg 01:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I don't really contribute much to them, I just keep an eye on them as they tend to attract more than their fair share of crufty additions which, as I'm sure you can tell from these AfDs, is something I don't at all like. But you cannot compare the two, as Sonic the Hedgehog is a notable video game, one of the most important ever, in fact, whereas Spells in Harry Potter are not notable at all outside of the novels in which they appear. Believe me, if someone were to create an article such as Items in Sonic the Hedgehog I would be just as eager to see it removed as I am with this Spells article, as it would fall foul of everything that Spells in Harry Potter does. I really don't have any anti-Harry Potter agenda here, just an anti unencyclopedic non-notable indescriminate list agenda - the subject is completely irrelevant. Miremare 02:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Several people have pledged to do so, beyond just voting like it. It was awfully nice of them. --Kizor 18:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - saying an article, any article is only of interest or of use to only certain section of population is not an arguement. One can say, given any page that it is only of interest to those interested enough to visit it, by definition. The point is the same as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. KTC 18:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think it's an argument; it's clearly an article created by Harry Potter fans for other Harry Potter fans. There's no one who isn't already a fan who is going to be interested in it, because it covers details of fiction. I'm not a fan of astronomy, but the information in the article could still prove useful to me. Miremare 19:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge(Selectively merge) to Magic (Harry Potter). The major curses are main plot elements (such as the one which left Potter with his scar0 and deserve mention in Magic (Harry Potter). But fans have apparently conducted "fanspew" on this book to show their fondness for it, by creating a listing for many minor spells and jinxes which were used only once, which don't even have proper names, and which were promptly forgotten. Then the listings are padded out with original research about the etymology of each. Only etymology cited to Rowling or to publications about the Potter franchise should be left in the article. It is as unencyclopedic to describe each spell cast in these thousands of pages as to have an article listing each punch thrown in a "Rocky" movie or of each shot fired in an action movie. Notability of the Potter franchise does not percolate down and make every spell in the book notable. Edison 18:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said. — Deckill er 19:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think if multiple secondary sources can be found that discuss, in large part, "Spells in Harry Potter" - their significance in the book, their currency in popular culture, whatever - a "fanspew" would be justified, at least to the extent of listing every spell created by Rowling. I agree about the etymologies. Ichormosquito 19:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is why I gave Expelliarmus as one of those spells notable enough :) Will ^(talk) 01:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim to leave only those spells mentioned in the books, on Rowling's website, and maybe the films, as these are arguably the most "canonical". Gut the OR. Wl219 19:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: I'm with Radiant. The first AfD closing in ten hours wasn't because there was anything wrong with the process; it's because the overwhelming number of Keeps compelled a WP:SNOW decision. This never should have reached a 2nd AfD within the same month, let alone a third. RGTraynor 19:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There isn't much I can say that others haven't already, but I can say that many users, including me, will make sure that the article gets the attention it needs to get it up to code with references and fix any and all spelling and grammar problems and disputes with the new spells. Any further problems should be taken to the talk page. We were in the process of discussing the merge when the second nomination impeded on the conversation. Therequiembellishere 22:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and smack all involved with these continuous afd's with the mighty wand of Not a battleground, which translated into latin would be fun to say. Kyaa the Catlord 22:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True Translates to "non a pugna humus" nut-meg 20:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh. If we served punishments for every violation of WP:NOT, then we'd have no editors. — Deckill er 23:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And that keeps seeming like a better and better option every day during an AfD catfight or a policy war... :/ --Kizor 13:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Help me here, why's it being nominated for deletion? I don't see the point of that. I mean, the article's full, and by all means legitimate. FurrSquee — FurrSquee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep, though remove the OR and single-mention spells. Possibly limit to spells with a spoken component (I don't think the books describe apparation as a spell). If the gloriously non-notable lists of Pokemon deserve to be kept as 'occasional exceptions' to the fiction notability guideline, this does as well. In any case, there are masses of third party books and articles about Harry Potter, so finding sourcing for at least some of these should be quite easy.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, David Fuchs^(talk) 19:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just an essay. The Pokemon lists have survived repeated deletion debates, so I'm invoking precedent. It's easy to imagine this being cleaned up to the level of Characters in the Halo series.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This precedent means nothing as far as policy or guidelines are concerned. You may as well use that as an excuse to keep any article. Pokemon has many fans editing its articles, and therefore many keep votes to count on, just the same as here. The Pokemon-cruft articles stay regardless of whether they've got any business being in an encyclopedia, because there is "consensus" for them to do so, despite the fact that some of them clearly violate Wikipedia policies. This may sound cynical, but it's difficult, from the perspective of a non-fan, to see the repeated "keep"ing of such indiscriminate unsourced lists of minor fictional characters or items in any other way. Miremare 21:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument sounds like 'if it has fans , then it must be fancruft'. There are plenty of third party sources for the spells in Harry Potter, see the books mentioned and the links provided above.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the link to the Characters page, but they are two different types of articles- Characters in the Halo series makes no OR claims, and was spun off because such details cannot go in the video game articles because it would be too large- an exception provided by List of characters... in WP:WAF, I believe (maybe not, I cannot remember). At the same time, it also features plenty of out of universe info- (the entire first section, and more soon, once I get around to it)- the Harry Potter article has only stuff about the spells itself, and the possible meanings in Latin. If all those spells were noted in some big way, not just a fan site, then I could see it having outside relevance from the work and thus notable. In its current way, don't see it happening. David Fuchs^(talk) 21:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently no special dispensation for lists of characters in the fiction guidelines, they're both lists of fictional things. As for out-of universe stuff, why is The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter or Reading Harry Potter: Critical Essays not the equal of The Art of Halo?--Nydas^(Talk) 15:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, no coverage outside primary sources, thus, it has no notability (remember notability is not inherited). Also a giant pit of OR-cruft. Axem Titanium 19:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, for such a successful series/franchise, this is a notable topic. Many of these spells have entered into popular culture. Also, reliable sources covering the topic do exist. --musicpvm 19:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - large scale questionably notable things are usually kept (see all the Pokemon stuff, the video game stuff, the endless pornstar bios). --Rocksanddirt 19:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, David Fuchs^(talk) 19:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - first of all (this is not part of my argument so don't invoke some essay telling me this is an invalid argument, because I'm sure such an essay exists ;)) I am quite surprised that a B-class article of mid-importance to a WikiProject is on AfD. At any rate, as a few others noted, there are quite a few secondary sources about this topic to justify keeping it. That seems to have been the only valid argument (the lack of "real-world sources" as you call them) in this mess. Incidentally, someone said "There's no one who isn't already a fan who is going to be interested in it, because it covers details of fiction." - well, ignoring the fact that this is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, I have never read The Lord of the Rings but reading through the information of Tolkien's world was quite fascinating to me. ugen64 21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it's a case of WP:N, which is a fundamental part of any encyclopedia. The Tolkien article can of course be interesting to those who haven't read the books, that's what's intended after all. The same is true of the Harry Potter article, or those of the individual books. But, not being a Tolkien fan, would you be as interested in a list of fictional spells from Lord of the Rings (if there was one)? Miremare 21:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment: The essays are useful because commonly consensus doesn't treat them as good reasons for either deleting or keeping and article. It's somewhat a waste of the closer's time and energy to read them. David Fuchs^(talk) 22:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Funny, it seems that you have just made the point without meaning to. Clearly your issue is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Arguing that you find Tolkien more interesting than Harry Potter only proves that point. I might find an article about the magic in Tolkein to be interesting. But if I personally didn't it wouldn't mean it wasn't notable. Arguments about whether or not you personally find it interesting go directly to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. nut-meg 01:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Where did I say I find Tolkien more interesting than Harry Potter? Secondly you may very well find an article about magic in Lord of the Rings interesting, and the Harry Potter equivalent of that is Magic (Harry Potter), not Spells in Harry Potter which is an indiscriminate list of individual spells, of interest only to existing fans (which is not what an encyclopedia is for), rather than an overview of the magic itself. Miremare 16:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Repeating comments in previous AfD: while I'm admittedly a newcomer to the AfD process, I fail to see the fuss here. WP:N(fiction) states that articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. That seems to be precisely what's presented in this list -- spells are sourced both in the fiction and in secondary sources, providing detail on the development and etymology of the spells. Notability thus seems clear, especially under the fiction guidelines, so I'd stress a keep. Also, I must say that I find Radiant!'s analysis for a speedy keep particularly compelling, if only because all the time that's been wasted over the last couple weeks putting this article to relentless and repeated deletion attempts could have instead been spent on the article itself (and other articles!) -- and undeniably would have contributed far more to Wikipedia had it been spent thusly. Ashdog137 22:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete or transwiki. I'm appalled; this is absolutely not an encyclopedia article. This is a directory of fancruft - Wikipedia is not a directory. It is entirely based on primary or irrelevant sources and consists of nothing but original research. It should be noted that most of the keep arguments that have flooded this AFD discussion are based on WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or that all three of the previous discussions were speedily closed for whatever reason - the first AFD was withdrawn, and the second had valid concerns that still apply to this AFD. This is no longer a speedy keep candidate, either. --Core desat 23:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- per my comments in the two previous AfDs. --Boricuaeddie 23:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, preferably after a transwikiThis is a very interesting and useful list. However, it is not an encyclopedia article. There are specialized wikis for this. Wikipedia is not one of them. i ^said 01:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what it's worth, the mention of the Latin words' meanings, in my opinion, can hardly be considered original research. PeaceNT 12:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep

