Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 22

< August 21	August 23 >

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 merge and redirect to Sinister Dexter. MastCell ^Talk 22:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malone (2000AD)[edit]

Esentially just a plot summary for a story spun-off from an existing comicbbok series. Delete per WP:FICTION. Artw 23:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 23:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - it is an important part of the Sinister Dexter storyline. I agree about the excessive plot and trimming it down would lead to an insubstantial entry with no real hope of expansion. As the connections with the main series are now clear (which they weren't at the time) and there have been no attempts to hook into the Malone story (there had only been a couple of stories when the last merge vote was taken at the end of last year) it makes sense as a paragraph inserted into Sinister Dexter. (Emperor 00:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Merge - per Emperor. Stephen Day 02:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Merge and shorten to remove excess plot detail. Note that the main article, Sinister Dexter, still seems too large and, with its huge episode list, seems to violate WP:NOT a directory. The plot and character sections seem OK. EdJohnston 20:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Trimmed down, this article would work well as a paragraph under the main article for Sinister Dexter - Though, as noted, that article could use a bit of TLC as well. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Could summarize the plot.Mbisanz 21:58, 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. Walton^One 18:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nado sincronizado[edit]

Delete unreleased film with one notable actor and lots of redlinks, nn, WP:CRYSTAL. Carlossuarez46 23:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references to prove notability. Google searches do not quickly lead to additional references. Can't glean much from the IMDB entry, where it lacks even a user rating. EdJohnston 20:25, 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 Speedy deleted per NeoChaosX. ELIMINATORJR 23:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Montana (Star)[edit]

This article is an exact extract from two other articles Miley Stewart and List of Hannah Montana songs. It has no unique content and is unlikely to ever have unique content. NrDg 23:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete since it's a copy of two other Wikipedia articles without either article's history, it's a GFDL violation. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:44, 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 redirect to Angst. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Existential despair[edit]

After doing some research I'm not convinced there is any such thing. That is, existentialists sometimes write about despair, but 1)they don't necessarily mean the same thing by it, and 2)they don't necessarily mean anything different by it than a meaning of the term generally available. The term "existential despair" as such is occasionally used, but not actually to refer to existential philosophy. The section on Kierkegaard, though a good try, is I fear conflating several Kierkegaardian topics, including material covered (also not very well) at existential crisis (I do not propose a merge there, however, since both articles need to rewritten and referenced). The term seems to refer in the uses I could find (mostly by doing an exact-text search at JSTOR) to a particularly vividly felt form of unhappiness, not to a philosophical concept. This article was considered for deletion before several years ago at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Existential despair; no clear consensus emerged from that debate. Chick Bowen 23:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ~~unreferenced~~very poorly sourced original research. Of course, I'd be happy to reconsider if additional reliable sources were provided. --ElKevbo 04:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Angst or Existentialism; possibly one or two lines could be merged but this looks like very obvious WP:OR#SYN Eleland 14:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Angst, as that's what I believe Joe Sixpack would take the term to mean. --Agamemnon2 22:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect' per Agamemnon2. Bearian 03:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Thin Arthur 08:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted along with other articles created by both socks. ELIMINATORJR 23:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of new Naruto episodes[edit]

List of hoax episodes; any "new" Naruto episodes are a part of the Naruto: Shippuden series. Complete bollocks. Was put up for prod, but prod was removed by a new user, who I think along with the article creator are User:Danny Daniel socks since he's previously created cartoon-related hoaxes and these accounts fit that pattern. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:34, 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. Walton^One 18:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Z The Movie[edit]

Note to closing admin - if you read the page history, you will note that one user has taken to multiple !votings, and then removing anyone who tries to put an {{unsigned}} tag on his !votes. The Evil Spartan 14:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a non-notable movie. There aren't any third party reliable sources currently used to prove notablity, etc. I will admit it's difficult to do a search to find any of those mentions given the title of the movie, but I did to the best of my ability, and found nothing: [1]. There is a conflict of interest in the creation of the article - though I'm not sure that's a valid for deletion, it doesn't help prove the movie's notability. The Evil Spartan 23:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I believe it meets the criteria for notability - but that better references should be added. 69.116.62.33 03:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTFILM "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles, unless the production itself is notable"; if it approaches release and more sources are available go ahead and re-create the article. Eleland 14:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (struck triple vote, The Evil Spartan 14:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)) Seems to be of acceptable 'notable standard', i think due to it's indie status. With release coming very soon and teasers already released (They are linked to from the external link Meme and Zeke), it makes sense the page should remain. It has external links, citing the production website, a 'bebo' page and teaser links. As teasers have been publicly released, it has external links and it is notable i think it definately should not be released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehatgang (talk • contribs) 19:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All who've added to the article have been single purpose accounts, likely WP:COI. Precious Roy 19:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ The producers are currently sending out a press release to the papers and regional news programmes. The Wikipeida entry is included as non-biased third-party information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehatgang (talk • contribs)

Please only give your bold faced opinions once, and please sign your comments. 64.178.96.168 20:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it. If you'd like to remove one of your votes, feel free. But you only get one, and you need to sign your comments. The Evil Spartan 14:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suggest the external links are followed before questioning the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehatgang (talk • contribs)
Delete per the nominator, the single purpose voters have shown me the light! Burntsauce 20:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a yet-to-be-released movie by a yet-to-be-a-director director just isn't notable and should go. But the threshold for inclusion is low and I fear the article will simply be recreated when the movie is released. -- Steve Hart 21:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by EliminatorJR, blanked by original author. Core desat 02:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monsterobots[edit]

Completely non-notable event; fails WP:NOTE, WP:V, and quite likely WP:NFT and WP:SPAM The Evil Spartan 23:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are found to confer notability Corpx 04:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, reads like an advertisement, no sources for claims. Spigot Map 08:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^One 18:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Andersen[edit]

Non-notable glamour model: fails WP:BIO. The Evil Spartan 23:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete - fails as a WP:PORNBIO, but might scrape through if anything can be given to indicate notability for her work as a photographer rather than a subject. (At the moment it seems to be an autobio & sketchy on detail.) If anything can be found to indicate notability for her work, change to weak keep — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see nothing notable (but she's doing a lot of stuff and might become notable someday). -- Steve Hart 21:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chapters in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns[edit]

The entire article is simply an extensively detailed plot summary, the lead sentence even acknowledges this fact. A sufficient summary already exists in the miniseries' main article, there's no need for this article, which serves no other purpose than to go into excessive, unnecessary detail. Calgary 23:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 23:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT's rule against detailed plot summaries. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redudant, appropriate coiverage given in main article. Artw 00:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant and infringing copyright from excessive plot: WP:FICTION and WP:PLOT. (Emperor 00:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete as per the above. John Carter 00:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too much plot and too little real content. — Wen li ^(contribs) 02:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT - Not the place for completely in universe plot summaries Corpx 04:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. Shoester 05:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, Commissioner Gordon would have wanted it this way. Burntsauce 18:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — too much plot, redundant with main article, not really any room for out-of-universe context or analysis. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Xoloz 13:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katrine Dalsgård[edit]

Notability Madsanders 23:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 01:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quite a few Google Scholar results. Not a lot else, though. --Dhartung | Talk 02:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she appears to be notable. Bearian 03:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no more notable than thousands of other similar academics. MarkinBoston 19:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a routine academic. Golfcam 09:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to have contributed quite a bit (from what I can tell) to the revival of early African American women literature, including Dorothy West. Has received at least one award for her work. -- Steve Hart 21:19, 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. --Core desat 02:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starting with Alice[edit]

Delete one-line article about nn book, speedy tags removed but speedy technically doesn't apply to books ranked #194,964 in sales at Amazon.com Carlossuarez46 22:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears to be inaccurate also; article claims it's the first book in the series, but a skim through the publication dates for the series shows that can't be the case — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Shoester 06:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The author is certainly notable, but this particular book doesn't seem to have gotten much critical attention at all, and it might be more useful to improve the coverage of this series as a whole on the author page rather than create a separate article for this volume. I'm open to having my mind changed if better sources appear. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Core desat 02:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism (band)[edit]

Non-notable band. Claims that one of its singles got some airplay but doesn't back it up with an objective criteria (i.e. WP:MUSIC: a national music chart) or any references. Savidan 22:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article does establish the band's notability with just that objective criterion you mentioned, that "#15 Australia" next to the single title means "reached number 15 in the Australian national music chart". Furthermore, there are plenty of sources available. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 00:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; clearly indicates three charting hits Down Under; just one chart hit is good enough for WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Certainly seems notable to me based on the hits. 69.116.62.33 03:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could we see some proof for the chart hits? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 1redrun (talk • contribs) 07:17, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
Added. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 09:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zeibura, the subject pretty obviously passes WP:MUSIC. Burntsauce 18:14, 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. Carabinieri 17:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Wunderbar[edit]

No assertion of notability for Austrian musician. German yahoo search [2] yields only 2 hits outside English WP. Gilliam 22:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and lack of WP:RS. Bearian 03:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete, WP:RS can be provided. Pigel22 00:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn per WP:MUSIC (the controversy could make him notable, but isn't cited.) -- Steve Hart 21:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete, unreferenced information has now been removed and existing information has been referenced. Emotivegraaf 16:58, 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. John254 01:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Ash[edit]

I don't think an undistinguished county-level cricketer who played three matches in 1965 qualifies as notable. Katharineamy 22:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Inappropriate AfD; first-class cricketers are always WP:N per very long-standing policy, regardless of whether nom thinks they're "undistinguished". — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP As the original writer of this article, I was under the impression that all first class cricketers are notable. This has been established time and again in fact, please check the notability guidelines before nominating someone like this Katharineamy. The wikipedia consensus is that any player who's played their sport in a fully professional league is notable and English county cricket obviously qualifies as the highest level of the game. You might not think him notable but wikipedia does. Nick mallory 01:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, inherently notable as a first class cricketer. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, playing First-class cricket isn't something anyone can do - it requires a high level of talent to participate at all. Notability asserted as such and is enough in my (and WP:BIO's) book, with First-class cricket being a professional level of the sport. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 02:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable. Per the above comments. 69.116.62.33 03:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Shoester 05:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and WP:BIO which states that Atheltes who are "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" are notable, making this individual clearly notable. Andrew nixon 06:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per the comments above, he is notable by Wikipedia's criteria. JH (talk page) 09:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep precedence dictates that first-class cricketers are notable, and in any case, the guidelines for improving potential notablity issues are as follows, none of which were done before adding the prod template:

Improve it yourself
Ask the article's creator for advice. The template {{nn-warn}} is one way to do this.
Put the {{notability}} or {{bio-notability}} tag on the article to notify other editors.

–MDCollins (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know a number of people who've played first class cricket - you could hardly say they were professionals as such, just given a few quid expenses for playing in a couple of games, and all will have had other jobs. In the same way, should all semi-professional footballers be listed? Or cricketers at clubs around the country where every team in the league has a 'pro'? I'm not a wiki-guru, but I do know that if you were to list every cricketer who has played at least one first class game you'd have loads more entires. Under the rules, it's a Keep, but I think the rules are slightly flawed.--Gavinio 11:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is they played First Class Cricket - e.g. in a fully professional league. It doesn't matter that they didn't make a career out of it. Clear rules allow people to do productive things on wikipedia instead of endlessly arguing about whether so and so qualifies for such and such reason. Would you want a cut off point? Five games? Ten games? Why that many exactly? What if they scored a hundred on debut and didn't play again? The rules are clear, if you play first class cricket you're in. We should have an article for every first class cricketer, wikipedia is not paper and nobody's asking you to write them. There are plenty of interested people who will. Nick mallory 03:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the WP:SNOWBALL effect now applies. Burntsauce 18:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Snowball keep'. Thin Arthur 08:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep I concur. Meets the objective criteria of having played in a fully professional league. --Malcolmxl5 19:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Pelletier[edit]

Article sounds like an autobiography for a non-notable artist. Abu badali ^(talk) 22:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, nn. Carlossuarez46 00:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable artist. No real assertion of notability in the article. — Wen li ^(contribs) 02:48, 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 Delete. Walton^One 19:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project management 2.0[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Artw 21:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The term and concept are ridiculous but there are cited sources that seem to (barely) raise the concept to the level of notability. It may be that the article and the cited sources are advertising but, as with all things "2.0", it's extremely difficult to separate marketing and advertisement from legitimate concerns and ideas. --ElKevbo 04:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Neologisms as I could find nothing in the sources defining the term "Project management 2.0," or saying who coined it. --Alksub 23:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan DeBoer[edit]

Notability not established. Unable to find any reliable sources that verify any of the information here. Onorem♠Dil 21:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn dj. Carlossuarez46 00:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs sources. 69.116.62.33 03:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs sources. FAV47, please don't post a comment on my talkpage if you are planning too because of this comment, because I simply will delete the comment and not respond. Davnel03 17:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just to let you know 68.188.208.185, who is actively editing the page has just inserted the word "WHAT" on my talkpage [3] Davnel03 19:40, 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. --Core desat 02:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piano Man (Scott Storch album)[edit]

The album properly doesn't exist, it was a joke in the opening credits in the music video for Built Like That Shadyaftrmathgunit 21:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I can see, it looks like the author of this article took a joke at face value. WP:CRYSTAL and possible hoax. —Travis ^talk 01:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - eo 01:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions.--Shadyaftrmathgunit 00:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a total hoax. A joke was indeed being taken too literally. This can almost qualify for a G7. Spellcast 09:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per nom --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 11:13, 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. --Core desat 03:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lecnac[edit]

I have nominated this article for deletion, since there appears to have been no change in the circumstances described in the previous nomination 3 years ago in terms of notability. I would argue that the term is not notable (outside of a single mathematical text) and by its very nature is not verifiable. Notably the article has been tagged as needing sources for over a year, to no avail. I can find no evidence that the term is in common use (despite being a teacher in Worthing, where the term was supposedly coined) and being familiar with the Mathsphere products. I notice, too, that many of the arguments for keeping in the previous discussion were invited by non-users. Tafkam 21:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing found in Google Books, Google Scholar, or Google News Archive searches. Cute term but if there were a real need for it, it would be in more widespread use. --Dhartung | Talk 21:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article claims it is used by one small set of teachers. Hardly sounds encyclopedic. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung. Insufficient evidence of notability. Jakew 21:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a badly written non-notable article that probably isn't true. — Wen li ^(contribs) 02:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced and non-notable. Gandalf61 10:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even the rationale given for coining this neologism is flawed. We can ""lecnac" a fraction by multiplying through by (¹/₃) / (¹/₃), for instance – and that gives the same result as "cancellation". DavidCBryant 11:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per DHartung, above. It may be in widespread use, but it is unsourced and appears to be unsourceable. Consider keeping only if evidence of third-party sources is produced. -- Dominus 18:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable at best. Paul August ☎ 04:00, 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. --Core desat 03:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2015 World Championships in Athletics[edit]

Delete this article. This article can be created far in the future. It is not written in an encyclopedic tone and it has many redlinks. The article should either be rewritten or deleted. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 20:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Was going to say keep because it will be recreated but I have to agree with Anthony on this one, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball--Pheonix (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Can be recreated... eight years from now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:CRYSTAL. How can anyone make such predictions? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete again, per WP:CRYSTAL. It's too far ahead in the future. — Wen li ^(contribs) 02:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Let's see 2015, that's 2008,9,10,11,12,13 and 14 in between. Overall 7 years and 7 World Championships in between. Unless the author posesses some very special abilities I don't know how he came up with the names of his likely canidates. Prime example of WP:CRYSTAL 1redrun ^Talk 07:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- World Championships in Athletics are held every two years, so that's 2009 Berlin, 2011 Daegu and 2013 Moscow. These, by the way, are appropriate articles because the venue has been decided. Punkmorten 08:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speculation. Punkmorten 08:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per WP:CRYSTAL. Neranei (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:CRYSTAL, and the fact the whole article appears to be Original Research. - fchd 17:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of the above (WP:CRYSTAL, basically). ♠TomasBat 21:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think a good rule of thumb would be that an article for contests like these should be created when official bids for hosting them are started, since that's the starting point for reliable, verifiable information relating to that specific event. --Agamemnon2 22:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds logical. I agree. ♠TomasBat 00:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article should be created depending on the notability of the event it describes at the time it is created. And yes, I would say generally when bids start, it is verifiable and becomes notable. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 01:11, 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 delete, consensus to delete after disregarding one SPA argument, and WP:BIO concerns not addressed. --Core desat 03:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Kempthorne[edit]

Delete she has been in Harry Potter films, but these must have been bit roles, does that make her notable? I don't think so. Carlossuarez46 20:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, yes, of coure it makes her notable--Pheonix (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They appear not to be bit roles, they're stand-in jobs, which is even less notable as far as acting is concerned. Ergo, Delete. --Agamemnon2 22:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are there other reasons for apart from notability? She's fairly notable and ~~I doubt this would be nomed for deletion if it was 20kb long~~ We would lose info otherwise--Pheonix (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What are the reliable sources attesting to notability? (Also, you may have come up with a new one for arguments to avoid, that being article size, although I'm not actually certain what your argument is there.) --Dhartung | Talk 21:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, One of the sources to check would be the credits. Anyway, See here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheonix15 (talk • contribs)

Well, if you insist... she's not included in the credits of Harry Potter Chamber of Secrets, [4] which was apparently her biggest "role". For comparison, "Boy in Study Hall 2" and "Brunette Lady" do get credited. Calling her roles "bit parts" would be extremely generous. Iain99 20:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:N, I don't think bit roles are enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no IMDb entry (i.e. not part of the official cast of any non-trivial film) and her "bit parts" seem more like at best "featured extra" where she has moments of screen time but no lines. Yes, ha ha, "real" witch plays witch in Harry Potter. That's about all. --Dhartung | Talk 21:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Dhartung Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - IMDb gives me nothing, I suspect Shartung is correct. Definate air of vanityu about the article. Artw 22:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her own website confirms that the notable-sounding roles were all bit-parts, at best. [5] She got a line in one Harry Potter film, but that's about it. Biggest claim to fame seems to be starring in an unreleased, self-produced film. [6] 396 Google hits, including Wikipedia mirrors and pages about other people with the same name, no reliable independent sources that I could find. Iain99 22:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has starred in a film "The Vampires of Bloody Island" which was shown at the cinema, and was on the cover of mensa magazine. I think that's pretty notable Rubber C 21:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, which cinema? The film's own website describes it as unreleased - "The film is currently entering the festival circuit in advance of it's commercial release." [7] If it becomes successful then she might become notable, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The Mensa magazine is more promising, if it's an article about the film, and not just a cover she modelled for, but generally multiple independent sources are required to establish notability Iain99 20:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A press release on the film's myspace page says "...the June Issue of Mensa magazine, where we've just been published as the cover feature, with a four page article and a whopping great ten lovely vamp-tastic photos." And a page on the film's website [8] says a London cinema preview of the film was sold out.Rubber C 22:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that an article in a low circulation magazine like Mensa can by itself establish notability. A notable film-star should really be getting significant coverage in cinema-related press. The film itself almost certainly fails WP:MOVIE, and as such can't establish notability for any of its cast. Press releases and myspace pages are explicitly excluded from being reliable sources... a preview is not a cinema release, and anyway there's nothing to say whether "sold out" meant that ten or a thousand people came. Sorry, but there's really nothing here... try recreating it if the film gets a general release and becomes successful. And a hint - don't try to pad it with uncredited appearances as an extra in Harry potter or Never Mind the Buzzcocks - it looks rather like barrel-scraping. Iain99 10:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I saw the Mensa magazine article and have seen her on various TV programmes, & certainly when the film is on general release she will become far more well known, & will no doubt do even more in the future, hence building on the current entry. Taradragon 16:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC) — Taradragon (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. --Core desat 03:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dorchester Sports[edit]

This article is about a football (soccer) team which was only formed this summer and has therefore played no more than about three competitive matches in its entire history. Additionally, the club plays in the Dorset Senior League Division 4, which is at level 16 of the English football league system, way below what WP:FOOTBALL has deemed notable. Whilst there are lots of Ghits for the words "Dorchester Sports", I couldn't find anything that relates to this team, therefore it fails WP:N and WP:V. NB Contested prod ChrisTheDude 20:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 20:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless they have an extraordinary cup run, won't be notable for at least six seasons. No other club in their league has their own entry. I wouldn't object to a one-paragraph summary of the clubs on the league's page though (although wouldn't support a merge of this article without similar entries for the other clubs) — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely non-notable - they can't have a cup run as teams from that division aren't allowed to enter the FA Cup. Number 5 7 08:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone object (would be ok) if there was a mere few lines on the club? Would that be enough not to delete? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SAFE SAINT (talk • contribs) 11:16, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
- The problem there is that Wikipedia has a notability policy, which all articles must meet, which states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I can find no evidence that your team has received any form of coverage, therefore it doesn't meet the primary requirement of Wikipedia..... ChrisTheDude 11:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I say above, I personally think the way to go is to have a table for each lower league, with a paragraph on each team; but that's my personal opinion and most definitely not consensus — iridescent (talk to me!) 11:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I like the sound of that idea, personally, but there's the issue of sourcing, of course, as I can't find any reliable sources that confirm anything about the Dorchester Sports club other than the fact that it exists, and I suspect the same would be true of most other clubs at a similar level of the pyramid..... ChrisTheDude 11:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Presumably all you'd need to fill it in though would be a leaf through the back pages of the "Dorset News". Not sure how far down the pyramid Rothmans goes but they might have at least one-liners as well — iridescent (talk to me!) 11:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article cannot surviove as it is. An alternative might be to make the opening paragraph (only) a section of an article "Sport in Dorchester", but stripped of the "expectations" where are a mere WP:POV. Peterkingiron 17:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. --Core desat 05:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F90 Gundam Formula 90[edit]

Article describes in intimate detail a fictional suit appearing in a comic. Not notable. Perhaps of interest within an anime wiki, but not wikipedia Oscarthecat 20:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC) ~~:Suggest that the following related and similar articles have similar consideration for deletion.~~ ~~:NOTE: These articles are not part of the nomination, and not under discussion. This is only about F90 Gundam Formula 90. --Eyrian 20:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)~~ [reply]

F91 Gundam Formula 91

ZZ Gundam

MSA-003 Nemo

MSA-0011 S Gundam

MSZ-006 Zeta Plus

RGC-80 GM Cannon

RGM-79 GM

RGM-89 Jegan

RX-75 Guntank

RX-77 Guncannon

Gundam (mobile suit)

RX-79 Gundam

ORX-005 Gaplant

RGM-79 GM

RGM-89 Jegan

Nu Gundam

LM314V21 Victory 2 Gundam

MAX-03 Adzam

MS-05 Zaku I

MS-06 Zaku II

MS-07 Gouf

MS-09 Dom

~~XM-X Crossbone Gundam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oscarthecat (talk • contribs) 20:26, August 22, 2007 (UTC).~~