This AfD, as with all fiction debates I've yet come across, seems to boil down to two deletion arguments: WP:OR and WP:FICT. Can I first challenge someone to read WP:DEL#REASON and point out which of those points covers original research?? Articles qualify for deletion under WP:OR if and only if they contain pure original research with no possibility of the research ever being removed. Leaving aside the question of whether a knowledge of elementary Latin qualifies as Original Research, even if anything which even looked like OR was removed, all that would go is the etymologies. Everything else can be saved by the application of ludicrous numbers of ^{OOTP Ch.{{{ch}}}}, ^{[PS Ch.{{{ch}}}]}, etc tags, or a reference section six feet long. This article does not qualify for deletion under WP:OR.

Now for WP:FICT. Quite aside from the explicit statement "The article can be deleted only if the above options are either redundant or unavailable"['above options' refering to, among other things, transwiki; my emphasis] which quite precludes anyone arguing for "delete" without prepending "transwiki or..."; let us take a quick count of the sources and references present on this page and the article in question. We have three references to direct comments from JK Rowling. We have a reference from the BBC (and, incidentally, there's another one that I'm going to add as soon as I've finished typing this). We have thirteen references to a hardcopy published work. Then we have, above, another published work that could be used for the same purpose, with an assurance that it soon will be. A quick search of Amazon.com reveals numerous other non-fiction works about Harry Potter which may be of varying degrees of utility. We have six Google News references that a helpful user found in two minutes searching - has anyone considered actually looking for some more?? We have, therefore, at my best guess, 11 separate secondary sources and at least three tertiary sources. Let's try and make this article better rather than just trying to make the problem go away. (Derogatory comment removed - please stay civil. --B. Wolterding 16:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)) Rebuke accepted, phrase reworded. Happy-melon 19:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and incidentally, please let's not close this early! The last thing this article needs is ANOTHER DRV/AfD. Let's have a full five-day debate and lay this matter to rest. Happy-melon 15:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I agree that original research is not generally a reason for deleting an article - merely for improving it to meet WP:OR- however that can only be done when the topic of the article meets other important guidelines WP:NN, WP:RS, etc. In this case I would say that the article fails WP:NN and even if it did pass based on the sources found so far, the information the article would have to be cut down to such an extent that it would not necesitate an individual article and could be merged into the Harry Potter Magic article. however I would say the following points in WP:DEL#REASON could be seen to cover original research when regarded in a certain way: 1) "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia" - very general but per WP:OR original research is not considered suitable for an encylopaedia. 2) "Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)" - if something does not meet WP:NN then secondary sources cannot be found, if sources other than the editor cannot be found then the article could be assumed to be original research by default. 3) "Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" AND "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed" - pretty much the same as above, without relaible soures an article is likely to be largely original research.

I'm not saying that these apply here but in my opinion, that's how the deletion guidelines consider original research. [[Guest9999 21:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Response - I don't disagree - an article without any reliable sources must be OR. However, the biggest single problem I have with WP:FICT is that it completely and utterly discounts the canon itself as a reliable source (or at least it's interpreted that way). Surely it is incontravertable that the best source of evidence for what, say, the Expelliarmus charm does has got to be the text itself!?! That is Rowling's definitive treastise on the subject! As WP:FICT stands, what I assume it is trying to say (there are BIG problems if it isn't!) is that secondary sources are required for evidence of notability, while primary sources (the books) are satisfactory sources for actual details. If this is not what it's saying, and it's trying to say that all articles about Harry Potter must reference without using the books at all for any reason, then the problems with WP:FICT are even greater than I believe! This is what I believe a lot of people are misinterpreting WP:FICT as. Almost everything in this article can be referenced to the books, and (if necessary) will be, although it will involve the addition of a ludicrous number of ^{[PS Ch.{{{ch}}}]} and ^{OOTP Ch.{{{ch}}}} tags. That can be done, and proves that there is little true OR in this article (I have found some, but not much, and as soon as this debate is over it will die a painful death). The only way it can be argued that the whole article is OR is if the books are completely discounted as sources, which is ridiculous. Happy-melon 21:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply WP:FICT only restates WP:NN as it applies to fiction, remember these things do not actually exist - the book is a primary source. My main issue here is that I just do not think that these articles simply do not belong in Wikipedia (per the guidelines). They may well be interesting, useful and fun but that does not mean they belong in an enclopaedia (which wikipedia is WP:5P). They would be very useful and informative as part of a Harry Potter Wiki or fansite - the information on such a fansite would probably be more complete and informative specificly because it did not have to conform to the Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia is not an universal depository of all information WP:NOT#INFO and trying to shoehorn in information that does not meet the guidelines in the end helps no one - least of all those who would hope to gain from that information. [[Guest9999 21:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Delete Spells in Harry Potter does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. There is no real world significance. "Keep - find sources" is not an acceptable thing to say at an AFD. If you want the article kept, you find the sources. The closing admin is not a verification service. Jay32183 21:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that as of now, there are now fifteen completely reliable, news-based sources referenced in this article, plus a number of other references of questionable, but arguable reliability. Let's everyone please resist the temptation to assume that a fictional article cannot possibly have comprehensive secondary source coverage, and actually look at the facts. Happy-melon 21:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those "sources" were added before I made my assessment. Jay32183 22:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so you choose to ignore them completely? Or did you mean to say "after I made my assessment"?? Happy-melon 08:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ignore them. I include them when I say there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. After adding those fifteen, there are still zero that allow this article to stand on its own. Jay32183 18:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the sources added to the article so far I think that a lot of the don't actually meet WP:RS a lot of them are things like the Harry Potter Lexicon - a fan site which doesn't meet WP:RS, [74], [75], [76]; Mugglenet - another fansite [77], an Emma Watson fansite, [78] as well as one which is just a dictionary definition,a site where anyone can post content - [79], self described blogcritics [80], a blogger for a minor newspaper [81], things from the authors and continuity editors of the books (if everything an author described warranted and article... etc.) [82], [83], there are also several sources which take the form of a quiz on sopell names which don't actually give any information except for what the spell names supposedly mean they are on the BBC but I'm not sure if this kind of childrens quiz qualifies as an article endorsing source [84], [85], [86], then there is what I think is another fansite [87] - but it's a 'chat' with the author anyway. I think that just leaves the book "Wizard Words: The Literary, Latin, and Lexical Origins of Harry Potter’s Vocabulary" which does not make for multiple secondary sources as layed out in WP:NN. [[Guest9999 21:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

OK, I'll go through the list again and try and balance that argument (which you can't deny is a little NPOV). [88] HP lexicon - no one is claiming this is a reliable source - it's an extra left over from before. It is, however, possibly the best-referenced and most reliable HP reference site there is. However, to give you every advantage, let's ignore hp-lexicon.com. You'll note that those references weren't even included on my list of 15 reliable sources. [89], please note the comment. This is not a work published by mugglenet, it is in fact a transcript of a BBC television program. Given that other copies of the transcript are doubtless available, the real provenance of this source is not mugglenet but the BBC. That makes it rather harder for you to dismiss. [90], I'm sorry but what gives you the right to dismiss entirely a widely published interview with the Japanese media purely because it's reprinted on a fansite?? I have, incidentally, the same interview repeated word-for-word on Radcliffe's official site ([91]), Grint's official site ([92]), and what I think is an article about the interview in Japanese from the actual news company ([93]) although of course I can't read it so I can't be sure. Then I don't care how minor it is, your "blogger for a minor newspaper" ([94]) is still writing for a published, referenced and accountable journal, and hence qualifies as a reliable source. Vide Rowling's direct quotes ([95] and [96]), I would argue that the latter is a useful source because it describes the sheer scale of the fan following for Harry Potter. However, again to give you every advantage possible, note that these two sources are used only for factual verification of the descriptions of some spells, not for notability purposes. Finally, the BBC articles. How you can throw these out is quite beyond me. The BBC thinks that Spells in Harry Potter are sufficiently notable to devote three pages to them, one way or another. That should be all the justification required. However, think about the true implications of a quiz format. Not only does the BBC think that HP spells are notable, they think that these spells are so notable that the majority of visitors to that page will have enough knowledge to be able to take a quiz on them. Let me finally quote something from WP:RS that supports my argument:

As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

. That is the criterion for assessing reliability. The target audience has nothing to do with it. Are you claiming that the BBC did not check these pages for factual errors and legal issues as thoroughly as any of their other pages? Are you claiming that the Huffington Post does not check for factual errors? The Japanese press? Rowling herself? Then finally, we have the published book, which you quite rightly didn't even try to attack (as you would have failed miserably). So after all that, and after giving you every possible advantage and swinging every debatable point your way, you've managed to write off TWO sources. So we have 13 left. Your serve. Happy-melon 08:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter? The index (viewable on Amazon) mentions Arithmancy, Animagus (4 times), Aveda Kedevra (twice), Charms (4 times), Dark Arts (twice), Divination (5 times), Fidelius Charm, Latin (16 times), Patronus (3 times) and Unforgivable Curses (twice).--Nydas^(Talk) 22:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Can someone please get it so we can add another incontavertable reference to this article? Guest9999 above didn't even feel able to take a crack at the other hardcopy source we've got. Happy-melon 08:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I do think it's possible that the Huffington Press didn't check for factual errors in a personal blog. The BBC quiz claims to give definitions of spell names - too be honest this just seems odd considering the answers - if they had asked what the spells did the answers would have made more sense. I also would say that the mugglenet source shouldn't be used to establish notability - it is still a fansite and I don't think it can be verified. Even considering the current sources that have been established I still do not see that this topic warrents an individual article. Also a lot of publications which can be considered "accountable journal[s]" by your definition do not count as reliable sources - school newspapers are bound by laws of libel and copyright - but everything written about in a school newspaper isn't then considered notable.[[Guest9999 17:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Delete - I feel that this is a fancruft list that serves primarily a very small subset of editors (Potterfans). As such, I cast my lot for the Dalek side of the argument. However, it is more than likely we'll end with a call of No Consensus. --Agamemnon2 23:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh don't worry. If it ends with no consensus, someone will nominae it again next week and you can try again.nut-meg 04:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A small subset? Harry Potter pages are some of the most heavily edited and heavily seen pages. Therequiembellishere 01:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read WP:CRUFT (which, incidentally, is an essay with no binding authority) you'll notice it has a whole section on how Cruft status does not qualify as grounds for deletion, and another on what to do with crufty articles (get to work on them!). Having read that properly your argument, Agamemnon, becomes WP:IDONTLIKEIT Happy-melon 08:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expecto Patronum against those who woud suck the soul out of Wikipedia and make it a depressing place where all cheer and hope is gone. Seriously, keep, due to a huge amount of real-world notability from reliable sources, as demonstrated by nearly every "keep" argument above, and the consensus of hundreds of Wikipedia editors, only a small fraction of whom have the time and energy to expend defending this article against continual nominations for deletion. DHowell 04:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major, I would say essential, part of a HUGE series. The magic and spells in Harry Potter play as big a role as any teacher in the series. If we are going to cover the series in a comprehensive manner, demanding that it be without coverage of the magic used is going to be a rather meaningless restriction. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is suggesting that, please see Magic (Harry Potter). Miremare 13:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be merged or the magic article is too longnut-meg 04:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging does not mean tacking one article onto another, it means selecting the important parts from the first and including them in the second. Once the single-mention spells and other trivial entries are pruned, there are no space problems. Miremare 23:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 1) There are no inherent verifiablity problems, as the information can be verified by reading the books themselves. Using the primary source is not only acceptable, but necessary in cases like this, as the existence of a spell in a book is a simple fact rather than original interpretation. As an analogy, would we require secondary sources to verify a List of characters in Hamlet? I think not. As others have said elsewhere, the spells can be considered "characters" in these books, and a list of them is valid content in an encyclopedia article. In this case the list was split off for practical reasons of article size, not necessarily because of the "encyclopedic" (whatever that means) importance of the topic; in a paper encyclopedia, this content might be included as a sidebar, table, or appendix. 2) The list membership criteria should be obvious from the title, as this is a relatively short list and every spell in the books can be included. It's not like a List of people from the United Kingdom, which would be too large in principle and would require inclusion criteria. 3) The final concern in the nomination seems to be notability. While it is true that "notability is not inherited", some of it may be. Remember that there are many millions of fans, and many thousands at least will be interested in a list of spells. This interest can be verified from secondary sources such as websites that have been mentioned. Sure, there is no Britannica article with a list of spells, but WP is different because it is not paper and it has more people writing the articles than Britannica does. Using some websites for recent, popular-culture topics seems legitimate to me; not every conceivable Wikipedia topic has an academic journal devoted to it! Finally, some comments who use the *cruft argument have said things like "who else could have an interest in this article but Harry Potter fans?". But we have many articles on much more obscure topics on quantum physics or mathematics and (fortunately) no one wants to delete them with the argument that "who cares about it besides theoretical physicists?". I would bet that there are more Harry Potter fans that theoretical physicists. --Itub 13:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughly well argued, Itub - your analogies are much better than any I have been able to assemble. I took the liberty of linking some of your points to relevant policy - I hope you don't mind. It presents a forceful and cohesive argument. Thankyou!! Happy-melon 14:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1- all the latin descriptions are WP:OR and not verifiable, unless Rowling states so or whatnot. The primary sources are not a problem; the lack of out of universe info and secondary sources (see WP:RS) are. David Fuchs^(talk) 15:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter devotes a few pages to the Latin translations (I flipped through an old copy today).--Nydas^(Talk) 16:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin materials are NOT original research. Those translations can be found in any dictionaries, there is absolutely no need for Rowling to specify the meaning of each Latin word she uses. PeaceNT 04:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response (edit conflict!) Verifiability isn't the problem. Notability is the problem, and the fact that this is an indiscriminate list, listing ALL spells regardless of how useful or notable they are. The "interest" argument, which seems to be being misinterpreted by some, is that these spells are of possible interest only to Harry Potter fans, whereas you don't have to be a "fan" of quantum physics to find that article useful and informative. Encyclopedia articles should be written for readers who have no knowledge of the subject concerned, as an introduction to the subject, not for fans of the subject. That's what the Harry Potter Wiki is for. The above argument seems to be based entirely on WP:NOTPAPER, which could be used as an argument for keeping anything. Miremare 15:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: That's an extremely turgid and speculative argument; a case could absolutely be made that there are those who aren't hardcore HP fans who might find a spell list interesting, while those not versed in mathematics or physics could readily find a quantum physics article dull or impenetrable ... and it is extremely unlikely that someone who lacked an interest in either case would find the article "useful." Frankly, the notability of the major background element in the highest selling fiction series of all time shouldn't be a "problem," it should be overwhelming. RGTraynor 16:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the notability of "the major background element in the highest selling fiction series of all time" isn't up for debate. What you are refering to is magic, and that is covered in Magic (Harry Potter). These individual spells are not notable of themselves. Those that are should be covered in Magic (Harry Potter). Miremare 17:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (edit conflict, as well!) This argument is nonsensical to me -- how can you make this "interest" argument? People without an interest in quantum physics are no more or less likely to read an article on quantum physics than people without an interest in Harry Potter would a Harry Potter article, and the converse is true as well. For example, let's say I'm a linguist with an interest in how dead languages are being used in modern culture -- voila, this article is of interest to me, even though I may despise (or may have never heard of!) Harry Potter. That argument boils down to I don't want to read this, so nobody else would, which is not only no valid reason to delete an article, but is no more true for any one article than any other article anywhere on Wikipedia. Ashdog137 16:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply (damn these edit conflicts!) So in other words, never delete anything because someone might want to read it? And let's not even get into the questionable "Latin" part of the article, presenting as fact extracts of an unofficial speculative book with no claim to speak for what J.K Rowling intended the spell names to mean. I'd be very interested to hear a convincing argument on how a non-Harry Potter fan can find this article useful in any way. As for "interest" please read again my comment about who an encyclopedia is written for. Miremare 17:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response You misconstrue my challenge to your argument -- there are plenty of valid reasons to delete articles, but "I don't like it and don't see why anyone would want to read it" isn't one. As for a non-fan finding the entry useful, see the argument I just made above -- I'm not a Potter fan, and that's exactly why I came to visit this article, and I found it enlightening. But, since you want to discard all etymology, let's go with the easier, simpler argument -- as can be clearly told from the references in the article, Harry Potter spells are getting significant coverage in major news outlets (e.g. BBC), which reflects the fact that they're in open and frequent use in popular society. A non-fan may have encountered a reference to a spell in everyday interactions and desire to get some background on what that reference meant -- voila, another reason why a non-fan would want to read this article, and precisely what people turn to encyclopediae for. Ashdog137 17:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response that's very possible, and exactly what the Magic (Harry Potter) article should be for. Very few of theses spells even approach notability in the real world (even given the argument that a mention in a BBC online kids' quiz can equal notability) and should be covered in the Magic (Harry Potter). Everything else is fancruft, of interest to fans only, pure and simple. Miremare 17:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I guess that's just where we'll have to agree to disagree -- as a non-fan, I found the content of interest, so I cannot concede that point to you, particularly not in such broad, sweeping, uncompromising terms. Ashdog137 17:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...presenting as fact extracts of an unofficial speculative book with no claim to speak for what J.K Rowling intended the spell names to mean. Verifiability, not truth. If there are two or three sources reporting what a spell means, that's what we go for.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Nydas, and, I might add, the article won't tell you what J.K Rowling intended the spell names to mean., it only provides relevant information on the background of the Latin words used in Harry Potter spells. This is the exact type of material suitable for an encyclopedia. PeaceNT 04:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Etymology" refers to the history and development of a word, therefore you do need to know what the author intended them to mean, otherwise you are misleading readers into taking speculation as fact, which is not suitable practise for an encyclopedia. Miremare 23:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question? does anyone have any of these books that people keep talking about as sources, if so does anyone know anything about them other than that they exist - the publisher, how many copies have sold, are they independent of the material, are they speculation, do the contradict each other, can they be deemed a reliable source? The fact that's something is in print doesn't mean that it's an independent reliable seocndary source which goes towards a subject's notability. [[Guest9999 21:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
- My god, is it really so hard to do a Google search?