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 22:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One other note. The MS-06 Zaku II actually had an AFD about two months ago and the decision was keep. --69.156.204.97 23:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the aricle Gundam (mobile suit) survied an AFD debate under it orignal name RX 78. That can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RX-78 Gundam. Someone should read those AFD's first before they try to nominate them in the future. Also to avoid any possible confusion only the article listed at top is currently consider for deletion the others are considerations for future debates. They are not all up for deletion at once. --69.156.204.97 00:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect as appropriate to a summary article for the series of appearance. The way to cover most of these is not deletion, but rather to cover in a page for the overall series. Exceptions can be handled on their own right. FrozenPurpleCube 01:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and even with the list here...you're not even close to the tip of the iceberg that is the number of Gundam-related articles on Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 02:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is obviously a Bad faith nomination. The nominator did not read ANY of these articles before doing the AfD, using the same argument on at least 2 Afd nom already while the other one is not from a comic from the very first paragraph. A lot of listed models are major characters of their related series, and should not be listed as following related and similar articles have similar consideration for deletion. If the article is nominated alone and with a more good faith nominator, I would go for delete on this one, but since the nominator showed no knowledge in the topic and wished it to be a first of more deletions, I have to say Keep. MythSearcher^talk 03:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Is there an appropriate place to put all this fancruft/in-universe content? Looks like the ones getting coverage are from guides and fan sites . Corpx 04:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a place this is Gundam Wiki [9]. -Adv193 21:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely in-universe subject, violating WP:WAF, and has no verifiable third party coverage to establish its notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did the nominator even read the "first" article he nominated? Real-world context is established in the first line. A model kit which spawned an anime. (Anyone else wish some people would remember not a battleground? Kyaa the Catlord 08:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - I've been against deleting most of the mobile-suit related articles listed for deletion, but this one isn't anywhere near as good or comprehensive as the others I've seen. It would be better off either merged with a larger article (such as one of the lists of mobile suits, or it's appropriate Era), or just deleted. If it is a major mobile suit of the series, there is certainly more information that isn't included here, such as who pilots it or what battles it is involved in, that should be added. If it isn't one of the major ones, it probably shouldn't have its own article and should be, as I said before, merged or deleted. -Rycr 10:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Actually, after reading through the article again, I realized that it could be added to F91_Gundam_Formula_91, as it is the basis for that unit. -Rycr 10:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and I strongly caution my fellow anime fans to step back and avoid hostile accusations. Kyaa notes that this is "A model kit which spawned an anime" but the article says "the series of Mobile Suit Gundam F90 model kits, later adapted into manga." (em mine) So wouldn't the obvious solution be to merge to Mobile Suit Gundam model kits or what have you? Eleland 14:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, I don't think so, you know how much this was bashed over and over that models are not notable? Wouldn't it still be very notable when a model kit can spawn a manga series just by itself? MythSearcher^talk 15:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Extremely bad faith nom. Has mass-nominated several Gundam articles with almost the exact same text for the reason, and has obviously not read any of them. Furthermore, in the case of this particular AfD, it's obvious the user in question has not even LOOKED at most of the article listed-- only the initial one has an AfD tag, and well-written, well-sourced articles such as Gundam (mobile suit) are listed that clearly meet noteability standards. Jtrainor 20:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks independent secondary sources to establish notability and provide real world context. Jay32183 20:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, with regards to this particular article, it and the F-91 article need to be merged into the Formula Project article, which has needed a re-write for some time by someone knowledgeable on the subject (it involves an anime, a manga series, and a whole mess of model kits). Jtrainor 21:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jtrainor and Kyaa the Catlord. The names may change but the rationales are always the same and always as invalid. MalikCarr 22:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but should eventually be changed focus to discuss the highly successful model kit series instead of the in-universe story. There are a lot of variants of the F90 series model kits and, as mentioned, were so popular that its own manga series was created. --Polaron | Talk 01:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of nomination[edit]

(to Eyrian)You arn't the nom, so I really don't think it's your place to say what this AfD covers and what it does not. Jtrainor 20:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't added to the nomination properly. Therefore, they are not a part of the nomination. --Eyrian 20:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll review and raise seperate AFD's for the multiple articles listed following the initial AFD, in order to keep everyone happy and stick to Wikipedia policy. Have struck out those later additions now. --Oscarthecat 21:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd keep and add an inuniverse/wikify tag. Mbisanz 21:57, 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 keep. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RB-79 Ball[edit]

Article describes in intimate detail a fictional weapon appearing in a comic. Not notable. Perhaps of interest within an anime wiki, but not wikipedia. Oscarthecat 20:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Do note that the information in this page does hold "historical significance" to the GUNDAM Series. You would have to remove the series from thsi website to be fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.112.2 (talk) 03:10, August 27, 2007 (UTC) — 74.166.112.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep We don't exclude fictional weapons, characters, starships, etc. Not paper. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we do, unless they're notable, please take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). --Oscarthecat 06:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A fictional weapon that appeared in 5 anime series that is directed and written by 5 different story writers and 4 different mechnical designer, with appearance in various manga, model series and hobby magazine is NOT just a fictional weapon appearing in a comic. MythSearcher^talk 02:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 22:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable outside of the gundam fandom. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply How do you explain the appearance in Super Robot Wars then? MythSearcher^talk 05:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no out-of-universe, verifiable third party sources to establish its notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply How do you explain the appearance in Super Robot Wars then? And yes, there are tons of third party sources, it does not mean it is a primary source just because the name of the book contains Gundam in it. MythSearcher^talk 05:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a poor example to use. That article points to an entire series of games and related subjects, and is notable based on the coverage of different aspects of its broad nature. This specifically addresses a single weapon in an entirely in-universe manner. If you cannot give any sources beside the guidebooks, which are not independent of the fictional universe, thus not satisfying WP:FICT, then the article should be deleted. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply You do not understand, Super Robot Wars is not under the same fictional universe, it is a collection of robots from different ficitonal universes and combining them into one single game that links all of the series together, and of course it is to harvest numerous series' popularity. It is totally independent of the fictional universe, since it is not even under the Gundam title meta-series. And you keep saying guidebooks, I must say this again, just because the name of the book contains the series name, it does not mean it is a guidebook, half of those are not published by the original company which made the series, and is mentioning the subject in question in an out of universe way, like who designed it and why it is used over again and again and again. MythSearcher^talk 09:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Transwiki fictional object that has received no coverage other than guides etc Corpx 04:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per MythSearcher. - Ariolander 04:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mythsearcher. Kyaa the Catlord 08:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge or delete~~ Keep and extensively rewrite in out-of-universe style pending 3rd party references to back notability claims. Simply being featured in multiple productions, even one "crossover" production, do not imply notability. Guidelines are clear here. It has to be covered in 3rd party reliable published sources. Eleland 14:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not to mention the fact that nothing can be reliable published source from deletionist view points? Whenever something like this comes up, it is just going the way it is: no, this is not a 3rd party source even if it is published by someone else, it got the name Gundam on it so it must be bad and No, it is not a notable source(when does sources have to be notable? they only need to be verifiable and reliable) and No, a magazine is not reliable (I assume wiki needs the expertise source on this, and the magazine is the most expertised one?). Come on, don't make up rules, and I will have to repeat one more time, a source having the word Gundam in it does not mean it is a guidebook, nor meaning it is primary source. 3rd party CAN and WILL publish books on things like these and will have the word Gundam in it for simplicity sake. MythSearcher^talk 15:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment WP:FICTION requires "substantial real-world content from reliable primary and secondary sources". If a well-established and widely circulated magazine about modeling had an article devoted solely or largely to this RB-79 thing, that would be a point in favour of keeping. If GundamCruft Bimonthly has such an article, it's justifiable to ask what that contributes to verifiability. Does such a magazine have an established structure for fact-checking? How do we know they didn't just read the Wikipedia article and then publish the details... which are then used as citations on the Wikipedia article? Eleland 15:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply Okay, 3 of the most notable modeling magazine in Japan, Model Graphix, Hobby Japan and Dengeki Hobby(the first 2 predates the gundam series) were suggested in these Afd discussions, and were all thrown out of the window by deletionists. The first one, Model Graphix, having its own little serial story that featured a RB-79 in it called Gundam Sentinel 0079, and got a model built from scratch just for the purpose of the story, interviewed the designer Katoki Hajime, the second magazine, Hobby Japan, got at least 3 RB-79 Ball contests that took up over 30 pages on 3 different issues(sourced in the 3rd issue with these contests stating there was 2 before) and more 3~5 page coverage over the years devoted on model building of the RB-79 model, everytime having at least short description on the RB-79 itself instead of the modeling methods, and the love of the mecha itself by the modellers, quoting official settings and more reality check talk, the third magazine, Dengeki Hobby, holds a modelling competition on Gundam every year and the 2006 winner is using a RB-79 Ball and got 5 page feature for that, including interviews of the designer, again. And a 3rd party company that is by no means asked by the original company that created Gundam, went through the interviews of the series director, mecha designer and settings personel and published a book called Gundam Century which is not a guidebook but a nice little interview and expert talk on technology ranging from particle beam to mass driver to island 3 space colonies and lagrangian points and space pods and manipulators of the real world and comparing them to the nice o' Gundam fictional universe. I believe these are pretty valid hard core data we can rely on? MythSearcher^talk 16:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment What I'm hearing is, "plastic models of the RB-79 are notable". The article doesn't seem to be about plastic models, though. It needs to be extensively rewritten with fictional in-universe content greatly reduced. Eleland 18:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply No, plastic models of the RB-79 are seen so much because the mecha itself is popular and of great interest in the culture, not the specific plastic model itself is notable. Plastic modelling is a way of putting one's love into the topic, the whole modelling culture is notable, and thus constantly using it to express interest on a subject makes the subject notable. MythSearcher^talk 02:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad faith nom. The same guy that created this one has started a number of other Gundam-related AfDs, all with the same rationale. Jtrainor 20:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise what the issue is. Many Gundam articles exist, many with the same lack of notability, so the same rationale etc. I feel each one nominated is eligible for Delete. --Oscarthecat 20:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about you obviously not reading the articles, which is made blatantly obvious by your attempted shotgun nom in the F90 deletion article? Jtrainor 21:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a read of this article. I'm sure it's of interest to fans of such anime, but it appears to fail WP:FICT criteria. Suspect we're not going to agree on this so I'll sit back and see what other editors feel. --Oscarthecat 21:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jtrainor. All these nominations are the same, so I'm not going to come up with a new rationale for each one. MalikCarr 22:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mythsearcher. Nomination fails to mention the subject appears in multiple media and the article has multiple independant sources. The subect being fictional is not grounds for deletion, see Doctor Watson, [light saber]], Andorian, Acme Corporation, etc. Edward321 22:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Oscarthecat 08:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of discussion, can you find any points in countering anyone's point about this article is notable? You have not reply in any of the items I have brought out to claim its notability, User:Eleland is trying to do so, but not you. You keep saying notability is a factor, and we do too, yet you failed to explain why it is not notable, other than the incorrect statement claiming it is from a comic, which it is not. Do you even know that Eleland has made changes to the article and now it is shorter and easier to understand right now and he/she is making(or at least trying to make) a better effort in discussion about the Afd more than you do? This is a discussion, if you talk about notability, can you at least try to discuss what kind of stuff is lacking right now so someone can at least try to fix it in order to save the article? You show no traces of any will to try helping it to meet your standards and it seems like no matter what others do, and no matter what how notable it is, you are still going to claim it is not notable at all. MythSearcher^talk 10:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mythsearcher. I'm working from the notability policy at WP:NOTE, specifically "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There's lots of sources cited, but they're hardly independent of the subject, they're books about Gundam, or they're other anime sites/programmes. I nominated a few Gundam-related articles as they appeared to be sheer fancruft (which in its own right isn't reason for deletion, admittedly) but they covered such details as fictional operating system names, versions and so on. I'm all for improving the articles, but to make them less fan-orientated and more general. If we need to go into the depths of model statistics (which some other Gundan articles have been doing) then they seem to be good candidates for a transwiki move. Regards, --Oscarthecat 10:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I keep bringing up, a third party source using the name Gundam in its title is reasonable, since it is about that topic. For example, if I want to write a book about cats, what is a good name for my book? The Cats or Felis silvestris? And would it be a more reliable souce if the book is purely about cats, or if the book only have parts of it about cats, like a book called General description of domesticated animals? If a hobby magazine claims it to be One of the most popular mecha, there's got to be some notability in it, right? And if people keep holding up functions purely for this particular mecha, while not even the main mecha in the series: Gundam got events like that, that is another good notability check. It is not model statistics, it is the events and functions held just for this mecha shows notability. The current version shows no fictional operating system names and versions, and only a little plot summary and the real-life impact of such mecha. It could be improved, but I am saying, just this particular mecha, right now, not any others you have nominated, what is it that you are looking at that is missing, what is required to make it notable enough to have its own article when a magazine claiming it to be one of the most popular does not work. Name it, and I will go get the sources and add it in for you. I am all into playing this little game, every time it is just we find tons of sources and the nominator playing dirty and keep saying it is not notable enough no matter what we get, no matter what source is found, nothing is useful, magazines from third party sources were claimed to be not notable themselves, newspaper cuttings were said to have no fact checking methods, anything that got Gundam in it is evil and cannot be used, no, even a sci-fi fan magazine cutting helps at all, so this time we go the other way, name it, and we will find it. Yes, I am THAT confident in finding what you want on this one. Just tell me what kind of sources make it notable enough to have its own article, if you cannot say it specifically, give me an example article of a fictional machine that meets all you requirements(i.e. you will not nominate it for deletion) and we can work on getting the same amount of sources and maybe even exceeding the amount and type in it, be it newspaper, magazine or TV shows. MythSearcher^talk 14:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Hobby Japan is a magazine that predates Gundam, if not modern Japanese Anime, for over a decade(The magazine first published in the 1960s, and Gundam is 1979 product) and it is just not other anime/programmes. It is a respectable nice popular famous magazine about peoples hobby, including but not limiting to rafting, sports bike, military diorama modelling, aircraft and land vehicle modelling, movies, anime, figuraing, computer technology, gaming, comics, conventions, etc. I have face this kind of convesation before, everything that makes a notability call to whoever nominated an article for deletion, nothing, seriously, absolutely NOTHING is reliable. If this is NOT a third party independent reliable source, I do not know where on earth can anyone find anything notable at all, MythSearcher^talk 16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of the most popular mecha of the series. There are tons more non-notable Gundam mecha articles out there that do not deserve their own articles. Why pick the famous ones? It's almost as if the nominator has no familiarity with the series. The nominator should probably work with the Gundam WikiProject to hash out article inclusion guidelines for Gundam mecha and avoid nominating the notable ones. --Polaron | Talk 01:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to further note that without exception, every Gundam-related article that has had a re-write attempt after deletion got re-deleted and then protected to prevent recreation. Jtrainor 11:37, 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. --Core desat 03:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too Much Power[edit]

De-PRODed by creator. I was going to tag for speedy deletion as advert, User:Nucleusboy PRODed and I seconded. Google search revealed 15 UNIQUE Googlehits for +"Too Much Power" +"Bret Meanor" Only 40 UNIQUE Google hits for "Bret Meanor" Do not see that subject meets notability requirements. Again, rePRODed. Taking to AfD. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Author is pretty well nonexistent when it comes to Google results and reliable sources; the book's printed by SterlingHouse, which is apparently a vanity press. No notability to be seen here. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per the fox, non-notable book by a vanity press. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Zero notability and per WP:NB. Also, it's unclear what the book is about. "A critical review of the book notes three elements: a conversational tone, a concise, easy-to-read format, and well-researched historical details." Of what?! Also, if there's a critical review, it's hiding somewhere, possibly ashamed.--Sethacus 01:10, 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 delete. --Core desat 03:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media Publisher[edit]

Although the article is sourced, it is unclear to me whether they rise to the level of WP:CORP, and the current article reads a bit like an advertisement. Xoloz 19:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources found in Google News Archive (just press releases), spammy article (why do they always list things like "corporate leadership" or "mission statement"?). Borderline G11, but fail WP:CORP. --Dhartung | Talk 21:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Only 165 UNIQUE Google hits. I would have expected more. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, another small company. Bearian 03:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources establishing notability are provided. GlassFET 21:58, 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. --Core desat 03:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can We Chill[edit]

Complete speculation, as article states (several times) - this is rumor. Suggest redirect to album article until some real sources come along. - eo 19:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until verified,per WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until verified, Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything said above. — Wen li ^(contribs) 02:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Rumors do not belong on Wikipedia. 69.116.62.33 03:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL.Neranei (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - current version of the article has been edited to remove "rumors"; this is an actual single from the album. On a more minor note, the article would undoubtedly need to be re-created in a matter of days, if deleted. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 19:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hardly notable from current text.--Hooperbloob 00:13, 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. --Core desat 03:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Gemine[edit]

Asserts notability so A7 doesn't apply, but could well be a hoax - why is someone with so many medals not mentioned in his team's article? Carlossuarez46 19:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can we speedy a hoax? Not as I recall. 23 unique google hits on a variety of Gemine's, some auf Deutsch, for instance, <i">Mein Madchenfreundin ist sehr gemine ." Raus, bitte.. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- non notable. The sunder king 20:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is ccomplete fabrication and includes way too many opinionised statements "his ridiculously broad shoulders" etc. (GowsiPowsi 20:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete, fails WP:V, assumptive hoax. --Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Undoubted hoax. Swansea have never even qualified for the Champions League let alone won it four times, ditto Wales qualifying for the World Cup. • nancy • 18:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is quite some impressive details and feats by the player, too bad it's a hoax Delete.--JForget 22:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources given. --Coppertwig 18:53, 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. Lack of WP:RS is a convincing argument here. Xoloz 13:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Music Television[edit]

Delete Are all tv channels available only through Sky Angel inherently notable? I think not, and this has no 3rd party RSes to show notability other than its mere existence. Carlossuarez46 19:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating for the same reason:[reply]

Delete [http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GWYA_en___US234&q=%22Spirit+Music+Television%22 I would have expected more that 8 Google hits. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both TVU and Spirit Music Television are notable for being the only 24-hour faith-based music video stations, and for airing no commercials by staying viewer-supported. With thousands of viewers, fan sites, and now several years running, I don't think its notability should be in question. TheScalpel 16:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS documents above reason for notability. On Wikipedia notability is objective, and this network fails that test. Cool Hand Luke 05:12, 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. --Core desat 03:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance Ebooks[edit]

Delete unsourced article about a company that claims to be a publisher of reprints of Lovecraft and others and of adult material but I couldn't find any google hits sourcing that or showing notability of the company otherwise Carlossuarez46 19:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable probably a hoax.(GowsiPowsi 20:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete as failing WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Non-notable e-tailer. (Not sure where previous commenter's "hoax" is coming from.) --Dhartung | Talk 22:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been modified with quotes added since above comments Samuelhaldane 12:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability criteria. Carlosguitar 12:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Ott III (Gib)[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Little claim of notability in article and no sources. Gsearch fails to show notability for either Gilbert Ott or Gib Ott. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 19:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I found one of the bands it claims he works with! Apparently Minera Le'Groom exists. And gets all of 10 G-hits. If Shore Road exists, it's hiding someplace... oh, wait, found them too - a LiveJournal that hasn't been updated since 2005. And amazingly enough, someone named Gib is in the band. Essentially, what it looks like we have here is someone who may be producing albums for very small bands (which he's in), which doesn't add up to notability. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per tony Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no sources that indicates/prooves he is notable. No names of bands he played, no discography. If more details and sources are provided, maybe my decision my change but right now it fails: WP:V and WP:BIO.--JForget 22:56, 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 speedily deleted - attack page. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purple velvet lady[edit]

Patent nonsense in places, insulting in others. If the Purple Velvet Lady exists and merits Wikipedia coverage, it should be as part of the Human Zoo article, and none of this text should be included. Katharineamy 19:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability in article, gsearch does not come up with matches. --Fabrictramp 19:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G10 (attack) or G1 (nonsense), so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:10, 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. Walton^One 19:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious Label[edit]

unsourced article about an indie label with a walled garden of other nn bands it is promoting Carlossuarez46 18:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the nn bands signed to the label:[reply]

I'm a bit unsure on this one - I'm fairly certain The Pillows is notable enough as a band, and the label was created by a member of that band, so that may carry a bit of notability with it - I don't think it's enough, so weak delete. However, I'll agree that The Stereo Future needs to be deleted, for now, and I'm hesitant as to The Noodles. If they've been around since 1991, making albums and doing tours around Japan as well as to North America, they may stand under WP:MUSIC. They don't have an article on .ja, though, which makes me wonder. Neutral on Noodles until I've done some more research. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I originally tagged the label and Noodles for speedy. Very little that can be verified, doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSIC. Realkyhick 02:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Walton^One 19:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LSE Students' Union[edit]