The Sorcerer's Companion: A Guide to the Magical World of Harry Potter

The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter

Beacham's Sourcebook For Teaching Young Adult Fiction: Exploring Harry Potter

Harry Potter Through the Looking Glass

Seriously, the Amazon links were first or second on every search. GlassCobra 01:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Editors have already said that they have them. --Kizor 09:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was really asking more for how they may be viewed in terms of WP:RS in order to establish notability - I thought the case for this could be made better by editors who have read the books and are familiar with Wikipedia policy than by Amazon. Incidentally none of those books seems to be about spells, the spells simply being mentioned an aspect of something larger such as magic in Harry Potter or Harry Potter in general, if at all.[[Guest9999 03:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

That's not the point. A book about quantum mechanics in general, which mentions the Uncertainty Principle, is a perfectly reliable source on Uncertainty principle, assuming it's properly verified, fact-checked, etc. Not all reliable sources have to be peer-reviewed journals, Guest9999, much as you might like them to be. Happy-melon 10:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is the point. Notability is having significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic, WP:N. For a source to be reliable it must go through some editorial process. A self-published book by a non-expert is not considered reliable on Wikipedia. We need to know the publishers of the books, and the contents of the books. Jay32183 18:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has several sources in this case noe, is more notable and quite frankly it would be way too long if we have to merge with the main article or other various articles.--JForget 23:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Harry Potter series became a part of our culture, and there had been books that describe on the effects of the curses and spells being used in the series. The books are sufficient enough as sources of these information, and please, stop nominating this one for deletion. I also read on the notability, the usefulness, and I think, not only in Wikipedia but also on other encyclopedias, each of us has our own interest -- for instance some articles seem to be boring to one person and interesting on another. Remember, in the case of Quantum Physics, for example, not all people are interested on that. And may I suggest that instead of deleting this one, can we just edit and improve this page and include its real life attributes, if any? Chitetskoy 10:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reducto_Delete: unencyclopedic fancruft. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. GlassCobra 18:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: His argument was not like- or dislike-based, if I read it correctly. bwowen talk•contribs 18:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, it breaks down into WP:UNENCYC and WP:CRUFT. The former translates to "It doesn't belong on Wikipedia" which is not an argument. If it's not an argument it's an opinion, therefore it is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The second part is not a valid argument to delete - cruft is to be rewritten and carefully pruned, not hit with a blunt axe. Happy-melon 18:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, what I'm saying is that I think that an article named "List of spells in Harry Potter" is probably never going to be anything other than fancruft. However, I'm willing to be proved wrong. David Mestel^(Talk) 21:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - And when I say "unencylclopedic", that's meant to be kind of shorthand for "I think that this is, and will always be, far more in-depth than is appropriate for an encyclopedia". David Mestel^(Talk) 21:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spells in Harry Potter (2nd nomination) for my arguments. Melsaran (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep and CLEANUP, This article is "important" and deserves to be an article. It provides information about the spells in HP and background info on other things. There is no obvious reason for deletion, there are sources im Sure however they are just not listed. It can be improved greatly only if someone takes the time to do so. Once debate is over I will be happy to find and cite some sources, so as of now this is on my watch page and as i said when debate is over i will begin cleanup, as I am sure will many others. **Ko2007** 19:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the right attitude to take, Ko2007, but why wait until the AfD is over? Help us improve this article now!! Happy-melon 19:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tracking down the sources and citing them will be time consuming. Why take the time if it is only going to be deleted? The main reason it keeps being nominated for deletion is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as is shown by the fact that those who want it deleted have nominated it three times this month. If it were just a matter of poor sourcing, it would have been nominated for improvement, not deletion. nut-meg 20:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the article being nominated three times in a month. This is true however this is the only AfD where debate has been allowed to continue over the normal AfD time frame. [[Guest9999 02:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Indeed. It's not that the article has been nominated in three separate situations, more like this is a single situation where three AfDs were formatted. It's really just a technical issue, and is different from a typical article that is repeatedly AfD'ed. -- Ned Scott 02:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Exactly, nut-meg, I am only going to clean it up if it is voted to be kept, which seems most likley, why waste the time if its only going to be deleted! **Ko2007** 20:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not convinced that sources have been found that show that the topic meets the primary notability criteria; there is also none of the real world content mentioned in the specific fiction criteria. Almost all of the more reputable sources mentioned seem to refer to spells as an aspect of something greater and notability is not inherited. The magic in Harry Potter covers spells and I think that is sufficient. As it is the current article is full of original research especially the etymology entries which seem to be new synthesis of published material by editors, if editors think that in the future more sources and information will become available then that might be a good reason to userfy the article but not to keep it as a part of Wikipedia. [[Guest9999 02:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Comment I am not convinced that looking up a word in a dictionary or translating something is original research. We do it all the time for articles about foreign-language topics, and for good reason. --Itub 08:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Excellent positional play there, Guest9999, leaving your !vote until right at the end. However, whether or not you're convinced, a substantial part of the 90kB of this page (which incidentally will outsize the actual article if it goes on much longer) is devoted to showing quite clearly the wealth of reliable sources that exist for spells in Harry Potter. Of course most of these sources "refer to spells as an aspect of something else" - to use the quantum mechanics analogy that seems to be floating around in this AfD a lot, how many books do you think talk only about one obscure aspect of QM like Weyl quantization? None - instead all the references consider a broader aspect of QM in which parts are useful, reliable sources for each subarticle of quantum mechanics. However, unlike Weyl quantization, whatever the hell that is, this article also has hardcopy references which do specifically cover spells and spellcasting. Also unlike Weyl quantization, Spells in Harry Potter is 142nd on the list of most-visited pages on Wikipedia, wheras I suspect Weyl quantisation will be somewhere down the 1.5 million mark.

This will be the third time that I've pointed out that presence or even preponderance of Original Research is never a grounds for deletion. The addition of references to this text is progressing, hampered only by the sheer quantity of good material to reference. The argument about etymologies is sound, but even if it were determined that they represented pure original research, that would not be any grounds for deletion of the whole article.

All in all, then, Guest9999, although each of your points flags up a problem with the article, none of them indicates a legitimate ground for deletion. Rewrite, yes; prune, yes; reference, yes; delete, no. I'm afraid I can't get over the suspicion that you just DONTLIKEIT. Happy-melon 11:29, 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. Singu larity 06:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists with Young[edit]

This is a rather indiscriminate list of information. These artists are primarily notable for reasons other than their name starting with "Young" or "Yung". Spellcast 02:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOT#INFO: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of info. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 02:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per J-stan. No Young MC? Dbromage [Talk] 02:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the disambiguation page is sufficient and I do not see a need to make a separate disambiguation page for entertainers Corpx 02:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of info. Oyster guitarist 04:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categorizing musicians by their name is a trivial intersection if I ever saw it. Also, the name is very...off, as it does not state that "artist" refers to "hip-hop artist" (explaining the absence of Neil Young), and does not state that "with Young" refers to their name. The appropriatetitle is List of hip-hop artists named Young, which is clearly not grounds for an article. Calgary 04:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't fathom why anyone would waste any time reading it, let alone writing it. Truly inexplicable. Postdlf 05:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Wikipedia is not a repository of musical artists phonetically categorised. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. There's no notability claimed for rappers whose named starts with "Young", other than it's a trend or something. I'm tempted to ask about what happens when they grow up, like that episode of "The Brady Bunch" in which Peter's voice changes, but I'd get labeled as a "playa hata". Or something like that. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Young Delete Postdlf says it best. Mandsford 00:40, 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 5 deletes and 3 keeps. The keep rationales were not given as much weight because they were based on supporting the content of the article and not Wikipedia policy.--Jersey Devil 04:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chapters in Watchmen[edit]

Delete because, as the article itself states, it's nothing but a "detailed descriptions of chapters in the graphic novel Watchmen." That's it, just an abridgement of fiction. This violates WP:FICTION and WP:NOT, not to mention copyright law, as there is no fair use justification for copying story elements without a transformative, real-world informative context. Watchmen, a featured article, already contains a sufficiently descriptive summary of the graphic novel's story, so there is nothing that needs to be merged. Postdlf 02:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to WikiBooks, as chapter by chapter summary is appropriate there like for Lord of the Flies Corpx 02:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Is this what Wikibooks is for? The description doesn't match this - wherever you'd move this too (at least within Wikimedia) you are going to run into the problem that over-long plot summaries can be considered as infringing copyright. (Emperor 02:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  - I dont think they're too keen on sources over there. The Lord of the flies recap is even listed on their "Departments" section. As for the copyrights, I'm not too certain. Somebody with more knowledge of the issue should answer that Corpx 03:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The wiki entry says "is a wiki for the creation of free content books" and I wouldn't want to vote for something that is going to run into issues with other wikis. (Emperor 03:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
      - Just want to say Delete if closing person does not think transwiki is appropriate Corpx 00:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This information is largely covered within the main Watchmen article. There isn't a need for an article that covers it a second time. Stephen Day 03:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stephen Day. WesleyDodds 05:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 20:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant Artw 20:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not redundant: Watchmen has a complex formal structure on both the visual and verbal levels, and this article explicates it (at least, it is heading in that direction), whereas the main Watchmen article just mentions it. The useful bits are pointing out the relevance of cross-references etc, rather than the plot summaries. PaddyLeahy 20:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. good summary style-Peregrine Fisher 00:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being 99% plot it violates WP:FICTION and WP:NOT and infringes copyright. There is also nowhere I think it can be transwikied too (because the copyright issues would arise anywhere within Wikimedia) but might be worth saving for a fan site (although they probably already have this covered). (Emperor 00:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Weak keep — unlike Chapters in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, I think that this article may have room for sufficient out-of-universe context and sourced critical commentary to justify its existence independent from the main Watchmen article. Several of the sources used for the featured article Watchmen have specific commentary on individual chapters. Another possible source is the recent article in Wizard magazine in which folks like Ed Brubaker and David Goyer discuss Watchmen, going into some detail about its narrative structure and critically discussing individual chapters. If the article is deleted, I'd recommend that it be userfied so that the contributors can add relevant sources and re-submit. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:44, 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 Speedy delete by author request.. Carlossuarez46 05:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Quebec Hip Hop artists[edit]

Recommended deletion per WP:NOT#INFO. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 02:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#INFO and no evidence of any of the redlinks being notable. Dbromage [Talk] 02:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above. GlassCobra 02:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs to be considered in the scope that Quebec is nation within Canada with its own distinct culture. Most of these artists are notables on the Quebec Hip Hop scene. It is based of List of Swedish Hip Hop artists which is not for deletion and these artists are arguably equally notables. Lotheric 02:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Dbromage [Talk] 02:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I'll give you that. Then ignore the last sentence of my post. Lotheric 02:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Quebec is not a nation within Canada. It is a province within Canada. Until the legal definition changes, this is a POV argument. Resolute 04:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I beg to differ [97] Lotheric 04:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The opinions of one man, even the Prime Minsiter, do not change Quebec's legal status. Resolute 04:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - and what does legality has anything to do with nation in the cultural sense? Lotheric 04:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The imprecise nature of your argument in defence of this list. Quebec is not a nation within Canada, so this argument does not carry any weight. The scope is no different than List of Alberta Hip Hop artists, which would undoubtably fare similarly in AfD as this article is thus far. Arguing a split based on language, rather than province is a better way around this issue, imo. Reso lute 04:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from the article listing exactly six rappers with WP articles (and dozens without), it contains no information that a category couldn't provide (aside from what language they rap in, but that's really not enough to maintain a list versus a category). -- Kicking222 03:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I suppose an article on French-Canadian rap might be notable, but a bare bones list such as this does not accomplish anything a category does not. If the sources exist, I would suggest turning this into a full fledged article, documenting the history, notable artists, etc. Resolute 04:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree, and after reading arguments here, I'm changing my position. My intention was to do a list and then articles for artists in it. Instead I'll start with the articles and do a list afterwards (or as suggested, category would make sense). Lotheric 04:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. I think an article on French language rap could indeed be very interesting. Resolute 04:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why limit it to French-Canadian? Francophone rap in general would be notable and could be the basis of a very encyclopedic article. The genre catching on in West Africa. There's your challenge, now go to it! :) If you have changed your view on this list and want to start again, you may tag the article with {{db-author}}. Dbromage [Talk] 04:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - For the same reason there's a Canadian hip hop and American hip hop or Belgian hip hop and French hip hop. Lotheric 04:54, 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. @pple 17:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TILE64[edit]

Delete nn product from a nn company; fails WP:CORP and WP:N Carlossuarez46 01:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is impossible to verify the contents of this article from reliable third-party sources. A quick google search also provides very few hits for this product as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This Processor is all over the Technology News, and noted by several large Hardware Companies. -- Jimmi Hugh 02:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. They're cited in Slashdot and Ars Technica. Not so sure about slashdot, but Ars should pass WP:RS. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ meets notability. [98] [99] [100] Carlosguitar 04:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, definitely notable. [101] [102] [103] [104]