Nominated for AfD to settle revert war over notability. TorstenGuise 19:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Notability of Student Unions established. All institutions in the University of London have separate identities and separate SU's. TorstenGuise 19:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main LSE article. I don't feel that the student union is notable in and of itself, it only merits a mention in the main article.--Danaman5 19:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article about University of London Union. Normally the main student union of a major university is notable, and many have been held so. What I am dubious about is the independence of LSE since the article says "members are also members of the University of London Union." I'd draw the line here. DGG (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The LSE is at this point a constituent part of the University of London. Hence all LSE students are automatically members of UOL Students' Union. It is not through the membership of LSESU that an LSE student becomes a UOL Students' Union member.Wongch2 10:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a technicality. For almost all purposes it is treated as a separate university, and it is one of the top handful in the UK. The student unions of the constituent colleges are also more important than the central body, which is why it is not surprising that several of them have longer articles than the main one. They are the entities with which people will identify, and the main topics of reference in this area. Beorhtric 11:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the LSE article, the student body of the LSE has more than adequate mention there. also i would remind torstenguise that because other crap exists doesn't make the case for this article Sherzo 23:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That argument is meaningless, as it supposes that people who want to retain the article will agree that similar articles are crap, when obviously they will not. Dominictimms 14:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This line of debate completely misrepresents, and has nothing to do with my statement. Thanks again for yet another pointless attack. TorstenGuise 12:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Random selection from the well populated Category:English students' unions, with no attempt made to explain why it is not notable. Dominictimms 14:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge either to LSE article or as per DGG--JForget 23:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent, and for impact on the lives of tens of thousands of people. Golfcam 09:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, indeed more notable than most of the companion articles that have not been nominated. Having only one article for the University of London's student unions would be a misrepresentation of reality, as the major colleges are separate universities in all substance, save for a couple of technicalities. Beorhtric 11:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge reads like an advert for the union, just more students trying to get there non notable stuff on to wiki Foxley of Grim 14:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As does the articles on Oxford University Student Union, Cambridge University Students' Union, Durham Students' Union and University of Manchester Students' Union. your point being? TorstenGuise 14:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again i would remind TorstenGuise that because other crap exists doesn't make the case for this article. Sherzo 12:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Once again, you have misread my statement. All SU articles read as adverts for their union. Above are examples of that from the largest and most respected academic institutions in the UK. However, the only way you can become a member of a particular union is to enroll at that particular institution. Therefore, it is pointless to write these articles off as advertisements, when joining an SU is a byproduct of seeking further education.TorstenGuise 13:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- exactly, you cant exactly advertise an organisation which doesnt have an open membership. The likely readership of this article are LSE students and prospective students who would like to find out more about the LSESU. While it cannot be categorically said that prospective students do not choose their unis based on the qualities of its SU, it remains unlikely. And the SU doesn't have any choice over its membership. This is indirectly decided by the admissions dept of the uni, which decides who gets in (and therefore who becomes a SU member). In any case if there is an issue with it sounding like an advert, it is a matter of how the article is written, and not an argument for deleting it. Wongch2 10:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Decent article, worthwhile topic. JMalky 21:05, 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 David Beckham, feel free to merge any pertinent info from the history, although there doesn't appear to be much to merge. --Core desat 03:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo Beckham[edit]

not notable other than his parents; I suggest a protected redirect to one of them - no real preference which, but the article should be deleted Carlossuarez46 18:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited. --Evb-wiki 18:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to one of the parents, probably David Beckham as he's more famous. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 19:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here that would not be on other beckham pages ( albeit in a rephrased form). Merge any content that isn't already elsewhere. 3tmx 21:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merge and delete are incompatible under the GFDL. A merge must be redirected and the history retained. --Dhartung | Talk 22:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment his other siblings already redirect to David Beckham 3tmx 21:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to David Beckham. Plausible search term, anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 22:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Dhartung. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to David Beckham. Agree it is plausible search term. Little guy's too small to have done anything notable yet.. :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to David Beckham. And note on Victoria Beckham as well. 69.116.62.33 03:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David Beckham. Number 5 7 08:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to David Beckham as notability is not inherited. Dave101→talk 09:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beckham per same debate and result for Brooklyn. David is the more notable of the two notable Beckham parents. MLA 09:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete write ina bit of the info on victoria and davids article but im sure they'll already mantion the fact they have kids --Childzy ¤ Talk 11:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David Beckham. There's really nothing to merge, Romeo's name and DOB are already mentioned in Becks' article, and frankly there's nothing else that merits a mention ChrisTheDude 11:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David Beckham. If there is any info which isn't on the David Beckham article, Merge it. jacĸrм | speak ~ 15:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David Beckham. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 19:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David Beckham. Clearly does not warrant an encyclopedic article for himself. --Malcolmxl5 20:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per Evb. --Coppertwig 18:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge to one of the Beckhams. The only important info other than his name and DOB is that he has epilepsy, and maybe who his godparents are. Academic Challenger 02:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep — Caknuck 22:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Jones[edit]

Non-notable (ghits for "Eli Jones" cancer = <600 [It's a somewhat common name, so some distinguisher was needed]), article seems written solely to push a POV, and none of the sources used are reliable. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is significant coverage found through Google Books. Famous within homeopathy, somewhat of a precursor of Andrew Weil (although I have more respect for Weil scientifically). --Dhartung | Talk 19:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do any of those 13 books actually cover him in any significant way? The quotes shown are just him being mentioned in passing, and a few one-sentence comments from books of no particular notability aren't really enough to establish notability. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, several of them do, although I haven't looked at all of them. In any case, they make non-trivial assertions of notability for him. --Dhartung | Talk 22:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. Seems pretty notable to me. --Evb-wiki 20:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Hooperbloob 03:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems notable to me (better google books links[10]. On a slighly relevant note, I think we should be a little more careful of deleting entries from before the modern media era, notability wasn't as visible then as now. -- Steve Hart 21:50, 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. --Core desat 03:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaran O'Connell[edit]

Delete probable hoax article of someone supposedly a member of the Irish parliament - our article at the constituency shows that other people won the election. Carlossuarez46 18:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reliable sources do not back this article up, no sources given in article. --Fabrictramp 19:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An attempt to trace the subject of this article in any aspect of Irish politics resulted in a dead end. The subject is non notable and the article appears to be a fabrication. --Stormbay 21:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Comment To be fair, not quite a fabrication. But the subject of the article is the same as the subject of this AFD from two weeks ago. And I must add that although this article doesn't technically claim that the subject is a member of Dáil Éireann, the Irish parliament - he isn't - the infobox as it stands is misleading. The subject isn't a successor to the politician named in the infobox. (And on a related note, as the constituences for Dáil Éireann are multi-seat constituencies, there is no need for a successor section.) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete might be speedy under WP:CSD#G4 since this article (or a reasonably similar one) was subject to a recent AfD per Flowerpotman. Not a hoax per se, but not notable. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had requested speedy in this article on the basis of it being about a "non notable" peron and had thrown in the possibility of it being a hoax. I withdraw that statement but certainly find parts of the info box to be disingenuous. --Stormbay 22:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no indications that he has a seat in Parliament so it is not notable and the reference is more from a blog so it fails WP:Reliable SourceS on that one--JForget 23:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Delete It does not mention he is a member of the Parliament or suggest that he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.66.194 (talk) 11:18, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Dont Delete it simply states he is a candidate of Fianna Fáil for the local election in 2009, the ref to him being the successor has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.66.194 (talk) 11:22, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Well, there are problems with that. Even elected Irish county councillors don't tend to notable, in the Wikipedia sense, by virtue of their office alone unless there are other reasons for them to be included. A general exception is if they are members of their party's National Executive/Ard Comhairle. And there isn't any source to confirm that he will be a candidate; for that matter, have any candidates for the 2009 Irish local elections from any party been officially announced yet? FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:24, 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 the snowball clause and at least two of of the following: CSD G1, CSD G3,CSD A1, CSD A7. Nihiltres^(t.l) 19:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rivastreet[edit]

Not sure what this is. I tagged it for speedy delletion. The creator de-tagged it. On the surface it looks like a thouroughly not notable article about a not notable subject. I garnered 0 ghits for "Rivastreet," On the off chance this is some part of pop culture of which I have been sorely ignorant, I bring it to AfD for greater consideration. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this silliness. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 18:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3, obvious vandalism. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete not entirely sure that it's vandalism, but it's certainly an A1, borderline G1, and probably A7 as well (as far as I can tell it's about a gang, with no assertion of notability). Iain99 18:43, 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. Carlossuarez46 19:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WELLband[edit]

Article about a church based youth band that makes no assertion of notability. Top Google hit is for Myspace. About 240 UNIQUE Google hits about a variety of Wellbands, not all this one. Does not meet WP:BAND. Article has been edited by single user, User:Bishopnl. Edits over time increasingly like an advert. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 as non-notable group, no notability even asserted in article. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:38, 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. Carabinieri 17:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony D. Galluccio[edit]

Delete unsourced article about a city councilman from a mid-sized city running for another office, nn. Carlossuarez46 18:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An ambition to be (very mildly) notable is not itself particularly notable. Jakew 21:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although we can cover him if he wins a state legislative seat. --Dhartung | Talk 22:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, and has very limited context. — Wen li ^(contribs) 02:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There are valid sources for this person: [11], [12], [13], etc. Over 30 thousand ghits. That's notable--not famous, but notable. The article needs cleanup, but there is no reason to delete. LeSnail 16:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Searching Google with the name "Anthony Galluccio" generates 682 ghits, the 30 thousand number includes all sorts of pages that have anyone named Anthony and another named Galluccio somewhere on the same page. As for the 3 sources you provide: only 1 might be considered a reliable source and it talks about his car crash - not a notable event. At most this guy is notable locally, like most city legislators from midsize places are. Carlossuarez46 23:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand per Lesnail's points or maybe merge it to the city's article when mentioned about politics.--JForget 23:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Lesnail and JForget. Bearian 03:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Academic Challenger 02:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, given that notability problems have been addressed in the discussion and the article has been improved since the nomination. Merging is an editorial decision that can be brought up at any time. --Core desat 03:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antoni Dunin[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

Does not satisfy WP:BIO; apparently created by relative. THF 18:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity article, created by relative. A figure of little importance, only sources are those created by the relative that authored this article or a single line-item on a list. Quatloo 18:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Created by a relative is not automatically a reason for deletion. As an experiment, though, I removed original research sourced to a family web site. There's not much left. Although it is stated that he "was a Polish nobleman (szlachta),", the szlachta comprised between 8 and 12% of the ethnic Polish population, so it is not a rare distinction. Without the family web site I'm not sure that notability is independently established. Thatcher131 18:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly sourced to establish notability. What's there right now is not. Friday (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Created by a relative" and "COI" are not reasons to delete. However, the article does lack evidence of non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources, so I would favor deletion per WP:BIO. MastCell ^Talk 18:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I completely agree that COI is not a reason to delete. I mentioned the COI as background for why the article exists, though I should have been more clear. THF 19:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Thatcher131 Danny 18:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per notability. --Tom 19:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to me that all recipients' of a country "highest military decoration for valor" (in this case Virtuti Militari) are notable per se. WjBscribe 19:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are five classes of Virtuti Militari, and only the first class, by definition, is the "highest military decoration for valor." According to Virtuti Militari's comprehensive list, Dunin is not one of the first-class recipients. I don't think WP:BIO encompasses the thousands of fifth-class Virtuti Militari awards. THF 19:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe if you refer to the information on the Virtuti Militari after the 1933 changes (Antoni was awarded III class in 1938) the difference between classes was the number of men you commanded. Since Antoni did not command a front or entire war, he would not be eligible for I or II.Shell ^babelfish 17:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the article is worthy of keeping on the basis of the award - especially given the tiers are affected only by number of men commanded. I was worried about the possibility of too many stubs about medal recipients with no further content- but judging from the additional sourced material it seems we can include referenced material detailing some of his military actity. His marriage is also referenced. There seems to be enough that can be said to warrant an article, and the award establishes notability. WjBscribe 17:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I was asked to restore the deleted content and I have. However, note that everything except the name in a list of medal winners and the daughter's engagement is sourced to the author's personal family history web site. Now, I love family history and have my own family history web site, but I haven't written articles about them on Wikipedia. Thatcher131 19:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm neutral in terms of deletion. This bio is about a relative of User:Elonka, and there has been a great deal of controversy around her family's articles here. There's a thread at WP:ANI which alludes to some of the issues. I ask the closing admin to pay extra heed in dealing with this potential hot potato. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 19:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extra heed? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but the fact that this is an editor's relative and there's been controversy should probably be ignored for the purposes of closing this AFD. The article should be deleted or kept on its own merits, not based on who wrote it. Friday (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per THF, not a recipient of highest class honour so fails notability there, especially since no mention in article at all of military exploits unlike other articles of (first class) recipients. If he is notable for military activities, would surely require reliable sourced information on that, rather than general bio. The rest of article is original researched family information. Fails BIO, OR, and lack of evidence of reliable secondary sources. •CHILLDOUBT• 19:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Thatcher131 hits it on the head, here; there are virtually no independent sources made available regarding this person, and it would seem to be based mostly on original research. Thus, it seems he would fail WP:BIO. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Table the question. This AFD reiterates a prior, failed AFD, adds no new reason for deletion, was opened in questionable faith and is rapidly turning into, based on some of the personalities so far involved, more of a proxy referendum on our opinion of User:Elonka than it is a proper AFD discussion. I don't think we can come to any meaningful decision at this time, on this issue. Philwelch 20:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This problem already has a solution: opinions which are not relevant, such as any opinions about a particular editor, will be disregarded in the closure of this AFD. We don't put Wikipedia on hold just because there's a conflict. Friday (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the opinion is unstated? You're going to have a hard time enforcing that. Don't be naive—everyone on Wikipedia knows how to game the political process by now. Philwelch 21:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never dealt with Elonka in my life before today, and resent the questioning of my good faith. There is new information: the previous discussion incorrectly claimed repeatedly that there was notability because Dunin was the recipient of the highest Polish military honor, but Dunin does not have the highest Polish military honor. I think most of Elonka's other articles satisfy WP:BIO, and do not propose deletion of them. THF 21:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing of you or your dealings with Elonka—it is the timing that gives me pause. Philwelch 21:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Friday. I love Elonka as much as the next mouse, but this is about the article, not about her. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some of us who have been active at AfD over the past six months remember the Arbuthnot articles, which were created in large numbers based on a fairly-well-written family genealogy that was held in a number of American libraries, and probably in other countries too. The problem is that there were no other accessible documents from which a real article could be written. I believe that the Antoni Dunin article suffers from the same problems. In the case of the Arbuthnot articles, which included a number of military figures, we did keep those who were documented as commanding a substantial number of troops in combat. See WP:MILHIST#Notability. I'm influenced by the argument given above by THF that Virtuti Militari came in several categories, and Antoni Dunin did not receive the highest grade of Virtuti Militari. Irrespective of any arguments that might be based on WP:MILHIST, the lack of secondary sources is a serious problem. EdJohnston 21:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question/comment Just out of curiosity, had this article been created by a non-relative and the family tree references used been cited by an individual other than the person who created it, would this even be a RS/V/OR issue? I've seen entirely unsourced articles brought for deletion that were kept based upon the addition of references to personal/official websites for the individual/organization by independent individuals. These articles were primarily based upon these sources. LaMenta3 21:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article flunks WP:BIO even including the genelogical materials. THF 21:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also a family history buff. With the exception of a few very notable families, (e.g. the Kennedys) whose history is researched, documented and published by multiple biographers, almost all family history is original research as defined by Wikipedia. Simply put, not enough people care about the Thatcher family to have multiple (or even one) well-researched and fact-checked family tree published by a non-vanity press. I could write about my great-uncle, who was co-founder and president of a major bank, because there are multiple sources about his life, but I can't write about his brothers or his ancestry because, as interesting as they are to me, no one else has found them interesting enough to write about them. I could give you their names and ask you to write a non-COI article but you would not find anything on the web that didn't originally come from me. Personal family history web sites are simply not reliable sources. A good site might be a legitimate external link, if it had copies of letters, documents, and so forth that the historian had accumulated. The family tree cited here is nothing more than names and dates, and although I'm sure the author has documentation to support this family tree, it is not provided--and even if it were, it would be original research, unless independently published. Thatcher131 21:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice, and encourage someone^† to userfy. An interesting life story and nobility alone do not seem to meet the ever-subjective notability threshold. But, if notability can be established, then I'd have no objection to the article be resurrected or recreated. (^†Someone other than me, that is...) justen 21:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 23:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom- no evidence of any notability.--Sefringle^Talk 23:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as article creator) I will respect the community consensus on this, but I'd like to clear up a few misconceptions. I did not create this article because the individual is my grandfather, I created the article because I felt that he met Wikipedia's notability standards. I also created other articles about other family members, who I similarly felt were sufficiently notable. I had reviewed discussions such as at Wikipedia:Centralized discussions where the consensus on Nobility was that those of noble genealogy were inherently notable. I had seen AfDs such as this one that showed consensus for this as well.[14] I also saw that those who were recipients of a country's highest medal were considered notable. I was able to locate a third-party list confirming the award of the Virtuti Militari medal.[15] And I had plenty of primary sources which confirmed the information, and were summarized in my family tree. Granted, there's not much more than a stub article here, but I felt that there was enough for a "real" stub. I also added some other minor biographical information, which is sourced to my own family tree. As it turned out, the quantity of biographical information exceeded the amount of third-party sourced information. I apologize if it looks like I was trying to create a "fluff" piece about one of my relatives, as that was not my intention at the time. I felt then (and still do), that I was helping to "fill in a gap". There are plenty of places where Wikipedia someday will have articles, that it currently doesn't. The Mayors of Warsaw, the Finance Ministers of Pre-War Poland, etc. I couldn't add comprehensive lists, but I could be bold and add the bits and pieces of sources that I had access to at the time. Since I created the article, other sources have become available too, though they haven't been added to the article yet (and some are in Polish). Confirmation of his family home.[16] A document about his cavalry unit.[17] The New York Times obituary of Antoni's father-in-law, Edward Werner, confirms that Antoni was a Count (by listing the death of his wife).[18] Confirmation that he's considered one of the notable members of his coat of arms.[19] The Polish Biographical Dictionary confirms the title of Antoni's father, Rodryg Dunin.[20] And I have a 1947 letter from Senator Homer Ferguson to Secretary of State George Marshall, which mentions Anton Dunin by name, along with his children and some other relatives, as Ferguson worked with Congressional candidate Alfred Niezychowski (another of my relatives named in the letter) to get Antoni's orphaned children into the United States. It is also my understanding that Ferguson actually added a rider to a Congressional bill, to specifically name the children and help them get into the country (though I have not been able to locate the exact bill, so of course it cannot yet be used as a source). Whether or not anyone chooses to believe me, I can't control. But I am speaking sincerely here: It is my belief that Antoni Dunin passes WP:BIO. If you delete this stub article today, my guess is that sometime in the future, it will just be re-created. I think that deleting it would be a waste, and that ultimately, it would leave Wikipedia weaker than if the stub article were kept for later expansion. If others feel that the article is somehow detrimental to Wikipedia though, and that Wikipedia would be better off without it, well, that's your decision to make. --El on ka 05:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the sincerity of Elonka's position, and do not question her good faith in creating the article. But I believe that even if this additional information were included, there would be a lack of notability meriting its own article. There are many Congressional bills (and senatorial interventions) for the benefit of individual immigrants; there are many many nobles, especially if we expand the concept of notability to include relatively minor nations on the world stage; there are many relatives of people who had New York Times obituaries or entries in biographical dictionaries. So long as we have a WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#NEWS guidelines, these are not enough for notability for individual articles. I further note that many dead-tree and Wikipedia biographies include information about a subject's parents and children, and nothing prevents Elonka or others from updating the articles for Dunin's father and children with information about Dunin. I do note a certain unfairness, as we tolerate far less notability than Dunin has when it comes to articles about local bar bands, but that is an issue outside the scope of this AFD. THF 07:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question, before casting my vote can someone clarify to me if Nobility immediately signifies notability according to WP guidelines, as alluded to by user Elonka? Honestly, I'm not sure. There are literally thousands and thousands of titled people throughout history, many, many (if not most) of which I would argue fail WP:BIO. If Nobility does not = Notability, and with the apparent lack of RS, then this article seems to fail. If Nobility = Notability then its a pass on that merit alone, provided of course that his entitlement can be established through RS, which shouldn't be too difficult I would think. --Trippz 12:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability comes from sources, not from our own original made-up criteria. Anyone who asserts "being an X makes a thing automatically notable" is either misguided, or is oversimplifying the situation. Saying "A Nobel prize winner is automatically notable" is correct if what you really mean is "someone who has won a Nobel prize would surely have lots of coverage in proper sources". Friday (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friday, with respect I disagree with that. Sometime we set arbitrary inclusion standards. Receiving a Pulitzer prize or an Olympic medal is inherently notable, regardless of whether or not they've been covered in the press. This is especially the case when dealing with things that happened in the past, for which judging the amount of popular attention is more difficult. As a more current example, take a look at WP:BAND. Criteria #8 says "Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award" and #9 says "Has won or placed in a major music competition". No external coverage is required in addition to that. Are we really saying that we will include all bands that have won a major music award, but not all soldiers who have won a major bravery award? That result seems incongruous to me. WjBscribe 18:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see those kinds of criteria as rules of thumb about what sorts of things will tend to be notable, rather than a definition of what makes them notable. Perhaps it's a small distinction. If by "notable" we just mean "suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia", then the subjects must have sufficient coverage to allow a properly sourced article. I disagree with most of the subject-specific notability rules for this reason. If you really break it down, the only way we know someone has won a grammy, for example, is that there are lots of sources that cover that sort of thing. Friday (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I'd commented to this article, this leads to the same question we had the MILHIST criterion (though since cleared up in this case): what if an individual satisfies a notability guideline, but there are no independent sources with which to write the article? Do we create a stub that will never be expanded? Do we expand what would otherwise be a stub with original research, as was done here? I think the answer is - must be - that satisfying a notability guideline doesn't mean that we must have an article, only that we can have one if and only if we have reliable independent sources with which to write it. Put another way, guidelines don't trump policy.Proabivouac 18:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thatcher has said that " the szlachta comprised between 8 and 12% of the ethnic Polish population, so it is not a rare distinction" Actually according to the Wilipedia article he linked "Poland's nobility were also more numerous than those of all other European countries, forming some 10%-12% of the total population and almost 25% among ethnic Poles[21]," - Clearly if 1 in 4 ethnic poles were szlachta, in the case of Poland, noble does not automatically equal notable. •CHILLDOUBT• 12:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that simply being szlachta alone is not sufficient for notability. The term szlachta is one of those words that doesn't have a direct easy translation to English, though I recommend reading the Wikipedia article on the subject. Some might define it as "gentry", others as "noble class," but neither of those really hits it either. In any case, I would point out that even among the szlachta there were distinctions. Some were considered of the noble class, while still effectively living as poor peasants. Others were landowners and wielded considerable power. And a few (very few) others actually had hereditary titles. It is my opinion that those with the titles, meet the "notability" standard. I can say from my own personal research on family trees, that I would often see genealogists in past generations bending over backwards to expand the boundaries of their own trees, to prove a link to someone with a title, even if it was a "third-cousin by marriage" or something. For another example, on family crests, there are usually various symbols, and sometimes those symbols reflected great power, such as actually having a crown. Antoni Dunin's crest had this.[22] I have primary sources on multiple family heirlooms which verify this crest. For example, this painting which was hanging in Antoni Dunin's home (pre-1939) [23] and other documents and a few dishes. Proof of the importance of the title is also reflected by other family relationships, which proved that Antoni Dunin wasn't an isolated szlachta, but was a member of an influential and intellectual family. His marriage (1933 wedding pic) was an example of one family with a title (Dunin) marrying another family which had even more financial power (Werner). Antoni's wife Sophia was the daughter of the vice-Finance Minister Edward Werner; niece of Jan Czarnowski, Papal Chamberlain to Pope Pius XI; great-niece of an extremely influential priest who has since been canonized, Saint Raphael Kalinowski, who himself had been tutor to Prince August Czartoryski. This was a major family in Poland. I could list other relatives, but this list is getting long enough. ;) For one last example though, Rodryg Dunin is listed as "hrabiego" here.[24] That "Hrabia" title is not used for all szlachta -- it's a specific noble and hereditary title, which is why I feel that it is relevant for notability. --El on ka 17:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is much better to be able to establish importance independently. For example, by being listed in the Polish Biographical Dictionary. The problem with Antoni is that without a significant independent measure of importance, we are left to decide whether the various aspects of his life add up to importance, and that will always be subjective. Does his title, status as a decorated war casualty, and marriage to the daughter of an important person add up to a "notable" life (as the term is used here). Or, to put it another way, how likely is it that users around the world will someday want to know more about this person? Thatcher131 18:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it comes down to an odd distinction we are hashing out here. A modern musical group can have an article if they win a major music award (criteria #8 of WP:BAND). Who will want to someday know more about all of them? I don't know. But we seem to not be proposing to include all soldiers who received major bravery awards. That bothers me as it seems to indicate an inherent bias in Wikipedia - are we really that much more focused on modern music than historical bravery in combat? Seems to me we're in the process of giving our critics a lot of ammunition... WjBscribe 18:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you find an example of a band that has won a major award but for which no other independent sources exist, then we can talk. Until then, its a straw man argument. Thatcher131 18:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on hundreds of Olympic medalists (surely a major award) with no other independent sources existing or likely to show up. Perikles Pierrakos-Mavromichalis, Telemachos Karakalos, Louis Glineux, ... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about that AnonEMouse - to take as an example the first example you gave, without looking at the others, 128 google hits for Perikles Pierrakos-Mavromichalis from a wide variety of sources, and that article is a stub. Maybe I am misunderstanding regarding what is termed as independent source? Striking through, as I understand what AnonEMouse is saying now about sources •CHILLDOUBT• 19:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject passes WP:BIO as a recipient of the highest military decoration for valor, in this case Virtuti Militari. Burntsauce 18:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep per my last vote (if reasons for having received VM are given). Otherwise, merge into Dunin family article. Certainly don't delete.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per reference No 1. New York Times has archived its articles on internet since 1981. There is no way to go back to 1945 to verify it, but all other references check out. Even the author of AfD acknowledged he posted it for all the wrong reasons - inadmissible evidence. A very noble count from a very notable family, and veteran of the first days of WWII (Polish September 1939), died young in combat, highly distinguished by an equivalent of an OBE/KBE (verifiable), survived by only few kids, one of whom became a senior wikipedian. What's wrong with that? greg park avenue 20:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if the New York Times article is your reason to keep, you may wish to reconsider: it's an obituary for his wife's father and doesn't mention Antoni Dunin at all (I have the pdf right here).Proabivouac 20:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So do I. I hate to belabor this since I normally avoid AfD and I do not like to have to criticize someone's heartfelt and sincere hard work. But, the NY Times reference is an obituary for Edward Werner. It says "Surviving are a daughter, Mrs. Maria Ciechomska of Warsaw, and a son, Lieut. Karol Werner of the Polish Army in England. Another daughter, Countess Zophia Dunin, was killed by German machine gun bullets early in the recent war." That's not bad as a genealogical source but it doesn't do anything to establish the importance of Zophia's husband (who isn't even named) as a subject for an encyclopedia entry. Thatcher131 20:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, let's Elonka explain that little misunderstanding regarding Virtuti Militari. However I think you got that one wrong. The title of the article: "Edward Werner, Ex-vice Minister of Finance of Poland had Lectured Here" doesn't seem like an obituary to me; more like a review made by NYU or Columbia officials? Maybe there was another one in this particular issue of New York Times? greg park avenue 20:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Image:Werner 1945-11-17.pdf. Thatcher131 21:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You were right. There was only an info about his wife - Zofia Dunin - killed by German bullets in 1939. So, I shifted this reference to its proper place. The other reference I checked also, is non-negotiable, so, there was one Antoni Dunin distinguished by a Virtuti Militari cross after the war. Elonka just misplaced the references. No big deal. Doesn't look like hoax to me. Still vote to keep it strong, even with NYT as secondary source this time. greg park avenue 22:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. There appear to be no independent sources which discuss Antoni Dunin, making it impossible to write an article without violating our source policies.Proabivouac 20:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