Tilera creativity to do a 64 core processor while Intel and AMD only did 4 core until today, makes more than notable, but also part of computing history. Carlosguitar 12:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Jakew 12:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mhocker 13:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tilera as only product at this time. Tilera is not notable except for the TILE64. Later on we can split them which is nicer than deleting both articles now.Ttiotsw 14:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Public information on this chip became available on 8/20. Today, one day later, Google News returns more than ten independent articles from well-known sources on this processor. This clearly meets wp:n. Gavin 03:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Patrik Hägglund 06:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I wouldn't mind a Merge with Tilera for now. +mt 18:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on grounds that this is spam. The references cited for this product are for articles in trade magazines whose content is limited to new product announcements. The content of these Advertorials do not confer notability on this product. --Gavin Collins 15:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per other sources plus Technology Guardian's article on them, which actually goes out of its way to clarify that parallel processing has been around since the INMOS transputer, so what the company is doing is nothing new; that software for these processors will be ages away. If I am not mistaken, advertorials are designed to market a product positively and not suggest its developments are just improvements on achievements made in the 80s ("advertisers will not spend money to describe the flaws of their products"). Rubberkeith 16:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears that more and more sources are becoming available about this micro-controller on news aggregation sites daily. Burntsauce 18:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. KrakatoaKatie 07:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tilera[edit]

Delete nn company with its first product (nominated as well), fails WP:CORP Carlossuarez46 01:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, this webpage has a third-party review of this company. The question now is whether the above mentioned webpage is a reliable source. Moreover, a quick google search shows up quite a number of hits for this company as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. As per the Tile 64 AfD (reprint follows): They're cited in Slashdot and Ars Technica. Not so sure about slashdot, but Ars should pass WP:RS. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Keep - hold on. See also PC World article which mentions Hot Chips Forum (Day 1 Session Three). So either it's a very fancy hoax or not. AfD premature IMHO. It runs GNU/Linux. Ttiotsw 13:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - and merge in TILE64 into this article to keep as one article whilst little is known about the company and redirect tile64 to this article. Ttiotsw 07:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, definitely notable. [105] [106] [107] [108] Tilera creativity to do a 64 core processor while Intel and AMD only did 4 core until today, makes more than notable, but also part of computing history. Carlosguitar 12:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Carlossuarez46 on grounds of non-notability as the article only links to its corporate webside and articles featuring its products. This stub is little more than a linkspam.--Gavin Collins 15:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and greatly improve. This company has been featured inTechnology Guardian very recently and given the citations already provided by Bfigura, Ttiotsw and Carlosguitar I'd say this would indeed be a credible, verifiable article if it was improved instead of just deleted outright. Rubberkeith 16:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep. They're in the Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118757210423602476.html (subscriber only) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bm gub (talk • contribs) 23:01, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
Keep per User:Bm gub. The WSJ reference, plus the above PC World reference and the SJ Mercury News reference in the TILE64 article, are enough justification for keeping both articles in my opinion. These guys appear to be succeeding with an extremely demanding technology that competes with major players such as Intel and AMD. EdJohnston 05:09, 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. — TKD::Talk 08:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dahlkemper's[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dahlkemper's

Seems to be a non-notable catalog showroom chain in Pennsylvania. Tagged for importance and orphan since April with no improvements. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough info --Caldorwards4 02:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be expanded with coverage from RS Corpx 02:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1 patent nonsense, g3 vandalism. Come on, "Claymore Research Association of Pennsylvania (CRAP)"? "Franz Beckenbauer Institute"? NawlinWiki 16:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Ray-Chaudhuri[edit]

Delete hoax article about a supposed Nobel Prize winner, was tagged speedy but despite much debate suspected or real hoaxes are not speedy candidates. Carlossuarez46 01:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I nominated it for speedy deletion, apparently incorrectly. The creator (Phoenix74x) vandalized several other articles in a clear attempt to slip it past casual observers, despite the patent nonsense that it contains. The subject is claimed to be a 2006 Nobel laureate in Medicine, however the Nobel Foundation's official list says otherwise. Frankly, it's a shame that this article will last the 5 days this process requires. RossPatterson 01:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 03:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per vandalism policy under WP:CSD. Given that we have the actual list of laureates from the Nobel foundation that confirms this is a hoax, can we just break out the WP:SNOW-shovel and delete? . --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom hoax. Harlowraman 04:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant hoax. Agree there seem grounds for speedying under WP:CSD, which states blatant hoaxes can be speedied as vandalism. Espresso Addict 07:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Clearly false, so WP:IGNORE. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 11:42, 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. — Scientizzle 18:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Sieunarine[edit]

Minor TV actor, no starring roles anywhere. PROD tag added, undeleted by User:Lectonar after being contested. Should be a speedy, really. Calton | Talk 01:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per minor roles and lack of coverage Corpx 02:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appeared on two episodes of Family Matters when he was 1 year old; nothing since. NawlinWiki 16:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We thank you for brining this to our attention, and we realize that Seth only appeared on television as a child, be he is also a prominent model in his home country of Trinidad and Tobago. We ask that you please not delete his page as he is still continuing with his modelling career. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.23.100 (talk) 12:49, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 05:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of sporting events[edit]

Indiscriminate collection of info, so violating WP:NOT#INFO - ALL events in ALL sports? There is already Category:Sports events or even Category:Current sports events available instead Paulbrock 01:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —X96lee15 03:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt to taste. Face it... the list can't possibly be maintained, and it's a complete mess. And I'm speaking as a contributor to this mess. — Dale Arnett 02:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete As Dale Arnett said, there's no way in hell to possibly be able to maintain that mess, and it'd be way too big to really be of any use. fuzzy510 04:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now way to maintain a list like this also not salt. Oyster guitarist 04:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a terrible list as is, but this is what categories are for. The article doesn't provide any information that the category can't. Calgary 05:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this has the potential to be an infinite list. Should this contain every single sporting event to ever ever happen? Alex Rodriguez grounded out in the 10th inning of the Angels/Yankees game last night. Should that be mentioned in this article? It is a sporting event, after all. Ksy92003(talk) 18:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have categories for this sort of thing. (And when we're done here, can we move on to List of sports?) - Eron ^Talk 18:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and blast with the Death star laser canon This article is unmantainable and would grow to insanely large porportions. This is what categories are for. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wonderful list, but "it's been done". Since there is a category (2 even), add anything from the list that isn't already in the category. Categories work better than lists like this, in that the link to the category is visible at the end of an article. Mandsford 00:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever It looks like this list will be deleted anyway, even though I would still like to see it exist. Do what ever you want to it. Perakhantu 17:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and SALT please! This is what categories are for! Burntsauce 18:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that there is a lack of reliable sources to establish notability. — TKD::Talk 03:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Tyree[edit]

Sourceless bio on non-notable vanity-press author. PROD tag added, but removed without comment by anon IP. Calton | Talk 01:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete seems like a resumé, yet a lot of different people seem to have edited his page in the past, which might imply some degree of importance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kessingler (talk • contribs) 03:57, August 21, 2007.
Delete - Yeah but the mayority of the where anon users, probably local fans or a fanclub. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the anon user who removed the tag. I did comment on why (article's talk page)- I planned on attempting to improve the article by adding sources, but have not had time. I vote to keep as the article is fixable. I've already started compiling sources for the article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk • contribs) 13:40, August 21, 2007.

He's a vanity-press author: how are you gonna fix THAT? Oh, and Geocities? Not a reliable source. --Calton | Talk 13:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, geocities can go. But 3:am, Bookmunch, time out new york (still compiling here) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk • contribs) 14:16, August 21, 2007.

A short events listing -- of which the subject is only a participant, no less -- probably generated by a press release (Time Out) and an unsigned listing of some sort (3 A.M.)? These are your sources? You're truly scraping the bottom of the barrel here. --Calton | Talk 14:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also found some info here: http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/were-not-all-dave-eggers-an-interview-with-susan-tomaselli/

also at www.dogmatika.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk) 14:52, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

DELETE - Vanity Press author with little credit. No reliable sources from respected sites. Editor of an e-zine that gives favourable reviews to himself, this cannot be considered anything other than self promotion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.194.13.1 (talk • contribs) 13:57, August 21, 2007.

"Editor of an e-zine that gives favourable reviews to himself". Where? Link please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk • contribs) 14:15, August 21, 2007.

Was that a question or a statement? --Calton | Talk 14:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking where these self reviews are. I can't find them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk) 14:45, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Umm no problem. Heres the interview on bookmunch "http://www.bookmunch.co.uk/view.php?id=1655" and heres the page on his own website that says he's editor of the US bookmunch "http://www.geocities.com/nathanctyree/news.html". I'll wager this joke writer makes some alterations to his website shortly before continuing his self promotion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.149.102.252 (talk) 19:46, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

That's unfair for a few reasons. 1. that isn't a review, it's an interview. 2. although it quotes from some sources that said favorable things, it isn't in itself 'favorable'. It's an interview. 3. that interview has been there for years, but (per his blog) he only got the job at bookmunch a couple months ago (june 1). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk) 20:44, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

"His debut novel, Mr. Overby is Falling (PublishAmerica), was favorably compared to Fight Club and American Psycho" this is my favourite line. I've been unfortunate enough to read that book and if some respected critic compares it favourably I'll eat my hand. Can anyone find a reference for such a claim? And if it is out there, have they researched who said it?

Five mionutes on google gave me both favorable and unfavorable comparisons to this book and Fight Club.

Don't think any of those are PRO reviewers (but I don't think that the article said that they were).

http://www.bookmunch.co.uk/view.php?id=1655 http://awriterscult.com/community/showthread.php?t=14772&page=4 http://www.weirdears.com/index.php?act=findpost&pid=42296 http://uk.geometry.net/search_ad.php?mode=books&searchtype=list&search=R399J77RLML7ES&productname=Best%20thrillers%20of%202006 www.librarything.com/work/7528 blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=82916927&blogID=142039761&Mytoken=A9

The big seems to be here: http://www.bookmunch.co.uk/view.php?id=1655

"Obviously Mr. Overby is a dark and at times unpleasant and horrific book. There are hints of Bret Easton Ellis (particularly American Psycho) but also Chuck Palahniuk (who is a big fan of yours) and Jean Paul-Sartre (particularly Nausea)." -Peter Wild

"A few of my friends first latched on to you as a result of spotting you mentioned on the Chuck Palahniuk website. How do you feel about all of the fans you've garnered as a result of the Chuckmeister's patronage? " - Peter Wild —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk) 21:08, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

   * Neither of these sources give 'favourable' reviews in comparison. They say that there are elements of similarities, but these do not favour Tyree's writing over Fight Club or American Psycho.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.194.13.1 (talk) 10:38, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong- I actually now lean toward deletion. He isn't that notable. But, there is a lack of civility here and despite the fellows lack of notoriety there is no need to to get snarky. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk) 21:22, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Delete Reviews on Amazon and such sites can easily be manipulated as has been done before. Indeed, reviewers of his book may have been created purely to give favourable reviews, many have only done one review - his book. No hard evidence but definatly possible. References above are unusual. Is there any reference to show Chuck's approval of Tyree as this interviewer suggests? And isn't this reference you've given the same as Tyree's own?

I don't think it's Tyree's own, as it were. That suggestion has been in the article since it's inception. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk)

This 76.7.196.230 appears to be his ip 63.76.154.130 21:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Does not appear to be notable. Zouavman Le Zouave 23:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point![edit]

KEEP - and this is why:

All the above Delete comments use a reason such as "appears to be" or my favorite, "probably local fans or a fanclub." Unless those can be demonstrated, there is no defined reason to delete. Yes, the article is UGLY, but it has also been around for more than a year and a half. If it's so non-notable, why is it only now up for deletion? Vanity articles on Wikipedia tend to be deleted very fast!

I am not saying that I think this is particularly notable, but this entire longwinded argument is empty, baseless, and biased from a strong "I know better and my view is the only view" POV. All the "appears" and "probablys" in the world are worthless unless backed up. The above sounds like the article itself, unreferenced. Instead of whining about it, put the unreferenced tag on the article (note: Nobody had done that even... is that laziness or oversight?) and ee what happens.

My Keep is with the provision that the article needs to continue to be improved and it needs to become better referenced. I think Wikipolocy is perfectly sufficient for that. Perhaps in another month or so this issue can be revisited, but the time is not right now for the lynch mob to unilaterally delete an article with a no-substance (false) rationale.

VigilancePrime 06:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "sourceless bio on non-notable vanity-press author" uses the phrase "appears to be"? Which part of that defined reason did you miss during your vigorous handwaving? And speaking of missing the point, regarding your faith-based rationale: nope, you've got it backwards: the onus is on the ones making the claims of notability to back them, not for detractors to disprove them. To recap:

Vanity-press (PublishAmerica) author.
No reliable sources (see above for the dissections)
No evidence of real-world impact or notice -- and it's the responsibility of anyone claiming otherwise to offer evidence to the contrary.

Any questions? --Calton | Talk 07:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Calton, etc. Vanity publisher with no achievements impressive enough to really distance himself from the hordes of others. -Elmer Clark 10:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Calton, et al --Ebyabe 15:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to question Peter Wild, who is he? All significant quotes mentioned stem from him. Please give a link to his profile and resume of success in literary reviews for weight to his descriptions of Tyree's efforts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.149.102.252 (talk)

Okay. http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2007/04/26/260407_mif_perverted_feature.shtml

http://www.berlingske.dk/kultur/artikel:aid=900252

http://www.wordriot.org/template_2.php?ID=1177

http://www.serpentstail.com/content_item?id=136

63.76.154.130 19:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A lot of sloppy argumentation on the Keepist side on this one. --Agamemnon2 23:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 03:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Guardino[edit]

I am also nominating the following related pages because same person and content:

Possible hoax or semi-subtle attack pages with same content and creator. I cannot find verifiable references, though conceivably that is due to the age and college/minor league nature. Parts seem dubious, but organizations mentioned do or did exist. There are archival references to San Jose baseball Rich Guardino playing 1974-1977 as Hall of Fame inductee in 1997, versus the article's claimed playspan of 1966-1968 and induction in 2004. One claim is clearly inaccurate: the Little Falls Mets existed from 1977-1988, so Guardino could not have spent 1969-1971 there. On the WP roundup, fails WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BLP. Michael Devore 01:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BASEBALL - as he never made it to the major leagues. While he did have a decent college career, lack of any national level recognition makes it hard to keep this article Corpx 02:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that he has played for the Mets or another MLB or pro club.--JForget 01:20, 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. — TKD::Talk 03:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Christopher[edit]

Just another business executive, and also unreferenced. Note too the heavily self-promoting tone. Biruitorul 00:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Article fails to cite sources or assert notability. --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidience of notabilty. --Gavin Collins 08:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tone suggests self-promotion. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 11:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable outside his own circle. Brandon97 14:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete due to lack of reliable sources. If someone can find suitable sources, feel free to create a rewritten version, citing those sources. — TKD::Talk 01:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Os Cangaceiros[edit]

Practically unreadable screed about some anarchists. The single "source" only has one Google hit that I can tell, which doesn't inspire much confidence. I see no real notability, and no hope of salvaging the article. Biruitorul 00:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If you delete their article, they will officially cease to exist, because there will then be no information about them for people (spies?) to research. Therefore they will go away, just ask the Ostrich. Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!) 01:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems non-notable, if they did all they did there would be at least 10,000

g-hits. -Flubeca^Talk 01:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er... There's 4 times that many. Try looking under "Les Fossoyeurs du vieux monde" Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!) 01:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep for now, could potentially be an encyclopedic topic though NOT in its current barely-readable form. I can't even figure out from the article how important or notable this strange little group actually was...K. Lásztocska 01:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Lacks multiple, independent, significant sources to demonstrate notability. --Malcolmxl5 18:28, 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 04:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terry row[edit]

Author with one published book who fails to meet notability guidelines UnfriendlyFire 00:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clifton Edwin Publishing has apparently only published Mr. Row's only novel. Simply WP:NN. --Evb-wiki 00:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. Google did not help. Carlosguitar 03:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, article seems to be written be them self. Oyster guitarist 04:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The article should be edited for the author's forth coming novels. The author's book is surely published [109]. See google results, The author's book is available at all lead online book store. [110]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BalanceRestored (talk • contribs).