Keep per military award. Not a WP:AUTO as the man is long since dead. Writing about a family member is not forbidden, as long as said content is presented in a factually backed, npov manner. Eli Thomas Reich was a close personal family friend and father to my godmother, no one has ever questioned me, berated me, nor AFD'd the article in the manner in which Elonka is being treated here. You people disgust me. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charming. Now I remember why I avoid AfD. Maybe the reason no one has bothered you about Eli Thomas Reich is that multiple independent sources are readily available. (In 5 minutes I found at least 5 NY Times articles.) I do family history research and I know why it is rarely suitable for Wikipedia, and it has nothing to do with the particular author of this article. Thatcher131 21:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm, please. This is a good faith nomination. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Shame the lessons about vanity and family articles just don't seem to sink in. See continued comments from Elonka above in defense of this entry. Non-notable - delete. Brunon ia 20:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She's as entitled to make a case for notability as anyone. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It's very hard to assume good faith when you've all but typed out "Elonka is stupid for writing about her family." Should she just sit back and take what people give to her? That's rather morbid. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 12:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of independent secondary sources. Epbr123 21:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Independent secondary source is here, No 1 in references. No 6 is another. Besides, we are talking about WWII hero who died in September 1939 when only Poland fought Nazi while all the world sit back. What else you need? A review in the Rolling Stone magazine? greg park avenue 22:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 is too trivial. Ref 6 is about his father-in-law. Epbr123 22:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 has this to say about Antoni Dunin: "Dunin, Antoni." I suppose we could write, "Antoni Dunin was a recipient of the Polish Virtuti Militari award," but that's not enough to justify an article.Proabivouac 22:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, go to the StandWithUs article and find me at least one independent secondary source in it. Then we may talk about justice. greg park avenue 23:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then nominate it for deletion, and send me the heads up so I can weigh in. Of course it's possible that somebody will say, Antoni Dunin was kept, so StandWithUs must be kept, too. You have to start somewhere, and, that somewhere is inevitably the item which has been nominated.Proabivouac 23:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Epbr123 23:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Proabivouac, it's not my department to post AfDs, never made one. greg park avenue 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Antoni+Dunin%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wp

Google books] has links to some things, but they're all in a foreign language. Anyone here read Polish? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will try. Thanks! greg park avenue 23:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You were right. There is another independent source in form of a book by a very well known Polish writer Jerzy Korczak: Cóżeś ty za pani: o walkach armii "Poznań" 12-19 września 1939 r. - Page 240

by Jerzy Korczak - 1983 - 328 pages. And here is an exerpt from this book, unmistakenly our Antoni Dunin: W straży przedniej kolumny południowej szedł trzeci szwadron piętnastego pułku, którym dowodził porucznik Antoni Dunin. It means: In the first southern column of the 15th brigade went the 3rd squadron, which was led by Lt. Antoni Dunin.

[25] greg park avenue 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is sad as a lot of work goes into these pages and I have seen a lot of these family pages but I'm afraid they are of no interest or value to anyone not related to the subject. Dunin was probably a very nice and brave man and it is a sad story but even this coupled with being married to the niece of a saint does not make one notable. These sort of pages need to be bound up on real paper and given to his descendents who will value them but this is not what Wikipedia is for. The encyclopedia has to be known for being credible and providing valuable information on valuable subjects, there are many family tree and genealogy sites who would welcome these pages - why not take it there. Giano 10:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then shucks, I guess we need to start deleting every single Medal of Honor winner, Gold Star winner, Silver Star winner, Navy Cross winner, Victoria Cross winner, etc.... because 90% of them have as much claim to fame as this guy. This has nothing to do with decendancy, this has everything to do with attacking the article because of who wrote it, something I think you would be quite familiar with. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This isn't about fame. It's about notability. Epbr123 17:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the one verifiable tidbit about this guy is his getting this medal, isn't the obvious solution to merge him and all the others into some List of recipients of Virtuti Militari article? There's no way to have an actual bio article on this guy with such little verifiable info on it. For those of you obsessing over editors rather than content, knock it off. Don't assume other people can't see past the personalities, just because you can't. Friday (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, probably into Dunin (surname) or Rodryg Dunin. There is some verifiable information here specifically about this particular man. Not only the medal list but also the reference in Korczak's book on which unit he commanded. The Google Books search suggests that some patient work at a Polish library might yield more, though of course we can't keep it on that basis. A personal family history website is not an ideal source but I'm not sure it should be categorically ruled out either. For the sake of full disclosure I'll note that Elonka mentioned this AfD in a private discussion with me. I don't think that's canvassing since she had asked me for advice on this article before it was nominated and it was natural to follow up on that now. Besides, I don't even agree with her. Haukur 17:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added another secondary source to the article (J. Korczak). Three independent ones should be enough for this article about KIA 1939 Polish count to survive. greg park avenue 19:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of verifiable sources as to notability. MarkinBoston 20:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I believe that all VM recipients are notable as such, just like recipients of the Légion d'honneur or the Medal of Honor. Sure, some info on what did he get it for would be nice, but even without it the article is fine. Secondly, the problem of family web pages is much more simple to me. If the alternative is either to have a two-sentence stub linked only to external sources or a broader, better article with facts published on his family's website, I'd rather we went for the latter. //Halibu tt 21:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject is notable (royalty, recipient of medal of honor). --AndyFinkenstadt 21:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"As for AndyFinkenstadt, I see him on a daily basis (he works down the hall). I think I told him that I was going to be going up for RfA soon, when we went out for sushi last week."[26] Proabivouac 21:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're failing to assume good faith with your comment there. Back down a little and let him form his own opinion. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being royalty or the recipient of the medal of honor doesn't make someone notable. Being written about makes someone notable. Epbr123 21:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have already voted but this is a comment on the quality of the article, should it be decided to keep it, or the articles about any other Dunin family members. The article should be impartial, but right now it seems that the wording of the text is giving greater prominence to the individual than he actually merits. For instance, he was awarded the "prestigious" Virtuti Militari, he was a "nobleman," though as Thatcher pointed out, the term szlachta can be applied to 10-12 percent of the Polish population,i.e., 2.5-3 million people in 1939 (discounting ethnic minorities). Further examples include, "His brother was immortalized in the 1922 painting ..." as well as "great-niece of the man who would become ..." While he was killed in combat, we have no idea why he was awarded the Virtuti Militari--compare to articles about people who won the Medal of Honor or the Victoria Cross, where there is considerable detail about their heroism. IN fact, 66,000 Polish soldiers died in the invasion--what makes Dunin distinct? BTW, I could make the same case for the article about Rodryg Dunin, who is called "one of the most remarkable pioneers of progress in farming techniques and industry in Greater Poland." Finally, I have voted above to delete this article, but even if it does stay, it (and the related articles) should do away with the hyperbole and present a simple account of the man's life--not his father, his brother, his father-in-law, or his wife's great-uncle. The way it is written now is deceptive. He was not royalty, and he was not a recipient of the "medal of honor." Danny 21:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems notable enough... I wonder if this article would survive in the polish wiki? I think here there are far too many people expressing opinions on subjects they know far to little about. I also think that its wrong to claim OR here as obviously Elonka had to have sources to create the tree to begin with... EnsRedShirt 04:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, w/ condition - I do not agree that being of noble class makes him notable, however, the Virtuti Militari decoration does seem to help meet the WP:BIO suggested requirements. I am a bit confused about the ranking of the Virtuti Militari, because in the VM article it indicates the Order of the White Eagle is the highest award. I suspect it is the inclusion of civilians that separate the two distinctions and perhaps a clarification should be added to the two articles. My understanding is that the class of the VM is dependent upon rank, so the class he was awarded should not influence the decision of voters. Apparently the VM has been awarded a great number of times, over 8,400 from 1920-1939 alone (and over 1,600 previously from 1806-1815). This totals over 10,000 VM since its creation. This is compared to 3,444 MoH awards since creation in 1862 and 1,356 Victoria Cross awards since creation in 1856. It is true that there is a striking disproportion between the number of times that each respective government has awarded their "highest military award", but I think a historical prospective should also be taken into account. Poland was facing extinction (and temporarily was extinct) at the hands of an overwhelming force. To this end my condition would be to include in the article a RSed account of the reason for which Dunin was awarded the Virtuti Militari. My concern is that without knowing the full details, Dunin may have been awarded the VM out of a show of respect for sacrifice and not because he went above and beyond. Looking at the sheer number of VM awards during this period actually seems to decrease the notability of the award itself. However, it still remains the highest military award one can receive in Poland, so that distinction should be respected as well. Intuitively one would think that anyone who received the highest military award would have done something notable in order to receive it. While sacrificing his life for defense of his country is unquestionably an honorable act, there were in fact thousands more who sacrificed their lives as well and were not awarded the VM. So to that end, what did he do to receive the distinction? The article stands incomplete until this additional information is supplied with RS. If this information is unavailable (destroyed, etc.) I would regrettably feel the article should be removed until the information can be supplied. We should remember that it is not the AWARD which makes a person notable, but it is the DEED for which they were awarded that truly makes them notable. An awarded decoration is just a symbol, a shiny little badge, and many awardees often remark how little it means to them. It is the deed that makes them notable, not the button on their jacket. --Trippz 05:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are five independent secondary sources now, two supplied by Elonka, one by me and two by Halibutt. The reference No 8 supplied by Halibutt answers your question in full. See here. It's an article written by Juliusz Tym in a military journal. It's reconstruction of the fight at the river Bzura - one of the most bloody charges of this campaign (September '39), and even we Polish call it stupid, when Polish cavalry with sabres and light firearms stormed the German tanks, actually a suicide run. It'a a very rare example of heroism and Antoni Dunin was in the first line. It shows that this VM (granted posthumously of course) was well deserved. Thanks! greg park avenue 14:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Elonka's long posts and Trippz's points. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree with Trippz that the article should be deleted unless more sources are found? Epbr123 06:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- More that "the Virtuti Militari decoration does seem to help meet the WP:BIO suggested requirements." —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's hard to comprehend as an individual, but a ridiculous amount of people have a relative, or even several, that have accomplished things. A sense of family pride is inevitable no matter how objective you try to be. If the subject were notable by Wikipedia's standards, a completely unrelated person (and not someone that the original editor knows, either, as much as I hate to have to point that out) would have created the article. As Danny mentioned above, even the writing style and wording used seemed to be trying to "make the case" for notability even before it was questioned, which speaks volumes, in my opinion. Third party sources are needed; not a family tree, or sources that only verify the facts, but something that shows why these facts are important. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 06:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability isn't subjective. If this person has won the highest military award, then they are notable, per WP:BIO. "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards:... The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." If the tone of the article is incorrect, anyone can fix it. We don't delete articles because of tone. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that notability is objective, but I seriously question whether an award given three times as often as the Medal of Honor to members of a military a tiny fraction of the size of that of the United States' is a "significant recognized award or honor." If they gave out 100,000 Medals of Honor, we'd stop thinking of it as significant, but that's the effective ratio of the Virtuti to the Polish population. There clearly has to be a line somewhere: If Malawi announced that they were giving every soldier in its military its nation's highest military honor, would they all qualify under WP:BIO? THF 16:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why I didn't take a position, because it's not clear whether he received the highest award. Apparently the Virtuti Militari has several flavors, some rare, and some not so much. We don't write articles about every Purple Heart and Bronze Star winner, though they may certainly be brave and worthy of being remembered. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm voting weak keep. My opinion is that this article just "barely" meets Notability guidelines. Nobility and recipients of notable awards would probably meet notability guidelines in my opinion. So the real question here revolves around the use of sources from Elonka Dunin, descendant of the topic of the article. I discussed that further in length on the articles talk page. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as well. I agree with Wikidudeman's opinion. While I feel Elonka and her parents are clearly 100% notable, this falls into more dubious circumstances. However, due to awards he has received, I believe he at least qualifies as notable, if anything else. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep there isn't much verifiable material to justify much more than a permanent stub. I thought Friday's suggested merge to List of recipients of Virtuti Militari made some sense. Pascal.Tesson 05:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article is well-sourced and subject is sufficiently notable as award recipient. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 07:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history#Notability (recipients of a country's highest award for gallantry are automatically considered notable).--Major Bonkers (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep seems to meet notability criteria. Biofoundationsoflanguage 08:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. The sourcing of this article has expanded considerably during this AfD. This should be borne in mind when determining the outcome of the discussion- early commentators were looking at a much weaker article. WjBscribe 17:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by multiple non-trivial reliable sources. If all you have is a handful of listings on-line which mention just the subject's name or other minor details in a single sentence, that doesnt qualify for notability. You have to have significant (non-trivial) coverage by multiple reliable sources in order to justify an article on Wikipedia. In the case of Antoni Dunin, there's not a single non-trivial reliable source. Wikipedia:Notability (people) says: "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.". Since the coverage is trivial, the content could be merged into List of recipients of Virtuti Militari as some have suggested. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by the Virtuti Militari award, I don't think multiple non-trivial sources are also required here. The sources seem to be enough to write a stub about him - there are some details of his military career (see source #8 - Juliusz Tym (2005). Kawaleria w bitwie nad Bzurą (Cavalry in the Battle of Bzura). Polonia Militaris. Retrieved on August 24, 2007) and the details of his marriage (sourced to the NewYork Times) for starters. Plus a fictional character based on him in a book by a notable Italian author. WjBscribe 17:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Jehochman mentioned above, its not clear if the award he won was of the highest rank. If it had been a significant award, reliable sources would have covered him in more detail than just putting him in a list of 10,000 other names. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its been established that the level of award relates only to the number of men commanded so I'm not sure thats relevant. As to coverage - well of course most of it will be in Polish and on paper, which makes it difficult to dig up at short notice. Though given the surprising amount that has been turned up during this AfD I am sure more is out there. In the unlikely event that this article was deleted, I am sure it would end up being recreated in the future once more material has been located. There is a difference between material not having been found and it not existing - you seem very certain that it does not exist (I guess that helps your case) but the amount of mentions being found seems to indicate the contrary. WjBscribe 18:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) There wasnt any "short notice". The article had been tagged asking people for more references since about a month now. 2) As I said, all the amount of mentions found have been trivial. Also, although I couldnt verify it, but an administrator on the Polish Wikipedia said that this award was given to 17,400 people in the 20th century and to a total of 25,000 people throughout history. Adding in his opinion, he also said that he believed that getting this award doesnt make someone automatically notable. He also said that very few people (less than 600) were given higher than the 5th ranking award, so there's a less than 2.4% chance that Antoni Dunin was given the highest ranking award. The article can always be recreated if there's is enough non-trivial coverage by reliable sources, but being one name in a list of 25,000 doesnt suggest imply notability in my opinion at this point and the article has existed long enough to give people the time to find non-trivial reliable sources. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link Matt! If only 600 people got higher than the 5th level award (and Shell Kinney has been able to confirm Dunin got a third level one [27]) that makes his award a lot more distinctive an accolade than I thought.... WjBscribe 18:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a 3rd level award, thats not the highest award so, it doesnt qualify for notability. If he had won the highest (level 1) award, then he would qualify for notability. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the discriminating criteria between the levels is number of men commanded (rather than different levels of heroism, valour etc.), there isn't much argument for restricting it to the first level ones only. The argument against including all of them was shear numbers, but you have reassured me that there are sufficiently few above level 5 that this isn't really a problem in this case. Whichever level he did get, it would have been the highest level available to his rank. WjBscribe 19:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldnt verify Shelly's claim of "number of men commanded", nor his claim that Antoni won the 3rd level award. All we know is that there's no reliable source that confirms the type of award that Antoni received, and whether he even commanded a group of men or was just a soldier. He could be commanding 3 men for all we know and then that wouldnt fall in line with the spirit of "nation's highest military award" (which is why they have 5 classes). Bottomline: we dont know what type of award he got. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not get carried away here Matt, ref #8 makes it pretty clear he wasn't just commanding 3 men... WjBscribe 20:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldnt find out anything about the number of men he commanded from the 8th ref. Regardless of the number of men commanded (even if he did), we agree that he did not receive the highest award. Note that award could also be: "Alternatively for staff officers for their cooperation with their commanders, that led to the final victory in a battle or war", so he could just have been awarded for being a single soldier and cooperating with his commanders. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I must agree with the rationale given by Thatcher among others. The article is quite misleading in that it seems to claim he won the highest military decoration awarded by a country, when in fact reading the above debate, it seems he won only a subordinate award (i.e. not the "highest decoration"). ugen64 18:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or Merge per Haukur, but that is a normal editing action, not a deletion). It would be nice to have a source for the class of tne Virtuti Militari, and the reason for it; but I see no reason to doubt the claim here that it is Class III, which would be unquestionably notable. (And such sources may exist; if the Polish Government has the documentation of the Order, they may well have published it.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PMAnderson and others; I see multiple reliable sources, especially since the expansion. A merge might be more approriate; I think merges should be used more often in non-fiction topics, because they strengthen ideas into an greater whole that has a better chance of showing solid notability. In addition: lots of people have worked hard on it, WP:N is a guideline (not policy), it is useful/interesting, other similar articles exist, notability is inherited, it does not do any harm, Wikipedia should be about everything, fame, the google test, repeated nominations, etc. — Deckill er 02:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MastCell ^Talk 22:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic pressure pipe systems[edit]

This article is unencyclopedic content with uncorrectable vandalism, and possible advertisement. I am requesting a delete and salt. This article was started by a sockfarm master who was trying to use WP as a pro and con how-to and professional reference on installing piping systems, through copyvio from incorrectly attributed sources in an admittedly niche area, and was playing good hand bad hand on said articles. Types of sources used indicated that the user was likely a professional pipe installer who wanted to eventually direct people to his business. Once the copyvio was cleared out, there is nothing of value in the article (most materials have their own article), and for over two weeks, no one has expressed any interest in editing the article. Due to the puppetry and the forks that have been created in the meantime (Plastic piping systems with identical content), I would also like the article to be salted. MSJapan 17:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any WP:ANI threads to point to? Is the editor now banned? If so WP:CSD#G5 should be sufficient. --Dhartung | Talk 17:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a series of checkusers. The socks were indef blocked, but this was created before the block if I remember correctly, so G5 wouldn't be applicable.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, delete as content fork. Probably little value in a redirect to plastic piping systems. --Dhartung | Talk 18:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a redirect would be pointless as I deleted plastic piping systems; it was more of the SPA's spamming.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No amount of vandalism is uncorrectable. The article needs to be sourced, yes, otherwise, it looks to be factual and useful. I don't see anything in there that's unencyclopedic - that word is just too vague to be a reason for deletion. Put citation tags in it, and keep. The Transhumanist 18:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless this gets sourced before the close of this AFD. I agree with Transhumanist that this looks factual and useful, but it isn't verifiable at this point. Furthermore, this text is largely a carryover from article versions that were, as far as I can tell, written by a now blocked SPA sockpuppeteer who apparently fabricated sources; even WP:AGF I have a hard time taking anything in this article strictly on face value.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Transhumanist. Vandalism can be corrected and the topic seems encyclopedic, but needs references. Dbromage [Talk] 00:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is encyclopedic (see platform framing and balloon framing for construction articles). I admit, there is overlap with articles like water pipe and plumbing, but this article does focus on a specific type of piping system. It currently doesn't read like an ad, and I think references are the only real problem, but that can be fixed. 171.71.37.207 19:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable (plastics are increasingly being used instead of metals in many applications) and the entry is of use to anyone seeking information on it. A bad article is better than no article! Sidefall 14:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is not a good article yet, but that applies to many articles. We need to be wary of duplication, but this article has a good potential, as long as it is not allowed to become qan advertising vehicle for one particular commercial interest. Peterkingiron 17:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable, and AfD is not clean-up. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 17:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Notable topic, either from chemical or plumbing view, just poorly written Mbisanz 21:59, 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. --Core desat 03:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reality film[edit]

Delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary (see WP:NOT). This inadequately sourced stub also comes across as original research. Where does the idea originate? Wryspy 17:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Verify, or delete - most stubs are little more than definitions. That's why we call them stubs. But this one looks like it may be a non-notable neologism. So it should be verified as notable, or be sent to the wiki-graveyard. See WP:A. The Transhumanist 17:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep - Shankbone has found references that verify it. The situation as it stands is this: the term exists, the term is notable, the genre the term refers to exists, the genre is notable. This is a no-brainer. Keep. The Transhumanist 21:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - a burgeoning genre, with enough Google hits (over 30,000) that the subject can be fleshed out. It's a stub, not a dictionary entry, and worth expanding. By the way, can we make use of edit summaries, especially when we are doing an AfD? --David Shankbone 17:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did you have in mind? The Transhumanist

Keep: Has sources as far as I can tell, but from what I can tell not having sources isn't enough of reason to delete, as many around here say to tag as refs needed, which always does lots of good, right? How many articles have that tag now? Yeah, that's effective. IvoShandor 17:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is no non-trivial reliable coverage in a secondary source, which in wikipedia parlance means no notability. Cool Hand Luke 18:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many of the google hits do not use the term in this sense. The first page of results is mostly junk with only one or possibly two uses of the term in this sense. More of the hits use the term as a simple synonym for "documentary". Besides, a collection of citations to mere use of a term cannot justify an article (think of the "Allegations of apartheid..." series). No non-trivial reliable sources seem to exist here. I think that the Category:Reality films that has been added to several articles should also be deleted. Few references support this categorization, which appears to be a neologism in any case. Cool Hand Luke 18:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The apartheid series isn't really a good comparison because most of that nonsense represented unpublished synthesis, OR, not even trivial coverage, just use of the word "apartheid" once or twice in some of them. Of course, google hits aren't necessarily an indication of anything at all. IvoShandor 18:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that this isn't unpublished synthesis, this may be trivial coverage, but the phrase reality films does exist in the context the article puts it in, not like the apartheid articles, which used sources that said apartheid on Page 100 and never said anything about allegations against some of the nations. Those articles were/are a WP:POINT violation anyway.IvoShandor 18:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to get into it, but I didn't pick this analogy at random. There is an arguably POINTy backstory to this article as well. It exists in part because of a dispute about whether films like Jackass are documentaries. As you can tell, the partisans have found more sources indicating that it's a documentary than sources labelling it with this neologism. That's why the article asserts—without citation (OR)—that Jackass is a reality film in spite of no sources to that effect. Davids comment below is enlightening. User thinks it would be inappropriate to label Jackass flatly as a documentary, and I agree. But that does not make this categorization (as a new "entity") any less OR. Cool Hand Luke 19:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was definitely not created to make a POINT. Assume a little good faith please. And here's Joel Stein in Time Magazine: "Like reality TV, a reality film is supercheap, and as Jackass proved, there's an audience willing to pay $9 for what it gets free on television." Again, there's enough out there that the article deserves stub status to be fleshed out. It's not just a "POINT" article, and I don't create POINT articles, thank you very much. --David Shankbone 19:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not POINT, but being born of a far-removed Michael Moore dispute does not inspire confidence. Incidentally, this neologism—when it is mentioned—is rarely mentioned apart from reality TV (has no independent notability). As suggested on the talk page, I also think it would be acceptable to redirect to reality TV. Cool Hand Luke 20:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't really a neologism when I'm finding articles going back 4 and a half years using it to describe Jackass The Movie. It is often used in conjunction with reality television because it springs from it, but that doesn't mean it belongs on that article. It's a stub, an appropriate one. It's a term used often, and although WP:CRYSTAL is at play, I dare say will be a burgeoning new genre for the reasons Joel Klein pointed out back in April 2003. --David Shankbone 20:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Age doesn't matter when there is no non-trivial coverage of the term. There are presumably invented words from 500 years ago that do not deserve articles. Cool Hand Luke 19:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article and category came from a disagreement, but one that I think fleshes out the issue well: What are films such as Jackass The Movie and The Real World Cancun? Are they documentaries, in the same category as Capturing the Friedmans, March of the Penguins and Ken Burns's work, or are they something different? If they are documentaries, are they a sub-genre of documentary or their own entity (e.g., a Reality film)? It's worthwhile to research and flesh out, which is the reason for my strong keep. I think it strikes most people odd that Jackass Number Two is being called a documentary, whether it technically fits that definition or not. Unfortunately, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences's definition is unhelpful. --David Shankbone 18:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to comment - It's the movie industry counterpart to the reality genre on TV. Jackass, for example is a reality TV show. It only makes sense that Jackass on the big screen is still of the reality genre. The medium has changed, not the content. The Transhumanist 22:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm curious how the Academy will treat these movies. I doubt that any of them will make it to be finalists for awards, but if so, would they be under the documentary category? Would it fall under an unfiltered performance, which would disqualify it? How should this question be treated in a non-OR way on the Reality film article (if at all)? --David Shankbone 22:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If there's no extant analysis, we can't introduce it here. Cool Hand Luke 22:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject seems reasonable enough for an article, and decently cited. I really don't see how this is a synthesis of information. Calgary 20:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO - lack of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term". The refs only show instances of the term being used Corpx 04:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and WP:NEO. Shoester 06:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Reality television. "Reality film" is a neologism which could have many different interpretations and I don't think the sources are non-trivial coverage of the genre/supposed genre. As far as I can tell, it's a slang term for films that came from reality TV shows and/or a gimmick created by New Line Cinema to promote The Real Cancun. I've left a comment on the talk page which I think is much too long to include here. --Pixelface 12:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per neologism comments. A lot of people seem to want to separate this out from what they consider a documentary film, without actually taking the time out to clarify their thoughts on the difference. It's worth noting that a whole genre of documentaries, the cinema verite movement, was similarly spurned for a time as "not documentary" because of their fly-on-the-wall approach which set them apart from the predominant classic documentary style (with lots of voiceover), which itself emerged from newsreels. Documentary, non-fiction, reality - different people have ideas about the exclusiveness of these terms and what they do and don't apply to. Documentary tends to be the predominant English usage; this certainly does not preclude further division into genre and period, given some critical secondary sources to refer to. Girolamo Savonarola 17:24, 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 trainwreck. Please relist seperately. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catalyst (magazine)[edit]

There has been an argument over the notability of student newspapers. So as such I'm submitting these Australian student newspapers for a more general opinion. I am personally neutral CitiCat^♫ 17:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC) I am including the following additional articles:[reply]

Delete all view except Keep view on Rabelais Student Media that was involved in a notable controversy. I don't think that this mass AFD will settle any issue since such mass nominations too often result in a train smash. In my view articles should be considered individually. Having said that I have gone through each of the articles. Student newspapers have no inherent notability. As with any other publication they need to meet WP:N. This means that there should be multiple secondary sources attesting to notability. Such sources should not be passing mentions of the publication but sources that review the publication in a meaningful way. None of these have such sources. Being accessible through a state or national library is not particularly significant; many such major libraries have a policy of keeping all publications in their area. Reprinting controversies, as some have done with the Rabelais does not provide reflective notability. Bridgeplayer 18:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Hamfisted attempt at self-justification from an admin stung by criticism. alexis+kate=? 23:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and relist selectively., I find it impossible to believe that all Australian student newspapers are equally notable or equally non-notable. This is no way to consider them properly. DGG (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 23:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep all and relist selectively per DGG :: maelgwn - talk 23:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per DGG and maelgwn. Examine each one on a case by case basis. Dbromage [Talk] 00:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete all except Rabelais Student Media. Per Bridgeplayer, with exception to Rabelais, all the above publications lack notability, secondary sources, and don't really contain enough content worthy of remaining. Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close and relist individually on the basis that it is conceivable, if unlikely, for individual notability here in this case. FrozenPurpleCube 05:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close and relist individually per FrozenPurpleCube. A search of Google News for "honi soit" reveals an article in The Australian dated June 2, 2006 about the effect of Voluntary Student Unionism on student newspapers, which contains at least a mention of HS (it's a pay-to-view article so I'd have to track it down by other means to determine how significant the mention is), which suggests there's a reasonable possibility of reliable sources being found for some, if not all, the articles. Confusing Manifestation 06:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In fact, there was apparently a whole article on HS in the Australian Magazine, so at the very least that needs to be kept. Confusing Manifestation 06:47, 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. DS 04:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yogi Buehrle[edit]

I can find no record of this person ever playing major league baseball, which is essentially the only notable characteristic mentioned in the article. None of the online lists of historical players mentions this guy, nor does he appear in the detailed statical summaries of the Pirates in the relevant years. Majorclanger 16:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:V, likely WP:HOAX. Created by WP:SPA. --Dhartung | Talk 18:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yeah, it sounds suspiciously like a hoaxish conflation of Yogi Berra and Mark Buehrle. Joe 18:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Stub about a make-believe person. User:Olicon
Delete per Dhartung and Joe above. Hoax. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 18:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definite hoax. Among other things, there wasn't a draft in the 1930s. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 0 non-wiki ghits -- even the most obscure MLB players get hits. (so to speak) --Fabrictramp 20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We're smarter than the average bear. And don't go creating Boo-boo Belinsky either. Clarityfiend 02:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article was created on May 12, 2007. It is a damn shame we're just now getting around to eradicating this HOAX page. Burntsauce 18:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. Google search gives nothing outside of Encyclopedias and forums.--JForget 23:06, 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 wasSpeedily deleted (WP:CSD#G7) by user:MZMcBride. Non- admin close by Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Freedom Watch[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is a re-creation of a previously deleted Scientologycruft article about a non-notable hate-slander site designed to insult people who have spoken out against Scientology, some of whom are also Wikipedia editors. Sets a very bad precedent in that retaining the article could encourage anyone to create hate sites, knowing that they'll inevitably generate sources when people respond to the libelous allegations. Fails all tests of notability whether you look at RFW as an organization or a "lone nut" personal web page. wikipediatrix 16:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Misleading and low notability. 70.21.254.188 18:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous noms. Possibly salt? Artw 20:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one actual reference to the attack site is an adverse one from a reporter who has much to say and sums it up with "At best, RFW is misrepresenting my piece. At worst, they are outright lying about it." There is no source to support the pro-RFW POV used throughout the article. The only way the site would be notable is if someone took the owner to court. AndroidCat 21:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Immediately before the page was nominated for deletion, more than half of its content was removed. The article is now a shadow of its former self. Foobaz·o< 21:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. The John DeSio section took up a full third of the article, which is undue weight; and the rest were either unsourced claims or off-topic prattle, as discussed on the talk page. wikipediatrix 22:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's only undue weight if there are any other sourced POVs that were different. There weren't. AndroidCat 23:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was giving benefit of the doubt that the primary source, RFW itself, counted as one. I do believe a fair common-sense argument can be made that one man's critical opinion shouldn't dominate so much of an article, even though I agree wholeheartedly with Mr.DeSio. wikipediatrix 23:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Low notability "incite hate and attack CofS enemies" site.--Fahrenheit451 23:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A libel site with no originality and nothing useful to say; unworthy of notice by Wikipedia. --Touretzky 00:30, 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. MastCell ^Talk 22:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack on fire[edit]

Non-notable band that does not meet criteria of WP:BAND. Initially, there were three related articles: Institut Polaire, Ben Blakeney, and this one, all with related personnel. IP is notable. Blakeney was speedy deleted by request of the original editor. I proposed merging this article into IP's because of the overlapping personnel, but prevailing sentiment was that it's a separate project and the article should stand on its own. With no releases, Jack on fire fails to demonstrate notability, so deletion of the article is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur that band is currently not notable and therefore the article should be deleted however would support the merging of some of this article in Institut Polaire as it is relevant to that article. Dan arndt 02:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge. The band aren't notable, worthy information could be added to the IP page, if any. Rehevkor 17:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd check with the creator of IP, before merging. Mbisanz 22:02, 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. There was a split of views between those who regard this as essentially an uncoordinated list and those who see encyclopaedic potential. The addition of the prose intro has moved the page from being a pure list to more of an article. However, the intro now presents different problems in that it is largely unsourced and is redolent of OR. There is a small majority for deletion but not sufficient, in my judgement, to delete the article. As an editorial matter, rapid sourcing is required or significant content removal would be justified. Meanwhile, as a post AfD editorial action, I am moving the page to Fictional worms which better represents its present state. TerriersFan 03:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional worms[edit]

An collection of trivial, loosely associated topics. These things have nothing more in common than being long and round. Eyrian 16:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep, but add references and revise introduction to better indicate connection of items in list. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So easy to say. There is no connection. One cannot simply declare that they should be found and therefore the article should be kept. Burden of proof doesn't work that way. --Eyrian 16:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a connection, based on the viking concept of the serpent dragons they called 'wurms'. These new fictional inventions, by writers like Donaldson and Pratchett are explicitly based on legends which are over a thousand years old. Nick mallory 03:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? What makes you so sure Herbert was thinking of the myth? Or any of the others? The article has turned from a trivial list of loosely associated topics to a few paragraphs of original research supplemented by an unrelated, trivial list of loosely associated topics. --Eyrian 03:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Because, for example, Herbert's sandworms can only be killed if each of their segments is killed. This is exactly the same as the viking myth which held that giant 'wurms' could reassemble themselves if chopped into pieces. The novels by Donaldson - the worm at the end of the world - and Terry Pratchett cited are clearly based on two other viking wurm legends as they are simply identical to them. Nick mallory 04:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so, the similarities are according to your own research? --Eyrian 13:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Unnecessary trivia, doesn't add anything to the encyclopedia. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with the other articles, there will presumably be found good references to indicate that academics and popular critics both think there is a connection. Typically, the reviews of one work discussing the significant characters & plot elements will compare it with others. I would not want to say flat out "there is no connection", italicized or not, unless I were sure of it, not making a pure guess. It disappoints me to see people deleting instead of even trying to improve. I had thought that at least we all agreed it was a comprehensive encyclopedia, not limited by individual failures of imagination and understanding. There's an immense amount here I do not understand and do not see how any reasonable person could think important (professional wrestling comes to mind just as one of many examples). But I see clearly that other people--and apparently rational ones at that--do think they are important, and I accept that unfortunate fact. I'm the one who's limited, and the encyclopedia should transcend my own limitations. DGG (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As with the other articles, there will presumably be found good references to indicate that academics and popular critics both think there is a connection - I prefer reasons to be fact-based rather than faith-based, myself. --Calton | Talk 00:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Provides no information about worms, about the works cited, or about how the two might be related. A collection of unrelated "I spotted something called (or in some cases not called) a worm" references does not constitute an encyclopedia article. By the way, I will say flat out "there is no connection." Fails WP:NOT#DIR #1. Deor 00:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another loose collection of bullet points of things that various people have spotted elsewhere. Instead of handwaving about how someday maybe there might could be reliable-source-derived prose holding this together, how's about some actual reliable-source-derived prose holding this together? --Calton | Talk 00:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Heroes from fiction get plenty of attention, as do villains and anti-heroes from fiction. What's their connection? That they are fictional. That's enough of a connection for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's other lists of fictional topics. So why not worms? Will anyone ever make use of the page? Most likely. There are lists of far sillier topics than this on Wikipedia. Wikipedia covers fiction in as much depth as reality. This list certainly qualifies for coverage. The Transhumanist 00:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is now being rewritten as an article. The concept of the 'Wurm' comes from Viking legends over a thousand years old and there are direct links between those legends and contemporary uses of the idea in fiction and film. It's not an loose collection of bullet points but a literary idea which has evolved over a millenium in myth, story and legend. The other non monsterous 'worms' could well be removed but that's a judgement call someone else can make. Perhaps the article could be renamed along the lines of "worms in legend and fiction" perhaps. Nick mallory 03:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not the place to come and document every time a worm appears in a work of fiction. Delete per list of loosely associated topics Corpx 03:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article combines dragons with invertebrate worms into an artificial grouping for an artificial page. There is no connection between dragons from pre-Christian Nordic myths and fictional man-eating earthworms. It's like listing blacksmiths and silversmiths with "people named Smith". It's not a valid taxonomic unit, and thus not a proper unitary subject. MarkinBoston 17:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Such kinds of "articles" damage wikipedia's reputation as a serious encyclopedia. --32X ~~02:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)~~ 18:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Needs to specify inclusion criteria: "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics." Wikipedia:lists --Coppertwig 19:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Split. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the subject matter(s), but "worm" in the sense of "giant serpent" and "worm" in the sense of "earthworm" have nothing in common in their fictional treatments, and should get different lists. RandomCritic 02:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: agreed. These articles need expansion , not deletion. DGG (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems tightly associated enough to me. Artw 22:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The prose portion is salvagable and can used elsewhere. The list? Not so much. --Calton | Talk 23:43, 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 Keep — Caknuck 20:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Monsters Attack Japan![edit]

AfDs for this article:

delete non notable film, crystal ball, Google only 3,310 hits[28]. Godsug 15:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this article was nominated for deletion and kept only a little more than a month ago. Renominating for a different outcome is frowned upon. Secondly, the movie appears to have been confirmed by the creators and several reliable sources have written about it ([29] and [30]}. I would have to say keep in light of both points. Leebo ^T/C 15:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for improper nomination (too soon after the previous one, fishing for a different outcome). --Agamemnon2 15:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm unwilling to ascribe bad faith to the nominator, so I won't make it a speedy keep. Even though it's a film in development, it shows two good sources (LA Times, Yahoo Movies). Verifiable, notable due to the people behind it. —C.Fred (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:RS, not in serious violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Nom made too soon after last one. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The last nomination was this July. Not going to speculate on the motives of the nominator, but this article seems reasonably sourced, and is about an announced film from notable creators. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable and written with proper sources. 70.21.254.188 18:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Reasons per Leebo. I'm having a really hard time assuming good faith on the part of the nominator. Dbromage [Talk] 00:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being "in development" is meaningless in Hollywood, and having only a couple of sources doesn't raise its importance above all the other in-development projects floating in perpetual limbo around the film industry. This really IS pure crystal ball territory. If it ever gets out of Development hell, fine, but not until then. --Calton | Talk 00:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There may only be a couple of sources but they are reliable sources. Here's more reliable sources.[31][32] [33] (Yes, I know I'm calling The Sun a reliable source......) Dbromage [Talk] 00:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's look at these "sources". (1) Yahoo (actually "Greg's Previews" by Greg Dean Schmitz). This quotes a press release and adds his thoughts. (2) Firstshowing.net: cites an interview in LA Times, but says very little indeed. (3) The Guardian link you give says in full: Trey Parker and Matt Stone's second project is called Giant Monsters Attack Japan! and as the title indicates, is a Godzilla-inspired disaster movie which promises to have men wearing rubber suits walking around miniature sets. That's all. (4) The BBC story you cite says very little, and links to the main page of variety.com. (5) The Sun: no, I don't believe that rag any more than you do. -- Hoary 01:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —Dbromage [Talk] 01:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even though the LA Times link is dead, yes, sources such as bbc.co.uk and guardian.co.uk are indeed "reporting" that this film will be made. But there's little indication that they are doing more than uncritically recycling either what they are told or mere buzz. If this film is only half as disgusting or funny as Team America, I'm all in favor of it (though puzzled by the notion of a parody of the Godzilla genre, a genre that, like "wrestling", seems already a joke); so my objection to the article is in no way motivated by an objection to the product. But look, the release date is not the month after next but the year after next. And here's what it says: Giant Monsters Attack Japan! is an upcoming American Comedy/Sci-Fi film set for release in 2009. It will be directed by co-creator of South Park, Trey Parker, and produced by South Park's other co-creator, Matt Stone. Parker and Stone are expected to be working closely with the writer of the film, J.F. Lawton (writer of Pretty Woman) on the script. The movie will pay tribute to and will be heavily based on the Japanese Godzilla series. It will have no CGI effects. The monsters will be played by men in rubber suits. The movie will be produced by Paramount Pictures and also Nickelodeon. So the movie doesn't exist. When it verifiably exists, consider creating an article about it; for now, it hardly qualifies as news and it certainly doesn't qualify as encyclopedic. -- Hoary 10:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has been discussed before. Their are contracts and distributors. The movie (along with "My All-American") was said to go in to pre-production summer of this year. Their are reliable sources and enough info to make an article.--Swellman 14:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which reliable sources? -- Hoary 01:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Invalid nomination per Leebo; and apparently there was a newspaper article (LA times) and some misguided person deleted the reference on the grounds that you have to pay for it. (Lots of copyrighted books and other sources are used as refs in Wikipedia; no policy was cited to support deleting it.) --Coppertwig 19:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Try this MoS page. Yes you can have a for-pay-only link. But if it's so valuable, it merits an informative and helpful description (author, title, date, etc.) and an up-to-date link. Incidentally, I'd say it was an invalid "keep" decision last time: compelling reasons not to keep were presented, so "no consensus" would have been much better. -- Hoary 23:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Captain Infinity 02:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just passed a keep vote in July, I see no reason why things have changed since then. Bngrybt 00:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why must things come back up for deletion when it's supposedly already been voted on? CHSoarer 05:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 23:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Cambir[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Nothing in the "Creative Professionals" section mentions that a professional is notable if he/she has won an award. That said, all the sources that exist on her are French (so I can't read them), but from the looks of it, her work has been featured in some galleries. I cannot say whether the galleries are major or not (requirement of WP:BIO), but I will retract this nomination if they are. Until then, I say delete. Panoptical 15:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to this, her works are featured in the Galeria Simeza, which is, according to this source, an "old" and "well-known" gallery, albeit a small one (two rooms), that "displays the most important Romanian contemporary artists' works". According to this source, she attended a/the Academy of Fine Arts and was a student of Camil Ressu. It also says something about her being the author of an art/artists dictionary/reference book. I gather the impression that she's notable, but I can't say for sure ... my knowledge of Romanian is very limited. I have placed a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania for assistance in translating some of the sources. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I was going to go for delete, but I looked into the Romanian-language links. This article (also cited by Black Falcon above), is about her winning the top prize in Romanian art in 2005 (the Award of the Union of Visual Artists - also mentioned here and here). The news was published by one of the most read Romanian newspapers. Another journal reviews her work [34]. An article first published as a press release of the Romanian Television describes her as part of a group of artists who regularly visit the Bulgarian town of Balchik, where they paint plein air (this phenomenon is perhaps noteworthy - and both the person and the group are mentioned again here). A google book search I performed gives one snippet result which lists her as one of the most important Romanian book illustrators in 1971 (Die Besten der besten: Bilder-, Kinder- und Jugendbücher aus 57 Ländern oder Sprachen). In may ways, it appears borderline, but it's perhaps worth keeping. Dahn 10:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dahn and my comment further above. Although the article is presently rather short, I think it may only be a matter of getting the attention of someone in Romania (with access to print sources). — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am actually in Romania myself (I just dislike adding myself to categories). I'll keep in mind to find more printed sources - I've already looked through some available at home, but they are rather outdated (one such overview of Romanian art ends with a select few artists who were active in the 1960s and 70s). Dahn 17:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Not everything notable is net-accessable, especially in non-english countries. Mbisanz 22:03, 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. --Core desat 04:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stéphane obadia[edit]

Does not meet either WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC by the looks of things. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources found don't meet WP:RS so the article fails WP:MUSIC. dissolve ^talk 16:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Hooperbloob 00:08, 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. Redirected to district. --Core desat 04:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Baruch Middle School 104[edit]

Article about a middle school. In the absense of extenuating circumstances, we should not have articles about middle schools. This is not about WP:N, this is about scope and common sense. Note that the community rejected the Wikipedia:Schools proposal, and while battles have raged over the years over the inclusion of sundry high schools, middle schools have been within the scope of this encyclopedia. -- Y not? 14:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A famous alum is not enough to establish notability, and middle schools aren't inherently notable. Google & Google news turned up nada. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 18:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eli. Fails WP:N and WP:V. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If the result is delete, redirect to New York City Department of Education WhisperToMe 01:08, 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. Cool Hand Luke 05:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Succubus in fiction[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Renomination. First AfD closed as "no consensus", largely based on procedural reasons. AfD is no longer swamped, the RfC has failed, and this article is still an unacceptable trivia collection, with no indication of independent works on the topic. Eyrian 13:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge selectively with the main article, and preserve the remaining items, either on the talk page or a subpage thereof. As far as I can see the only people who'd want to separate "succubus in fiction" from the article in chief on succubus are those folks who think that succubi are real. The appearances of succubi in works of fiction are easily referenced to the works themselves. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the histories, you will notice that was attempted and reverted. --Eyrian 14:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change that it still ought to be what ought to happen. Forking material and then nominating it for deletion is not a good way to solve editorial disputes. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the flip side, the article is way too large to be a "in popular culture" section at Succubus. Ergo, Delete, as it's nothing more than a collection of inane trivia. --Agamemnon2 15:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The last AfD was only a couple weeks ago. This seems premature. -Chunky Rice 17:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the nomination, the previous AfD was mostly opposed by those that had no opposition to later renomination once things had died down. They have. --Eyrian 17:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just think you'd have better luck with all of your deletions if you just slowed down a little. Right now it seems like you're really pushing. -Chunky Rice 17:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had no intent to nominate any further articles for awhile. This one got back on the list because it's fundamentally the same nomination, just resurrected on procedural grounds. --Eyrian 18:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

When nominator says this, and then proceeds to make ten-odd highly controversial AfD nominations over the next four days, there is room for doubt about good faith. Nominator should stop these kinds of nominations altogether, and do something useful for Wikipedia instead. RandomCritic 02:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess your definition of a little while is different from mine. I work fast. In the meantime, feel free to browse User:Eyrian/Created. --Eyrian 02:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Definate room for improvement, but I see no reason why Wikipedia should not cover uses of a major mythological creature in fiction. Artw 18:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Artw and I also agree with Chunky Rice's statement that this discussion is too soon after the other one. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you have to say regarding my refuting of Chunky Rice's point above? Most of the keep votes in the last AfD revolved around the process being too clogged at the time. It is no longer clogged. --Eyrian 18:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - A search at Google scholar [35] seems to indicate that this article could certainly be sourced and improved. -Chunky Rice 18:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really this article, is it? That's a very new article, that has essentially nothing to do with this one. What, praytell, existing part would you be citing to " Our Ladies of Darkness: Feminine Daemonology in Male Gothic Fiction"? "In Unreal Tournament 2004 one of the gothic default bots is called Succubus"? Perhaps "In Star Ocean: Till the End of Time, a succubus appears as a monster in Level 2 at the Maze of Tribulations. Her attacks include Charm Person, which causes the chaos status ailment on male party members."? The point is, the article as it stands is worthless. It possesses no potential for improvement. An article could be written about the subject, perhaps, but it has nothing to so with this one. --Eyrian 18:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say nothing. Some of the information in the current article is likely salvageable. Not a lot, but some. Regardless, you'll notice that I've never advocated "keep." I'm simply contributing information to the discussion. I don't have access to the source documents in question, so I can't do a re-write, but somebody else might. -Chunky Rice 18:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or merge with D&D page) -the succubus is a better known creature of horror etc. I'm sure there are refernces floating around somewhere.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? So, if a comment about a garage band said "there are probably sources somewhere", it'd be ignored out of hand. Why are people so willing to permit their pet syntheses continue so readily? --Eyrian 13:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha - Eyrian, I have in my time had to look up all number of erudite things and am well aware of the depth of information actually published - much of which is not readily accessible online. Thus, based on hwat I know about succubi and what has been published already, I am estimating that there are indeed commentaries in some horror/supernatural book on media etc. that will summarise or report on this beastie. I have met people with whole libraries on the most erudite of topics and this is broader than many...and we're not talking about a garage band here though are we...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While, no doubt, there are sources on a variety of esoteric topics, how can we be sure that there are any on a particular one? By citing them. An article that cites no sources indicating its existence means nothing. Right now, this is like a garage band article, that cites public records for the births of the members, and receipts for the purchase of instruments. There's indications that the topic has some research, but there's no actual research being cited. And even if something could be built, with all new research, why defend a list of trivial references? --Eyrian 14:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting a global figure of mythology and occult with all sorts of psychological connotations by comparing it with ...what? some contrived local occurrence -stretching logic and belief to prove the point. I can't take this comparison seriously. Why defend it? Why attack it so aggressively and uncompromisingly - you use expressions like "blight on wikipedia" and written a nice big essay on your feelings on the topic. Your talk page and contribs are littered with acrimony and you yourself even dropped off for a couple of days, writing this upon returning but stated today that you've not found this disruptive at all? But we digress. We both have our fixed world-views and I can see neither of us changing so we'll have to leave it to consensus :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources are out there" is never an acceptable argument for keeping an article. Read WP:V again, and you will see that the it is the responsibility of those wishing to add or retain material to provide sources. If you want to keep the article, get the sources yourself, don't rely on some one else to do it. Jay32183 18:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TRIVIA and WP:V. IPSOS (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eyrian has tried to remove many such articles, and failed in a few. Apparently he intends to keep going to get them all. I still AGF in that he is trying to improve the encyclopedia by removing content he doesnt think important, and force those who do to defend it repeatedly. It is so much easier to nominate for deletion than defend, to remove than create. I think the issue is now clear: is WP to continue to be a comprehensive encyclopedia including popular culture? DGG (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I'm sure it's real difficult to plug "succubus in popular culture" into Google Scholar and link the results. --Eyrian 01:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

3 more sources There seems to be a good general book on the subject, and some academic articles dealing with the individual characters in the literature section. Judging from a preliminary scan of the GS results listed above, it should be possible to source that entire section, and bout double its size. Apparently critics and scholars don't think this sort of material insignificant. I can't speak to whether the games section is sourceable--in general the sources for such games are not the ones of which I have much knowledge, though I did upgrade an article on an element of them once-- one of my first rescues in Wikipedia. Frankly, now that both the general topic and the items can be shown to be sourceable by clearly conventional RSs, I do not know what else can be asked. The WP standard is N as V by RS. Well started for this one. time to work on improving and restoring the others. DGG (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot abide this. Looking up a search string in Google scholar and sticking that in as a reference is completely unacceptable, and intellectually dishonest. That is not how research works. You are working off tiny preview strings, without any of the context a work as a whole provides. --Eyrian 01:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete List of minor appearances in fiction = trivia = loosely associated topics. Merge the major ones back into the main article Corpx 03:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article could well be expanded to discuss more than just a list of appearances. Referenced (thus notable) phenomenon presented in a decent-enough format for a starting place. Article has been tagged for cleanup just this month. ◄Zahakiel ► 13:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That cleanup tag was added as a result of the last AfD. No kind of cleanup actually happened, and there is none since. --Eyrian 14:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. Let me repeat: this month. I am not concerned with "why" it happened, so let's not be impatient here, okay? Some suggestions were given above that may well be taken, and the article is more than merely about "trivial" mentions, so I'm going to stand by what I said. Have a nice day. ◄Zahakiel ► 14:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Note this example: "Glenn Danzig 's horror punk band Samhain has what appears to be a succubus on the box art of their Unholy Passion EP." You could argue that this is just a matter for editing. I think it represents perfectly the article as a whole. This doesn't even rate as "trivia" - it's trivial. Trivia is something from pop culture you might be expected to remember. This is a level below that. The concept of the succubus is worthy of interest - this isn't. MarkinBoston 17:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 21:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've a question about that statement... how can an article about one specific topic (i.e., succubi in fiction) be a collection of loosely associated topics? If you wish to say that the mentions in certain elements of the article are trivial, I'd probably agree with you... but I don't think that amounts to a violation of WP:NOT#DIR. ◄Zahakiel ► 21:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the mentions are trivial, the works it links are loosely associated. --Eyrian 21:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not an answer to the question I asked of that editor. There is one topic at issue here; the triviality of individual mentions are not a matter of the overall subject, as you should well know, and a matter of pruning/cleanup rather than AfD - as you should also well know. In any event your statement is false; several of the entries of the article have the succubus as a fairly important plot-point, the title of the work, or the subject of academic study under that name. ◄Zahakiel ► 22:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only pursue deletion when pruning all the bad entries results in an empty article. As it would in this case. --Eyrian 22:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you know this is still not answering my question... and I'm trying to get clarification from someone else. Thanks. ◄Zahakiel ► 22:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're not asking me, either, but the reasoning is this: The connection between the members of this list is trivial. There's nothing about having the word "succubus" in the text of these different works that connects them in any significant way. It would be as if I made a list that contained Coca-Cola, candy canes and the scissors on my desk because they are all have the color red on them. These things could certainly be used to discus the color red in the context of an analysis, but independently, simply as a list, the connection is tenuous.

As far as deletion vs. keeping goes, I think it's clear that the underlying topic of succubus in fiction is notable. It's been written about by reliable sources. The only question is whether or not this article could be improved with that information, or if it's totally beyond recovery and should be deleted. That's my take, anyway. -Chunky Rice 23:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's what I think he's saying too. My reply to that would be that the premise is off... we're not just talking about "mere mentions," in many of these cases, so I'd say there is definite room for improvement. Obviously, not all of the current list elements merit inclusion, but what I'm seeing is a lot of hastiness and opining by certain editors about what is "impossible" to do or not do. ◄Zahakiel ► 23:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it's a mere mention or a heavy involvement. The works of fiction aren't actually connected. It would be like saying Santa and stop signs are connected, to extend the example of red things. It's not because they only contain a little red, it's that it doesn't actually mean anything just to say they are both red. Jay32183 01:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it very well might. Examining why stop lights are red, and why Santa's clothing is red (to extend the analogy yet further) would potentially reveal psychological connections. And that's just an example. One man's trivia is another man's thesis. The article in question does point out there is some psychological merit to the analysis of this archetype, and looking at the impact of the archetype on fictional works would go a ways to looking at that. But, of course, not everyone is going to like articles that attempt this. ◄Zahakiel ► 05:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, in order to have an article, such a man would need to publish a reliable source. --Eyrian 13:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep I see no reason this should be deleted.Hentai Jeff 21:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ (now weak keep) There is the potential for a good article on the topic but this isn't it. The majority of the mentions are trivial (especially the computer game ones - I'm afraid mythology is often fodder for minor game characters, as is clear here). Trim it back to the topics where the succubus plays a major role in the item under discussion and merge it back into the main entry. It would be worth someone chasing this topic and aiming to create a sandbox version. Aim to make it more solid prose with a larger analysis of the important appearances and try to avoid lists (as in entries like this it can leave it wide open to "trivia injection"). As an example of what can (should?) be done look at the recent major rewrite of World War III in popular culture [36]. (Emperor 03:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. Another in a long series of nominations in questionable faith, based on patently spurious assumptions about the inadmissibility of fiction-related articles. AfD should never be the court of first resort; if nominator does not try to fix articles, in good faith, through the normal editing process, it's reasonable to reject the nomination.RandomCritic 02:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that this was previously nominated, given a few weeks to improve, and then renominated. But don't let the total destruction of your argument get in the way of following me around to defend unsourced, trivial articles. Keep fighting the good fight. --Eyrian 02:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

~~I beleive you let 12 days elapse between nominations, not "a few weeks".~~ My mistake, 20 days. Still not a lot of time. Artw 02:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Articles should be able to languish without sources indefinitely. Not like verifiability is important or anything. --Eyrian 02:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Indefinately = less than a month? Why the urgency and the need to push psuedopolicy to get a deletion? Artw 02:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was verifiability pseudopolicy? And yes, less than a month. Articles should not be created without sources in hand. If you can't prove it, don't post it. But, by all means, if this nomination fails, I'll check on it in another month, then perhaps a year after that. No doubt when my admirers have lost interest, there will be no troubles. --Eyrian 02:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Nominator's name doesn't appear on the talk page. Nominator has no edits prior to first AfD. Nominator has not worked in good faith to edit the page. Nominator could be working to provide sourcing, but isn't. In other words, nominator isn't an active part of the constructive editing process. RandomCritic 02:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, I don't believe it can be sourced. I'm not going to throw my time down a black hole. And, yes, sometimes deletion is an essential part of the editing process. Ask any professional editor. --Eyrian 02:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Cute, but since no one is arguing against that position pretty much irrelevant. You're not addressing the issue of excessive haste and pushing of your own views as policy. Artw 02:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I were pushing my own views as policy, this wouldn't be under debate, would it? Why do you think it's excessive haste? Does it take three weeks to make it to a library? To have books arrive from Amazon? Certainly not with the time some people spend on Wikipedia. How long is long enough? Why? -- Eyrian 03:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Repeated_AfD_nomination_limitation_policy suggested 90 days. It's not an accepted policy but it seems like a good length of time to me. Artw 03:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sources = deletion. Everything else is irrelevant. Stop bringing it up. Jay32183 04:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That proposal was rejected. --Eyrian 04:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

My point was that trying to close this AFD as keep for procedural reasons won't work because the policy and guideline failures are not being addressed. The proposal you're talking about was one for speedy deletion. No sources is a valid argument in an AFD, and there isn't a counterargument. Jay32183 05:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are now three sources listed - question is, what is in them. Common sense that there will be some commentary within them - so that's a counterargument. lack of involvement in talk page prior to nomination is a failure to follow WP:AGF - a fundamental principle of WP. Remember this is a volunteer project and works on goodwill. Too gross an intrusion on that undermines the goodwill and further production of the overall encyclopedia.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I should add that the aim is the production of an encyclopedia- in the face of some promising sources the constructive response is to investigate and assess rather than to continue to push for wholesale deletion - to do so is to deliberately ignore promising material to prove a point.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is still the issue that this is a collection of loosely associated terms and it fails WP:NOT#DIR. I will always push for wholesale deletion in that case, because that is the only solution to that problem. Assuming good faith is not about protecting the feelings of other editors, it is about not accusing them of intentionally trying to harm Wikipedia when they simply made a mistake. That does not mean we should not correct that mistake. Jay32183 18:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bald assertion that they are all of them loosely associated has never been shown, just repeated, and repeated. The subject of a work is a close association, as is a major theme. short of the author, i cant think of what could possibly be more closely associated. DGG (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two works by different authors about similar things are not necessarily connected. Which means a source is required to show that connection. Jay32183 18:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The entry in The Encyclopedia of Fantasy establishes the Succubus as an important theme in supernatural fiction. Artw 18:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And, having popped over to the article to add that, it seems there are other sources as well. Artw 18:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've changed my vote to "weak keep" but it still needs a major re-write as it is still a list of very loosely related items (much of them only trivial appearances of the succubus). Perhaps trim it down first and expand the major appearances but there is a good article in here somewhere as the succubus is a strong theme that has numerous psychological overtones which could be drawn out in a less "listy" piece. (Emperor 19:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    - No one is saying there can't be an article with the title "Succubus in fiction". A detailed article analyzing the role in fiction would be great. But that is not what this article is. This is a list of loosely associated fictional works. If you want to write the proper article after this one is deleted from the spot, go for it. But what we have here is unacceptable. Jay32183 19:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're making your vote on article quality Jay which is not what you're supposed to do; there can't be an article if the article is deleted. The correct vote is "keep and clean up in a big way". Delete is based on subject matter - if there are absolutely no sources (which it looks like there are, in which case ignoring them is not constructive nor conducive to WP building) or there can never be an article. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, that is what I've said in my previous comments. If references are being found I don't see too big a problem with the major rewrite being done live. It might be easier to go with my previous plan (trim it down to non-trivial appearances) and merge it back to the main entry and work on this in a sandbox. However, the WWIII in popular culture was redone live so it is doable and would avoid extra levels of hassle. That said merging back would gguarantee that if anyone wanted to redo this article they'd have to do so with a better version - my fear in going for keep is that is seen as a vote to not change the article whereas it needs a lot of work. (Emperor 21:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Except you both missed my point. My "delete" is not about article quality, it is about article content. Regardless of the article's title, this content should not be presented or preserved in edit history because it fails WP:NOT#DIR. If this title were attached to an article that did not fail WP:NOT#DIR, which no one has actually provided evidence for, then that would not be a delete. This isn't a case of a rewrite, it's writing a brand new article in the same spot. Except there probably isn't significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, so the analysis of the role in fiction should be in the main article only. My point was "delete does not equal no article here ever". Delete means this content is not acceptable. Jay32183 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and your concept of "content" = quality not subject matter....you can't write a brand new article on the same spot if it is deleted. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can in fact write a brand new article in the spot of a previously deleted article. The speedy deletion criterion "Previously deleted material" only applies if the content is the same, not the titles. A different article with the same title does not qualify for speedy deletion. Jay32183 23:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the history of an article goes a bit beyond what is called for by WP:NOT#DIR. In fact, other than personal information, I can't think of anything that calls for removal of an article's history. Even WP:BLP does not go so far. -Chunky Rice 23:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All deleted articles have their histories removed. Jay32183 23:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously. But above, you seem to assert that we shouldn't even be trying to clean this up because it would preserve this version in the history. "this content should not be presented or preserved in edit history" -Chunky Rice 23:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem an odd arguement for deletion - so the history can be cleared out. A lot of entries have far worse versions in their histories. I can't see any reason for such a clean slate (and am not aware of such a thing being part of the guidelines). (Emperor 00:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm saying that "Keep - I'm going to write a brand new article" doesn't make sense. This article can't actually be fixed, because the fix does actually involve removing all existing content. Jay32183 00:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested above what the fix would be - trimming out the trivial mentions, expanding on the non-trivial ones and work it into a less listy form. If there is ever going to be a Succubus in fiction entry it would have to include a number of the appearances listed in the current article - the main question is: how many? (Emperor 00:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

There isn't a question of how many. Only the ones mentioned in the secondary sources get mentioned in the article, otherwise it's original research to include it in the analysis. Jay32183 02:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment afd should not require an article to be withdrawn if a rewrite is possible and there is already some satisfactory content. AfD requires an article to be withdrawn only if there is no salvageable content. Otherwise the solution is keep and edit. DGG (talk) 06:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've always rejected the idea that "in popular culture" articles are not sourced. Every single item is sourced to the work it appears in. They may not be nice footnotes, but they are sources. Also, you need to give more time between nominations than 20 days. This smells like "I'm going to nominate this article till it gets deleted" to me. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 17:53, 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. --Core desat 04:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citroën DS in popular culture[edit]

Delete - another laundry list of things with nothing in common past the presence of a particular kind of car. This tells us nothing about the car, nothing about the fiction in which the car appeared, nothing about the relationship between them (as there is none) and nothing about the real world. A similar article for the Mini Cooper was deleted several months ago for similar reasons. Otto4711 13:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing that justifies an independent article. --Eyrian 14:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Eyrian. Dominictimms 14:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't add anything. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Citroën DS. Doesn't really fall under WP:NOT#DIR as there certainly are real world exemples listed, such as the assasination attempt on Charles de Gaulle. — Edokter • Talk • 15:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The important parts have already been merged. --Eyrian 15:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete, as it's a pile of inane ~~drivel~~ trivia. --Agamemnon2 15:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect without deleting. Some of this article is actually written in a less list format that I suppose makes it look better than the others being criticised lately, but it could use more references. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no RSes that this car's role in popular culture is notable. Carlossuarez46 00:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: the existence of the Internet Movie Cars Database shows that someone thinks that the inclusion of particular models of cars in films is notable. The article at least provides some cultural context, indicating what the various appearances in film and television might signify. More sources would, of course, be great, but I think this one has a justification for existence. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wiki is not a place for indiscriminate trivia collection.--JForget 23:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete About every vehicle has been used in "popular culture" in one way or another, this is just a bunch of cruft that doesn't belong. Dannycali 17:02, 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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The result was Delete Despite the sparse discussion below, a complete lack of WP:RS (and hence, failure of WP:V) provides an overriding policy-based rationale for deletion. Restoration may be requested if WP:RS are found. Xoloz 13:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Wacken ´99[edit]

Bootlegs are generally not notable (there are exceptions of course), and this one gives no indication of being such an exception. No reviews in profesional music magazines, no discussions in the mainstream press, no lawsuits attracting a lot of publicity, ... Fails WP:NOTE and WP:MUSIC ("Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage."). Perhaps we need to add to WP:MUSIC that bootlegs, demos and mixtapes are generally not notable, to avoid all these articles... Fram 12:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to a list of Cradle of fILTH BOOTLEGS --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC) whoops --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to a destination identified by TheFEARgod. There's a lack of sources showing why this particular concert was notable, or indeed why a bootleg recording thereof is. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ten-Day War. Merge left to editorial discretion. WjBscribe 23:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Krakovski gozd[edit]