Comment, maybe Summer Capricorn book is notable, but I still see difficult to establish notability for Terry Row. Carlosguitar 09:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I tried [111], The author too looks ok to mention at wiki. Check [112], But again the author has not been in the news though. BalanceRestored 11:44, 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 speedily deleted as G11 (spam), copyvio of forum post, and A7 non-notable web site.

GEwar Times[edit]

Delete it is not entirely clear what this article is about but whatever it is it's not notable and the spam links have been removed so that we're no longer invited to click them and "donate". It's been speedied under a few different names several times but keeps coming back so here it is for the community to decide. Carlossuarez46 00:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm confused; you were the one that deleted the first version of this page, citing CSD. Why does this second incarnation not get speedied as well? I had already tagged it as such, and you replaced it with this. GlassCobra 00:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because G4 requires an afd to speedy delete the repost. This keeps coming back, however. Carlossuarez46 00:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, non-notable and possible copyvio to me.K14 00:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G11: Blatant Advertising and a Mainspace interpretation of WP:NOT#USER: Wikipedia should not host "Official Webpages". J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 02:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant advertising, not notable and i don't think wikipedia should be used to host official webpages. Oyster guitarist 04:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G11 and A7. Probably copyvio too (looks like a cut and paste from a web page) but can't find the source. Dbromage [Talk] 05:00, 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. Adding references to the article, though, would be a good idea. — TKD::Talk 08:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert "Bert" Weaver[edit]

Even the tournament he won doesn't have an article. #311 in list of highest grossing golfers -- in a sport which tends to be dominated by a few people for decades. Scott.wheeler 00:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BIO criteria for athletes: "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis". Kinston eagle 01:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the PGA win is verifiable. Winning at the highest level definitely makes one notable Corpx 02:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You might want to take a look at the PGA Tour page. There are a number of reasons why a specific weekly tour event might not be particularly notable. (For instance if there was a more important event the same week.) I can't find any record of the event in 1965 (though, to be clear I actually don't doubt that it happened or that Weaver won it) and only a few statistics about Weaver from 1970 on. And apparently the 311 above was just for that tour. Overall he ranks #511. Even golf sites don't mention his wins and I can't find a single article about him. Scott.wheeler 09:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's verification of his Jacksonville win (although one needs to pay to see the whole article). If any soccer player who has appeared in only one match at the highest level is considered notable enough for a WP article, I think anyone who has earned a PGA Tour card—and, even more so, won a PGA tournament that in other years was won by such golfers as Sam Snead and Gary Player—is sufficiently notable as well. Deor 11:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't agree that everyone that has ever appeared in a top-level league belongs in WP as the majority to not meet more general notability requirements. There was a draft for new text there which seemed more sensible, but it's recently been blanked in preparation for a new draft. Scott.wheeler 15:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BIO and agree that winning a PGA tour event clearly establishes notability. It was not a minor event with a player such as Tony Jacklin winning the event in 1968 showing that the highest level of players did compete at the tournament. Davewild 19:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cephalic Carnage. Given the article's history, the redirect will be protected. — TKD::Talk 02:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lenzig Leal[edit]

Biographical stub for member of a barely-notable heavy metal band; no sources seem to exist which discuss him in particular; article is mostly unsourced personal opinion. Eleland 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge with the page for the band.nut-meg 00:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I already tried that and was reverted by band fans rapidly. Eleland 00:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge with main article. If they keep reverting, the page can be protected. --_Hdt83 _Chat 01:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Hdt83. Dbromage [Talk] 04:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Unsourced POV, so not worth a merge. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cephalic Carnage. Given the article's history, the redirect will be protected. — TKD::Talk 02:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Goldberg[edit]

Biographical stub for member of a barely-notable heavy metal band; no sources seem to exist which discuss him in particular; article is mostly unsourced personal opinion. Eleland 00:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge with the page for the band.nut-meg 00:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I already tried that and was reverted by band fans rapidly. Eleland 00:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge If they revert it again, just give them a link to this AFD (If it passes) -Flubeca^Talk 00:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Flubeca. Dbromage [Talk] 04:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing worth merging, unsourced opinion. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Tom 20:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cephalic Carnage. Given the article's history, the redirect will be protected. — TKD::Talk 01:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Merryman (drummer)[edit]

Biographical stub for member of a barely-notable heavy metal band; no sources seem to exist which discuss him in particular; article is mostly unsourced personal opinion. Eleland 00:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge with the page for the band.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nut-meg (talk • contribs)

Comment: I already tried that and was reverted by band fans rapidly. Eleland 00:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Article gives no information beyond that which could be given in the band's article. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As stated by User:Seth_Bresnett, the information can all be part of the band article. --Stormbay 00:58, 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. — TKD::Talk 01:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lynx Aviation (Pakistan)[edit]

Delete Pakistani charter airline fails WP:CORP Carlossuarez46 00:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - not a place for directory listings about small businesses Corpx 02:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable company. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article contains information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources.--Gavin Collins 13:18, 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: Speedy delete under G11— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairboy (talk • contribs)

Coast Run[edit]

Advertising, not encyclopedic or notable Eran of Arcadia 00:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 74 google hits for "Coast Run" "Earle Page College", fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RS (no independant sources with significant coverage), WP:SOAP (#4). WLU 01:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the historical information with Earle Page College. A long running charity event is notable but it's too spammy and doesn't really need its own article unless sufficient sources can be cited. I know it receives media coverage each year (example) but none is cited. And I say this as an alumnus of Earle Page College! Dbromage [Talk] 01:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the entry was improperly listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 21. Some comments not added directly to the article's own AfD page were not recorded. Dbromage [Talk] 01:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Dbromage [Talk] 01:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete remove ths soapbox advertising or delete it.Rlevse 01:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — TKD::Talk 08:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lanny Barbie[edit]

Does not appear to meet WP:PORNBIO, unless having sex with your sister is a valid niche. Has only been in the industry for six years and doesn;t seem to have done anything notable. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 21:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO because she was a Penthouse Pet. Epbr123 21:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an achievement. There's been one for every month since 1970. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it's an achievement, it's still a valid criteria for WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 22:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not an award. It's a badge, basically. The Grabbies are awards. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should possibly be made clearer but when PORNBIO mentions magazine awards, it does specifically mean being a centrefold of the month. If you disagree with this criteria, you'll have to debate this on the PORNBIO talk page. Epbr123 18:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for delete on grounds that she doesnt seem to have done anything that any pornstar hasn't done. We can't keep an article on everyone just because they made a sex video (Pi 21:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- That's why we have WP:PORNBIO. It sets out clear rules for who is and is not notable. In this case Lanny is notable. Tabercil 23:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PORNBIO as she was the Penthouse Pet for June 2003. Tabercil 23:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When did she have sex with my sister? Joe 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dev920. DCEdwards1966 18:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PORNBIO. As stated above, if the nominator wants the centerfold criteria removed, he/she needs to lobby for this through WP:PORNBIO. Otherwise, the two major centerfolds, Playboy and Penthouse, are considered major notability criteria for this genre. 23skidoo 00:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a former Penthouse Pet, this meets WP:PORNBIO easily. Case closed. Burntsauce 18:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please do not delete. Thank You.

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 23:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It most certainly meets the porn biography guidelines, given she was a Penthouse Pet. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 02:09, 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. — TKD::Talk 02:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KARA[edit]

non notable band Wtimc3 15:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one album, no indication that it had success there, no sources and I have also concerns that some parts have been cut and paste.--JForget 01:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- PC78 09:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources and plenty of replaceable fair use images, the whole article looks like a fan site for the group. I've looked over the Korean album chart listings for March '07 [113] and April '07 [114], and I can't find any mention of their album. PC78 16:11, 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 Speedy Delete per CSD G4 by User:Oscarthecat This is the 3rd time that has been deleted per speedy nomination. Non-admin closure.--JForget 01:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Ching Park[edit]

Non-notable and defamatory Somebody Else's Problem^{(aka Alethiophile)Ask me why} 19:19, 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.