I see no sources at all, notability disputed (seems like a small skirmish) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ten-Day War - this and the next item might become a new section in that Battles of the war. Peterkingiron 17:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ten-Day War seems appropriate -- Steve Hart 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 Ten-Day War. Merge left to editorial discretion. WjBscribe 23:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Medvedjek[edit]

I see no sources at all, notability disputed (seems like a small skirmish) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ten-Day War - this and the previous item might become a new section in that Battles of the war. Peterkingiron 17:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ten-Day War -- Steve Hart 22:08, 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, speedy keep argument is invalid. --Core desat 04:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Setsucon[edit]

Disputed prod. Original reason was that there were no secondary sources available beyond directory listings. Fails WP:ORG and WP:NOTE. The original author, who also has a COI problem, admits on the talk page that the only sources is a booklet published by the convention. --Farix (Talk) 11:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete - if there are no reliable, verifiable third party sources or coverage beyond the pamphlet the organization publishes, then it should be deleted. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like the results I get are forums, listings, more forums, and nothing concrete that would be a reliable source to indicate notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Hey everyone; just wondering, if this article ends up being deleted and it turns out that after 2008's convention, more reliable sources are published (not just the booklet again), is it permissible to re-create the entry once again? PlasmaFire3000 05:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: I believe that persons in the know, who are familiar with the topic, and who are willing to commit time to the article in question should be given at least two weeks (14 days) to answer to the challenges being placed upon the article. Alternatively, if the article still gets voted to deletion, might it be more properly placed on WikiNews? --Godfoster 06:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nothing prevents the article from being improved to deal with the problems brought up during AFD while the AFD is still ongoing. But we also don't keep articles because their subjects could be notable in the future (WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL). --Farix (Talk) 12:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete: the G11 tag applied to the page was valid. Nihiltres^(t.l) 00:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GSGNC[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Conscious 10:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This group does not pass the notability guidelines for organizations (WP:CORP), and could even be tagged for speedy deletion (under criteria A7). Marasmusine 10:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have to repeat myself: "When I was much younger (~14) I also used to make up my own companies" (However I had the decency not to write Wikipedia articles about it). @hotmail E-Mail? Freehoster domain? Fails WP:CORP and WP:MADEUP definitely applies. I agree to speedy under A7. 1redrun ^Talk 11:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Made up. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notable company would ever give its CEO a Hotmail address. Fails WP:WEB as well as WP:CORP and WP:NFT. Its (unsupported) assertions of notability probably save it from an A7 speedy, but I'd tag it as spam if I thought it actually had any products to advertise. Iain99 12:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No deletion; I suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GSGNC first. As mentioned, it is something which does provide services to people, without making a loss or profit whatsoever. It is there for fun and to show our talents which would otherwise be hidden. People actually dedicate time for it to produce astonishing results, and so really is a corporation (a group of people acting as a single entity, by definition). Cnpgs 16:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)cnpgs[reply]

I'm sure you find it fun, and good luck with it. However, just because someone enjoys something doesn't mean that it should have a Wikipedia article - Wikipedia is for notable subjects which are covered in reliable sources. If you'd like your site to have a Wikipedia article, I'm afraid you'll need to work on making it more famous first. Iain99 18:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just fun; besides being a proper corporation it is also popular, with over 3200 views on just one website; the videos have had nearly 50,000 views at the time of writing. With the same argument, why let pages of other companies here if they also have information on their websites?cnpgs 19:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)cnpgs[reply]

Strong Delete This looks like nonsense. 70.21.254.188 18:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's no indication that this meets WP:CORP and no reliable sources around. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11. Made up or not, it's blatant advertising. Tagged for speedy. Dbromage [Talk] 23:55, 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 street deletion. --Core desat 04:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Street kendo[edit]

Contested Prod, it reads like an example of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it looks like a violation of WP:BOLLOCKS. --Agamemnon2 15:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination.Peter Rehse 11:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like a legitimate article about an obscure subject— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.178.136 (talk • contribs)
Delete The subject article really only describes the sort of activity that kids do in their backyard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendo 66 (talk • contribs) 07:55, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
Delete: only one source (whether reliable or not). --Coppertwig 19:18, 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. --Core desat 04:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Light Sith[edit]

Contested prod, notice removed by article creator. Original prod reason: Original fan fiction. Second editor endorsement reason: Wikipedia is not for self-publishing. Following prod removal, article creator has added "(I'm currently waiting for George Lucas' approval, so that I can go ahead and publish it)". Not much more for me to say here really, other than to recommend Delete. Michael Devore 09:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously delete: WP is not for stuff thought up one day at school, nor even deeply thought up about for several days (and never published elsewhere), and all that. Goochelaar 09:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all reasons expressed above. --Evb-wiki 14:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The reasons for deletion expressed in the previous postings are all valid. 70.21.254.188 18:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:MADEUP and fancruft. Dbromage [Talk] 23:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No discussion is necessary. Though I wish the author well with his efforts, this not what Wikipedia is for and it should have been speedy deleted. Atropos 07:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there's no good criteria to flag this type of article as speedy as a user; only admins can decide and assert WP:SNOW to make a quick deletion. So, this article with no speedy route and a contested prod forces an AfD, resulting in sighs from readers (presumably, I plead guilty to a couple of sighs on posting). There are admins who may push the boundaries of CSD G1, G3, G11, or A7 to SD really silly articles, but that's a raffle at best, with a rebuke for users who get too creative using the tag. Plus, successful shoehorned-to-fit SD's are controversial and generate other admin and user complaints. Seems a flaw in the process. Michael Devore 08:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rules should have been ignored. Wikipedia is not a place for publishing original thought, and though the author means well, he is mistaken. Atropos 05:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NN, WP:FICT, WP:OR. WP:FAN, WP:NOT#INFO, WP:V, WP:RS etc. etc. [[Guest9999 13:51, 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. --Core desat 04:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carnival ACS 2[edit]

School carnival unknown outside the school. The cause may be just, but the event is not notable. No third party independent sources. Ohconfucius 08:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree about the non-notability of the event. Goochelaar 09:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per lack of notability. Zouavman Le Zouave 11:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 11:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete School events are not notable events unless they impact outside parties. 70.21.254.188 18:37, 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 — Caknuck 20:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reina Boone[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Contested speedy. I'm probably one of the more relaxed interpreters of speedy deletion criterion A7 and I suspect many admins would have speedied this one. Previous AfD one year ago. This Orange County independent musician has one independent release, but the article claims a strong local following. Google reveals the following:[37]. Nothing on allmusic.com. The difference from the first AfD is that she now has an independent album release and more GHits. Unfortunately, I still don't think it meets WP:NMG yet. Samir 07:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - mainly on the strength of the SqueezeOC and OCWeekly articles. And over 2,000 g-hits. --Evb-wiki 14:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see only one reference, the OCWeekly article, that qualifies as a reliable source: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biographies of living persons "self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person", so it fails to meet WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles 1. "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable". If another reliable source is found I would switch to keep. I only get 62 hits for "Reina Boone",[38] though a Google test should be avoided as an argument. dissolve ^talk 16:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails Wikipedia:Notability (music), google search returns a large number of myspace hits, but virtually no non-trivial sources, no major hits, international tours or other WP:Music criteria. Dreadstar † 18:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above --Hooperbloob 03:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep — Caknuck 20:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National delimitation in the Soviet Union[edit]

Unreferenced page, non-encyclopedic quality and apparent copypaste thus copyviolation. I am unable to detect source though, or any references to those words so it could also be plain original reasearch. Suva 06:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong Keep. Very encyclopedic. A possible reference is, e.g. here, and the book content is searchable. Hardly copy/paste: Language is sloppy. The term "national delimitation" is in use, you probably have to learn to use google. I noticed this articles earlier, and made note for myself to add references, but forgot about it: a huge amount of work in wikipedia. I do not blame the nominatior, but the proper approach would be to announce this article at Russian wikipedians' notice board. The article topic is valid to anyone who has reasonable knwoledge of Soviet history. `'Míkka 16:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not so strong keep. It does look kind of suspicous but I think that rather than copyvio we're looking at more of a case of someone dropping a school essay on us. Normally I would suggest deletion of such material on the grounds of being one form of WP:OR or another, but given the source mentioned above (and assuming good faith that the references given in the article are used correctly) it does appear there is an encyclopedic topic here. The article needs the attention of someone familiar with the topic (or at least with access to the references) to clean it up and bring it to encyclopedic standards. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I wanted to make the same notice about school essay. Like I said, I noticed the text, wrote a proper intro for it, but quickly forgot about it (me getting old). I will put it onto my to-do shortlist. `'Míkka 17:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic seems to be valid, especially when applied to the Central Asia. Article is poor, but it is a reason to work on it, not to delete it. RJ CG 22:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Yes, there was a Bolshevik ideological principle regarding the creation of the regions of the USSR, and it's notable and encyclopedic, but this is something of a POV essay and really needs serious work to comply with policy. It should probably be renamed, but I'm not sure to what just now. --Dhartung | Talk 22:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Bolshevik ideological principle" is called the right of nations to self-determination. If there is a POV here, is it because this (or the sources used) was written by some American who never read his Lenin -- Petri Krohn 00:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to rename: what's with you guys, not reading others? Chukcha not reader? It is the actual term, used in books on the topic, in particular, listed in the references. `'Míkka 22:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be lifted verbatim from a textbook or someone else's essay, probably Andre Haugen. Mandsford 00:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This AfD seems to be part of a pattern of disruptive editing now discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Digwuren and Tartu based accounts. -- Petri Krohn 00:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kick with vengeance. This vote comment belongs to a pattern of harassment from the editor that brought Wikipedia the {{Big Sock Fishing}}, and dared to present audacious lies to the Arbitration Committee themselves. Digwuren 18:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's an ugly article at present, and certainly looks like an essay, but it's on a topic which is notable. What little I know about the way the USSR worked tells me that this was a very important thing indeed, but unfortunately I can't claim enough knowledge to pitch in and improve the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Strongly POV essay ("Why did the communist rulers of the USSR need to create a national consciousness among people, given that it is generally used by the bourgeoisie to curtail the class struggle?" That's objective fact, is it?). Heavy on jargon, light on concrete detail. Seems to accept Soviet claims for the motives behind policy at face value. (Incidentally, the Soviets also decided ethnic groups such as the Mingrelians didn't exist virtually at the stroke of a pen, as well as lumping unrelated peoples together in ASSRs). In short, a bad article. It might be possible to have a page on this subject, but this isn't it. --Folantin 11:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that there's at least one Russophone editor who's signalled a willingess to improve this article (or overhaul it, I guess) in this AfD alone, I'm inclined to say that it won't be POV soon enough. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Important topic. Dominictimms 15:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per assertions on notability made by other editors above; it seems like a valid and important enough topic in the context of Soviet history. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This thing is not only non-encyclopædic; it's worse: it, built like an fact-relaying essay, depends on the reader sharing certain inaccurate assumptions regarding Soviet ideology. The topic is notable*, but a good article can not be built atop a fundament this rotten. Digwuren 18:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its current shape. It is a POV essay. If it is kept it needs a rename and a through overhaul.--Alexia Death the Grey 18:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a valid historical topic, and lists 3 apparently relevant books as sources. --Coppertwig 19:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a genuine subject of which I know little. The article describes a policy, which was implemented and is thus a valid topic. However I would have liked to see more about the categorisation of individual Soviet citzens by nationality (if that is not a differnet subject altogether). Being a poorly written article is grounds for improvement, not for an AFD. Peterkingiron 17:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable and factual. —Nightstallion 08:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now it is bad, I agree, but not desperately, and the topic is legitimate. Don't be afraid that it will eventually turn into something with a pro-Soviet POV. It won't, if expanded. Moreover, its existence is important for a discussion of Soviet ethnic policy in the 1930s-1940s. Colchicum 10:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WjBscribe 05:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Universal Century mobile units[edit]

Indiscriminate list of model units from Gundam. Suitable for manga/anime wiki, but not wikipedia, per WP:NOT Oscarthecat 06:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and slash in half with a beam sword Complete fancruft list this is what categories are for. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes, it would be best if all of the units got their own article and this became a category. Yet no, it is impossible to create an article for each of them. It WOULD make more sense to be split into difference series with each and and everyone of them have a short description. No description, no article, not even in a list. So, Delete, but not speedy delete, sorry, it does not meet the requirements for speedy deletion. MythSearcher^talk 16:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Qualifies as a list as per WP:LIST. Also, it looks useful to anyone interested in writing or developing Gundam material. The criteria for inclusion are specific enough not to be considered indiscriminate - if it grows too large, split it up. This appears to be an an excellent research tool for an admittedly fictional subject. But Wikipedia covers fiction just as thoroughly as it does reality-based subjects. Wikipedia caters to everyone, including writers (of scripts, screenplays, novels, etc.), game developers (of video games, RPGs, boardgames, etc.), and enthusiasts (readers, players, etc.). This list looks eminently useful for these types of users. Compare this with Wikipedia's coverage of D&D, Star Wars, and Star Trek. The Transhumanist 23:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LIST covers style of lists, not notability. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and I hope you'll change your mind and agree that this just isn't notable per the guideline. --Oscarthecat 06:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I honestly don't know what Gundam Universal Century is (it's an anime of some sort, I gather), nor where this list of F90 and RGM and RX machinery is drawn from (and it's a long list). However, even a list of so-called mobile units (any machine that moves?) in, say, the Star Wars universe would not be encylcopedic. Some worlds that exist in the imagination should stay in the imagination. Mandsford 00:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to familiarize yourself with Category:Star Wars vehicles and even Category:Star Wars lists. FrozenPurpleCube 01:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't really think I would wish to... Mandsford 22:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a reasonable way to cover a defining subject in a clearly notable anime saga. And believe it or not, people do write guide books to this series. It is clearly a list of fixed scope, namely mobile units in a given anime, which is hardly indiscriminate. Content could be improved, but that's not a deletion reason. Oh, and try to be more explicit than just WP:NOT. FrozenPurpleCube 01:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki to a fan wiki. WP is not a directory of units in a fictional show - This content is ideal for a fansite/wiki Corpx 03:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no out-of-universe sources to establish notability beyond the scope of the series. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check [[39]] for an out of universe source. FrozenPurpleCube 04:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still in-universe, thus not passing WP:FICT, and does not constitute a third party source. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The style of writing is irrelevant, it's still out of universe, in the sense that it's a non-fiction work existing outside of a fiction series. Thus I find your objection unconvincing. The series is notable enough for people to write and sell books about concepts within it. Makes for a case for notability for me. WAF concerns can be addressed with appropriate writing. FrozenPurpleCube 04:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to see that you read the post, especially considering that this was the correct one. Addressed above. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. It's three conceptually related nominations at once, means we're all repeating arguments. Pardon me for saving my time with a bit of copying and pasting. My position remains the same regardless, and it's not like you're offering substantial arguments anyway, let alone substantially different ones. FrozenPurpleCube 18:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Bad faith nom, per my entries on the other Gundam-related AfDs started by this user. Jtrainor 20:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise what is bad faith about this nom so I can bear in mind for any future edits. --Oscarthecat 20:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call your nomination bad faith, but the two biggest flaws are it incorrectly describes this list as 'indescriminate' and it given no actual reason for deletion. That and your hit list of articles you've gotten deleted [40] is not in the best of taste. Edward321 23:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jtrainor. All these nominations are the same so I won't bother with a new rationale for each one. MalikCarr 22:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination inaccurately describes subject, which not an indesriminate list and has appeared in multiple media. The subject being fictional is not grounds for deletion, see Doctor Watson, light saber, Andorian, Acme Corporation, etc. Lack of sources is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 23:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is the place where non-notable Gundam mecha should go. --Polaron | Talk 01:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment surely the fact they're non-notable means they don't belong at all? --

Oscarthecat 20:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is usually used as one criterion for determining whether a *separate article* is warranted for a particular thing. Lack of notability does not mean the encyclopedia should not be allowed to treat a topic whether as a section of a wider topic or as a list. There are many such situations here in Wikipedia.--Polaron | Talk 22:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancruft. Rehevkor 18:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fancruft is not a valid reason for deletion as it is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jtrainor 23:58, 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, defaulting to keep. MastCell ^Talk 22:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of After Colony mobile units[edit]

Indiscriminate list of units in a comic series. Suitable for a anime wiki or the like, but not wikipedia, per WP:NOT Oscarthecat 06:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It WOULD make more sense to be split into difference series with each and and everyone of them have a short description. No description, no article, not even in a list, which is suitable for minor characters(some of these are major characters in the series). Since most of these have separate article already, I recommend Merge with those separate articles that is very very likely to be deleted on their own and Move to List of mobile units in New Mobile Report Gundam W. MythSearcher^talk 16:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More Gundam world items. While I respect that someone is interested in what appears to be a very detailed fictional universe, there is a limit to how much an encylopedia should be inclusive of fantasy rather than reality. There are other websites, besides Wikipedia, that can host something of such unlimited magnitude, and such limited interest. Mandsford 00:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonable way to cover a defining subject in a clearly notable anime saga. And believe it or not, people do write guide books to this series. It is clearly a list of fixed scope, namely mobile units in a given anime, which is hardly indiscriminate. Content could be improved, but that's not a deletion reason. Oh, and try to be more explicit than just WP:NOT. FrozenPurpleCube 01:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it is kind of silly to delete the list page when the articles on the individual mobile units aren't being addressed. FrozenPurpleCube 01:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki to a fan wiki. WP is not a directory of units in a fictional show - This content is ideal for a fansite/wiki Corpx 03:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable, verifiable out-of-universe third party sources to establish its notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [41] for a book that is clearly out of universe. How much of a third-party source it is...open question. FrozenPurpleCube 04:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guidebook is irrelevant, as it still only addresses the topic in a in-universe fashion; ergo, the article still fails ~~WP:WAF.~~ WP:FICT. As such, it does not qualify as adequate out-of-universe coverage. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply WP:WAF states that minor characters can have their own page, and some of these are Major chracters in the series. MythSearcher^talk 05:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The style of writing is irrelevant, it's still out of universe, in the sense that it's a non-fiction work existing outside of a fiction series. Thus I find your objection unconvincing. The series is notable enough for people to write and sell books about concepts within it. Makes for a case for notability for me. WAF concerns can be addressed with appropriate writing. FrozenPurpleCube 04:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was meant to be WP:FICT. See below. In any case, you still have not acquired the point. It still remains irrelevant as to whether it is covered in the guidebooks because they still only address the subject in an in-universe context. There is no sources that address the subject beyond the in-universe scope; ergo it still fails WP:FICT, which states that articles must have real-world coverage independent of the subject itself. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I consider WP:FICT to be a very unconvincing argument. This is a sub-article of an existing notability, the adequate coverage of which is highly important to the main subject. If you *really* wanted to do so, you could find reviews that discussed individual Gundams, but I'd consider such things to be less than helpful. Sorry, but I'd rather not read what somebody thinks of the Epyon or Wing Zero or Tallgeese. FrozenPurpleCube 18:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Extremely bad faith nom. Has mass-nominated several Gundam articles with almost the exact same text for the reason, and has obviously not read any of them, as is shown by his reference to the material as being from a comic. Jtrainor 20:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise what is bad faith about this nom so I can bear in mind for any future edits. I feel that having spotted multiple Gundam articles with the same issues, raising an AFD for any such articles is justified.--Oscarthecat 20:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see any bad faith Corpx 20:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the concern is that instead of taking an approach of "Hmm, can this be fixed" you've been jumping to a number of deletion nominations without soliciting input first. I'm not saying it's bad faith, but it is not something I can quite commend either. There are articles which require quick action, and there are those that don't. And these kinds of things tend to be a bit disputed anyway. See the Spells in Harry Potter discussion. It's not so much bad faith here, but it is kicking the anthill a bit. FrozenPurpleCube 21:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call your nomination bad faith, but the biggest flaws are it incorrectly describes this list as 'indescriminate', incorrectly claims the subjetc only occurs in a comic and it given no actual reason for deletion. That and your hit list of articles you've gotten deleted [42] is not in the best of taste. Edward321 23:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I didn't see that. I consider that in something of bad taste. Deletions aren't something to boast about. Then again, I don't like BJAODN either. FrozenPurpleCube 04:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FrozenPurpleCube. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jtrainor. The names may change but the same tired arguments which have failed time and time again never do. MalikCarr 22:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination inaccurately describes subject, which has appeared in multiple media. The subject being fictional is not grounds for deletion, see Doctor Watson, light saber, Andorian, Acme Corporation, etc. Lack of sources is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 23:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep List articles are the most appropriate way of treating Gundam mecha in general. Separate articles are only for the really famous ones. What's with this mass nomination anyway? --Polaron | Talk 01:21, 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 there is content from the article that an editor would like to merge, let me know and I can provide the deleted content so that it can merged. MastCell ^Talk 22:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of mobile suit operating systems[edit]

List of operating systems within a comic series? More suitable for a anime wiki, but not wikipedia, per WP:NOT Oscarthecat 06:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - this article is too narrow in focus, but would do well as a section in the Cosmic Era article. See that talk page. This, I think, would be an ideal compromise.

from the merge discussion: The article List of mobile suit operating systems deals with operating systems exclusive to the Cosmic Era. This article is small and could use some additional content. With the other one being considered for deletion, would it not be a perfect compromise to absorb that content in here? It makes logical sense prima facie. Thoughts?

VigilancePrime 06:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Plau 10:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real-world impact. --Eyrian 13:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Written from a very in-universe perspective in violation of WP:WAF. If these are important elements to the series they may warrant a trim and merge back to a parent article, but as it stands this is material unsuitable for inclusion. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More Gundam world items. While I respect that someone is interested in what appears to be a very detailed fictional universe, there is a limit to how much an encylopedia should be inclusive of fantasy rather than reality. There are other websites, besides Wikipedia, that can host something of such unlimited magnitude, and such limited interest. Mandsford 00:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonable way to cover a defining subject in a clearly notable anime saga. And believe it or not, people do write guide books to this series. It is clearly a list of fixed scope, namely mobile units in a given anime, which is hardly indiscriminate. Content could be improved, but that's not a deletion reason. Oh, and try to be more explicit than just WP:NOT. FrozenPurpleCube 01:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other AFD - Just as inappropriate as cars in ____ would be under WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE and no different than List of objects in <fictional show>. No real world coverage Corpx 03:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable, verifiable out-of-universe third party sources to establish its notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE - I agree with VigilancePrime. This article deals specifically with Mobile Suit Operating Systems from the Cosmic Era and would fit very well within that article. The other various lists of Gundam-related things (see the Articles for Deletion section of Wikiproject Gundam for examples) could also be merged with the articles about their respective Eras. -Rycr 07:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real-world impact verified: until then, purely in-universe cruft. Moreschi ^Talk 20:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Bad faith nom, per the other Gundam AfDs this user has started. Jtrainor 20:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: second comment by this user. --Eyrian 20:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry bout that. I had all the Gundam AfDs open at once and forgot I already posted in this one. Previous one removed. 01:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete - hugely crufty. Artw 20:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 20:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jtrainor. WP:NOT, same rationale, blah blah blah. This is why I quit editing Wikipedia... MalikCarr 22:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per VigilancePrime. Not significant enough to merit its own article. --Polaron | Talk 01:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough to ever have real references. There are at least two Gundam Wikis where this would be much more appropriate.[43] [44]Sbacle 18:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.Harlowraman 13:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, non notable fancruft. Rehevkor 18:15, 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. CitiCat^♫ 01:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cosmic Era mobile units[edit]

Indiscriminate list of weapons in comic. More suitable for a anime wiki, but not wikipedia, per WP:NOT Oscarthecat 06:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After most of the individual MS/MA pages of CE were deleted why do you want to delete the last page on which they are listed? Diabound 15:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 21:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More Gundam world items. While I respect that someone is interested in what appears to be a very detailed fictional universe, there is a limit to how much an encylopedia should be inclusive of fantasy rather than reality. There are other websites, besides Wikipedia, that can host something of such unlimited magnitude, and such limited interest. Mandsford 00:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonable way to cover a defining subject in a clearly notable anime saga. And believe it or not, people do write guide books to this series. It is clearly a list of fixed scope, namely mobile units in a given anime, which is hardly indiscriminate. Content could be improved, but that's not a deletion reason. Oh, and try to be more explicit than just WP:NOT. FrozenPurpleCube 01:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just like cars from Need for Speed are not appropriate for WP, I believe neither is this. Make pages for units that have real world coverage, and put them in a category, but not make a directory of all the fictional units on a TV show Corpx 03:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Need for Speed (video game) quite clearly describes several cars in the game. I don't know if it's complete, but it's there. Need for Speed II Car section is also present, but seems broken. Several of the others have a barebones description which I consider close to useless. And of course, several of the cars do have articles, but then, they exist in the real world, something not true of any actual Gundams (the closest exceptions being theme park models, not working ones...) FrozenPurpleCube 04:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any mentions are kept inside the article, where its an editorial decision, rather than ported over to a new page. Cars exist in the real world, but in game statistics are not always applicable to the real world. If anyone cares to Merge all this back into the main article, you have my support. Corpx 14:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable, verifiable out-of-universe third party sources to establish its notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except, we can show that the television show is notable. This is a significant aspect of that show, often covered in material about the show. Thus some coverage of it is appropriate. Really, notability isn't a magic button you can wave and say "But this isn't notable" when in fact, there are nuances to consider. Especially with regards to fictional concepts. And in this case, there are the Gundam Technical Manuals to consider. Clearly out of universe, and clearly about this particular concept. FrozenPurpleCube 04:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because the television show is notable does not mean this is. Notability is not inherited. And as I said in another AFD further down the page, the guidebooks are irrelevant. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, the problem with throwing out Wikilinks is that they tend to leave out the substantial argument directly on the subject. Not always necessary, but in this case, I do wish to see that. Certainly notability isn't *always* inherited, but there *are* times it is. This is one of those times as the Mobile units of the series do merit coverage as they are featured on toys, plastic models, video games, at amusement parks, and yes, in out-of-universe books that can be purchased to inform people interested in the series about the existing concepts in the show. Sorry, but your argument is unpersuasive, as it's clear to me that an effective article on the show would cover the mobile units to some extent. To do otherwise would be quite incomplete. These articles exist not on their own independent merits so much as a way to adequately describe the show itself. FrozenPurpleCube 05:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the entire series itself centers around the use of mobile suits in war. To suggest then that mobile suits do not inherit the notability of a show that has them in its title and centers around them would seem odd. It's kind of like saying the Stargate device isn't notable even though it's used as the name for at least three different series and at this point three movies and serves as the major plot device. Z98 14:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - As an alternative solution to deleting this article, it could be merged with Cosmic Era, as it deals specifically with technology from that Era, or with all of the other Mobile Suit lists to form one single list with separate sections for each Era. As FrozenPurpleCube said, Mobile Suits are the central concept of the entire Gundam metaseries. As such, the information about the Gundam universe would be incomplete without information about the Mobile Suits. -Rycr 08:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Bad faith nom, per my comments in the other Gundam AfDs started by the same user. Jtrainor 20:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise what is bad faith about this nom so I can bear in mind for any future edits. --Oscarthecat 20:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call your nomination bad faith, but the biggest flaws are it incorrectly describes this list as 'indescriminate', incorrectly claims the subject only occurs in a comic and it gives no actual reason for deletion. That and your hit list of articles you've gotten deleted [45] is not in the best of taste. Edward321 23:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jtrainor. If bad faith is still in question, the fact that some rationales include such lines as "delete more Gundam world items" ought to show the motives of those in question. Ugh... I'm so tired of Wikidrama by now... MalikCarr 22:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Literally every other Gundam series has a list similar to this. Also, the Gundam franchise isn't the only ones to have lists like this. We also have pages similar to this in the Stargate, Star Wars, Star Trek, and Honorverse (Honor Harrington series) categories. To suggest that somehow this page is not appropriate would mean all of those also should be removed. If we followed that kind of policy, a substantial fraction of Wikipedia would need to be deleted. Let's be realistic here. The reason a lot of people come to Wikipedia is because this kind of information is present. Z98 20:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the policy at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) isn't going to be followed, I rather wish some folk would campaign to get it revised then. Would avoid a lot of unnecessary AFD's being raised.--Oscarthecat 20:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I became an Inclusionist because I dislike nobility and all the unnecessary conflict it is bringing to Wikipedia and that I believe that verifiablity issues is a better rationale for AFD nominations because of original research or speculation concerns. -Adv193 20:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination inaccurately describes subject, which has appeared in multiple media. The subject being fictional is not grounds for deletion, see Doctor Watson, light saber, Andorian, Acme Corporation, etc. Lack of sources is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 23:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Lists are the best way to treat individually non-notable mecha. --Polaron | Talk 01:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I also agree that these lists display details for mecha that are do not deserve their own articles. I must also state for all Gundam deletion nominations that if they are deleted from Wikipedia then they should be Trans-Wikied straight to the Gundam Wiki page where other previously deleted content had been sent to. -Adv193 20:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to further note that without exception, EVERY Gundam-related page that has been deleted and later had an attempt at re-creation with a new article was speedied and then protected to prevent recreation. Jtrainor 11:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Ugh that is bad and I get the feeling if any strategic attempt regardless towards redoing the style of a recreated page to avoid fully recreating the plot in a single profile, or avoiding defining weapons or abilities in the mobile suit to avoid copyright MAHQ.net files, then it will truly be a world of hurt for the people trying to recreate and reformat those articles to avoid the same qualification for an AFD nomination. But seriously is there a way to recreate a file in a way to avoid similarities to MAHQ.net. -Adv193 02:04, 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 — Caknuck 18:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bastet (video game)[edit]

Only claim to fame is a trivial mention at slashdot [46], which mearly reprints some info from the Bastet website and points to another mention at a blog. No other independent references, other than the usual directory entries, so fails our notability guidelines. Marasmusine 06:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 06:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable per nom. --Oscarthecat 06:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable on it's own. A mention in List of Tetris variants is sufficient. Calgary 07:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge, seems to meet notability. [47] [48] Carlosguitar 08:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think merging it to List of Tetris variants is justified. On a related note: This is one evil game :) 1redrun ^Talk 09:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Not notable. Could be Merged into List of Tetris variants. Zouavman Le Zouave 11:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Bastet is already listed there in the "Notable unofficial games" table (we would just have to copy the reference over), although why would we list anything not notable? Marasmusine 11:06, 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. --Core desat 04:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious attitudes to racism[edit]

This article is horrible. Wikipedia does not need an article about how religion is against racism. This article has several POV issues; it is bias for some religions ang bias against others. Sefringle^Talk 06:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 06:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete While I object to the use of words like "horible", I don't see the need for this article. If racism is a significant subject with regards to a particular religion, I think its discussion is better served in that religion's article. Calgary 07:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge in more focussed articles. As it is, it is a transversal essay, not an encyclopedia article. Goochelaar 09:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sefringle. -- Jeff3000 12:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per Calgary 69.116.62.33 13:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Calgary. Dominictimms 14:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article attempts to cover racism within all world religions, which to too broad a scope to cover in a single article. The topic is best covered in each individual religion's article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need for a merge. This is just a hodgepodge of information and is largely a synthesis of information and thus a form of original research. Any of the keepable material is already better covered in other articles, such as articles about individual religions. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay article with OR and POV problems. Artw 18:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm aware that at one time, the Bible was relied upon by some interpreters to justify discrimination against the descendants of Ham, descendants of Ishmael, descendants of Shem, etc., and it's noteworthy that someone has found the specific verses relied upon. My only question is whether other religions were citing passages in support of discrimination, or whether someone has simply seen a quote that "seems" racist. The article suggests that others have cited these, I don't know. Mandsford 00:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this should be kept because what ...? Have you really addressed the above concerns with the article?--Sefringle^Talk 00:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point? This is going to get deleted anyway... Mandsford 22:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afd is a discussion, not a vote. If you want the article kept, you need to try to convince us that we are wrong in wanting to delete this article.--Sefringle^Talk 03:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

Oh, of course. I'll do that after I leave some milk and cookies for Santa. Mandsford 22:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH - Taking examples of racism from religions and putting them all under this broad topic Corpx 03:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford. Well-sourced, can be improved. Bearian 03:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge that which is reliably sourced with racism.Bless sins 03:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with racism, but do not delete.Bless sins 22:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - religiocruft.Baka man 05:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important issue, and the subject itself is not inherently POV. To deal with POV content by deleting the article rather than editing it is not the way to go. JASpencer 14:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sefringle, Bakasuprman. -- Karl Meier 14:15, 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 CSD A1, non-admin close. Oyster guitarist 06:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giga Beam[edit]

Speedy deleted, no context, non-notable. --Oscarthecat 06:36, 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 delete. --Core desat 04:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Lights[edit]

Article does not assert notability. (Also in the interest of full disclosure, the editor who created the page is the director.) Girolamo Savonarola 06:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTFILM. An IMDb listing does not necessarily establish notability. I also checked MRQE to see if the movie received any reviews, and found none. BlueAg09 (Talk) 09:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per above research results and WP:NOTFILM. Zouavman Le Zouave 10:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep But add more information about the film. 70.21.254.188 18:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of coverage/reviews etc Corpx 03:50, 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 merge to the novel. Xoloz 13:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finux[edit]

An interesting play on words, but a non-notable fictional component of the novel. Would just be trivia if merged into the source text's article. EEMeltonIV 05:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 05:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (if not already adequately mentioned) to the novel; may also warrant brief mention in relevant sections of Linux in pop culture articles. Girolamo Savonarola 06:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cryptonomicon. Oyster guitarist 06:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I assumed that there was consensus and merged the article with Cryptonomicon. Now it's a redirect, eventually it could be deleted, if this is deemed to be more appropriate. GhePeU 22:14, 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. DS 03:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Atheist Alliance[edit]

Article is a fairly obvious hoax; there is no such organization. Creator (User:Joe kickass1989)'s made two other edits: one ([49]) was vandalism, and the other was the creation of Australian Aetheist Alliance, which has since been deleted. A Google search for Australian Atheist Alliance ([50]) returned zero non-Wikipedia (or Wikipedia mirror) hits. ~ Danelo 04:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 04:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research--Sefringle^Talk 06:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How can one of the world's foremost atheist rights groups have few open members? I'm not going to outright say this is a hoax, but it is certainly very, very questionable (especially when you throw in the lack of sources). Calgary 07:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:OR and WP:HOAX. Carlosguitar 09:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a reasonably obvious hoax as far as I can see. Euryalus 09:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an "underground society" that doesn't seem to be mentioned in any reliable sources. It's either a hoax or it's unverifiable. Jakew 09:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — OR. Zouavman Le Zouave 10:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether it's a hoax or not, it's unreferenced and unverified. There is actually an Atheist Society in Australia (they aren't underground and even have a web site) but no sources supporting the existence of this one. Dbromage [Talk] 23:47, 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. --Core desat 04:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Entertainment[edit]

Brought in from speedy, where it was tagged as being a spam page. Article was created in 2005, and while it is very definitely promotional in tone, this company may be notable in Australia and New Zealand. Procedural nomination Reso lute 04:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 08:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the larger cinema operators in NZ, and certainly notable as a niche third player in the Australian market. Enough reliable sources on gnews search [51] Recurring dreams 09:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as per Recurring Dreams. I have deleted a large copyvio/advertising section that had been added by an anon.--Melburnian 09:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I must say I've never seen one of these cinemas myself, but after a brief look they seem like a notable enough company. Tone is not unreasonable after Melburnian's edits. Lankiveil 10:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - one of the largest cinema chains in Australia. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:52, 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. --Core desat 04:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of English Americans[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article is at AFD because it was previously considered here and has been re-nominated for deletion via WP:PROD; therefore, this is a procedural nomination. The prior discussion in March 2007 was as part of a mass AFD for multiple lists of "(Ancestral Nationality) Americans", the overall outcome of which was 'no consensus' with instructions to take individual articles to AFD again should that be warranted. The PROD-nomination was done in August 2007 with the stated reasoning "like list of Portuguese Americans", an article which is currently being considered here on AFD as part of a new mass-deletion nomination. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no reason given for nomination. These are very appropiate lists.--Sefringle^Talk 06:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there was a reason given. Bulldog123 07:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 06:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is what categories are for. Scope for article is hopeless huge otherwise. --Oscarthecat 06:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most readers have no idea what categories are nor do they know how to navigate and use them. Lists make them easier for new readers. Also the reason for deletion at List of Portuguese Americans is weak, should information not be included because there is so much? This article badly needs sources though. T Rex | talk 11:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Oscarthecat is right, this is what categories are for. English American says there are 25 million of us in this country who identify as having English ancestry, and likely at least twice as many. Can we say "unmaintainable and indiscriminate"? ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete way too broad to be of use, consider a category if one doesn't already exist. Artw 18:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arkyan. Listings by ethnicity are almost always needless and batch together a bunch of people who have a fairly minimal connection to one another. Mad Jack 19:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful navigation aide as provided for in WP:LIST - navigation is one of the primary purposes of lists. And for anyone interested in monitoring and maintaining articles on English Americans using Wikipedia's Related changes command, this list would be invaluable. Wikipedia has two overlapping navigation systems - lists and categories. Both possess strengths that the other system lacks, and both are well-established. Personal preference of one of those systems over the other is not an acceptable basis for deletion of a page. The Transhumanist 00:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are so many Americans who can claim descent from someone in England, I can see where this list could go on forever: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, etc.... One could say the same about German-Americans, Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Scotch-Irish Americans, etc. I think that a list of first-generation English-Americans (i.e., a parent or grandparent from England) would be of interest. I'd separate out the descendants from the Mayflower. Mandsford 00:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meaningless: how much English must one be to get listed here? what RSes are there to prove it: and someone's own statement about what they think their ancestry is may not be reliable they may have a Madeleine Albright moment in the future and be something other than they thought. Moreover, why should WP be categorizing people on this basis? Carlossuarez46 00:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per trivial intersection. I highly doubt their racial background had much to do with their notability Corpx 03:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of ETHNICITY-American destroy the purpose behind making a nationality list. Lists are not meant to house ALL famous people from a nation, which is exactly what these subdivisions are pushing. A list of Americans should only have short lists of the most notable AMERICAN writers. For example Mark Twain as a great example of an American writer. If ethnic articles such as English Americans wish to have brief narrative mentions or artists or scientists who somehow are known for their Englishness, then fine. But a list like this shouldn't fly. Bulldog123 07:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists of only "most notable" people are generally regarded as a violation of NPOV. Kappa 07:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx, Arkyan, Dark Teal, et al. CAT. Bearian 03:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete these pages need a strict definition to work. My mother's parents were from Sweden. We have a Swedish Christmas meal every year. I've been to Sweden. Does that make me Swedish-American? The Swedish-American list page includes one-parent second generation individuals. If the category is undefined, I say Delete. On the other hand, these lists can be of interest, as in "I didn't know he/she was Pomeranian-American!" Make a requirement "first generation, or both parents, second generation" and it's a keeper. MarkinBoston 20:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that is an appropriate definition, also Category:English Americans has a stricter one: This category includes articles on people who emigrated from England to the United States, or are self-identified as English Americans." Currently the list appears to include people who don't meet this kind of strict definition, but I'm not going to go through it and remove them if the list is going to be deleted anyway. Kappa 06:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, list of Portuguese Americans and the others survived AFD (as non consensus) so we should be looking for reasons why this list is more deletable than the others. In fact this is a particularly notable ethnic origin, and the only problem here is unclear inclusion criteria which is easily fixable. This list is organized better than the category and has references which a category can't. Also annotation is necessary to do this job properly; this list has inadequate annotations but a category can never have any. Kappa 06:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Articles like this one are very common and useful. — EliasAlucard|Talk 10:07 25 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to redirect you to the essay on bad keep arguments, but could you perhaps say WHY this is so much more useful? Or perhaps, what kind of academic uses exist to knowing that Ted Danson has English ancestry? Seems like WP:TRIVIA to me. Bulldog123 01:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. CitiCat^♫ 01:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astrobrite[edit]

I deleted this a little too quickly while doing some Speedy checking, bringing here as procedural. humblefool ® 19:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for reconsidering. I'm new to this, so I'm just fine-tuning the page now (references etc) but I maintain that the page has a place on Wikipedia. Scott Cortez (the man behind Astrobrite) has a strong following in the noise-pop/ambiance scene that has spanned across two decades. His other project 'loveliescrushing' also has a Wiki page here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redfuzzbluefuzz (talk • contribs) 19:45, 15 August 2007
Delete. The only notability mention was for a fan page, and there's not much mor than that on here. If more references can be scared up, I'll change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added their current label's page now too. It seems kind of buggy, but it does back up my discography entries. I'm not sure how much more is needed, both references seem to cover everything I've written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by redfuzzbluefuzz (talk • contribs) — redfuzzbluefuzz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Independent media coverage would go a long way, actually. (Also, if you could put ~~~~ after your posts, it'll sign your name after them.) humblefool ® 20:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 04:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much major press shoegaze gets these days; I know I only heard about it after starting with Wiki a couple years ago... however, it does seem that there are a few things out there about this project on music-related sites. A review of one album, an interview here, and another review... so there's a bit of play. However... might I suggest a merge to lovesliescrushing, as it is a side project Cortez has outside of that band, which seems to easier meet WP:MUSIC. Otherwise, weak, weak keep and encourage someone to turn up some strong references for this. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep if some good references turn up, if not, then merge per Tony Fox. Neranei (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - arrrrg, this is the reason why WP:MUSIC should be revamped! But did they listen to me? 'Course not. Merging is an alternative -- Steve Hart 22:36, 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 speculation and strung together original synthesis. Half essay, half gossip, and very little encyclopedia article. There's useful material which may belong in History of the Toronto Maple Leafs, so I can make the text available to people who want it.-Wafulz 18:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second NHL team in Toronto[edit]

Article fails WP:CBALL Smashville 03:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps it should be renamed Proposed Second NHL team in Toronto, but the subject is an interesting one. Sasha Callahan 03:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think it quite qualifies as crystal-balling, since there's verifiable historical information here. Ford MF 05:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename "Proposed second NHL team in southern Ontario". None of the references mention Toronto as a possible site (and it would be a total fantasy to think that it could happen or that anybody is seriously trying for it). Clarityfiend 05:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although this is a somewhat interesting article, and league decisions on actual awards of expansion franchises are notable (consisting of a few winners and many losers), THIS is no more notable than any other North American city hoping for an expansion franchise from the NHL, nor from the NFL, the NBA or MLB. As the article points out, the NHL has no plans to expand at this time so this qualifies as nothing more than a dream. Smashville is right, this is what they call crystal-balling. I encourage the author to look for other places to merge an abridged version. Mandsford 15:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is almost a long strung news story and is "not encyclopedic". We should not be writing about every city's attempt to get a pro franchise. Corpx 03:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article should not be deleted under WP:CRYSTAL because despite the name, the article does relatively little to speculate. Instead, the article talks about discussions of a second team. The issue here is notability. Calgary 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have a candidate running for local office, but no date for an election. Would you keep that? Triple3D 14:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 04:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A article about some speculative discussions of bringing a second team without any specificic agreement done already is incredibly volatile, just ask yourselves what would happen with it if the discussions fall? - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that event: The article could "end" with something like "however in 20XX discussions broke down and the NHL announced that there never would be another NHL team in Toronto, and in fact, they were awarding a team to Lower East Tiffburg, this team to replace the Maple Leafs because they were fed up with the idea" . Just an idea anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 05:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe we should just wait and see what happens. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 05:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, great news! The NHL awarded Toronto a second franchise, to play all its home games just south of Southern Ontario, on the Buffalo side, and it will be called the Sabres. Good thing we waited. Mandsford 00:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since I already closed it anyway [52] - full speculation. Giggy ^Talk 22:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an article discussing the history and such NHL Expansion plans. Possibly including contraction as well. List of defunct NHL teams and the like really aren't adequate. FrozenPurpleCube 05:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Syring[edit]

Delete. WP:NOT#INFO. Thousands of people are indicted every year, and, under WP:BLP1E, they don't get WP:BIOgraphy pages unless they were notable before the indictment. Yeah, it's a felony, and it got mentioned by AP and some left-wing blogs, but this guy isn't Seung-Hui Cho. The page is an orphan. In the alternative, if editors believe this is a notable case, I suggest moving to United States v. Syring. THF 04:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject is notable for his position and his conduct while in that position, not merely because he was indicted.Lfp 13:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was floored by this story and have never heard of a State Department diplomat being indicted for threatening minorities with racist language. This story is global and goes far beyond "the AP and some left-wing blogs". However, I would agree that the subject himself is not of biographical interest, and would concur moving to United States v. Syring provided Patrick Syring re-directed. Lfp 04:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As of 21 August, Google News coverage in the international press is limited to repeats of wire-service information. No diplomatic reaction. THF 04:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an ongoing story though, right? According to this, he'll be arraigned on August 30th. I suspect the case will generate more reaction as it moves through the legal system. Popkultur 04:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. (Though the story will get more notice when it's discovered that Pat1425 was editing Zogby's wikipedia page in 2006.) THF 05:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I was pretty sure it was him...if someone was trolling with his name, the Pat1425 account would've been created more recently. Are you serious, that Pat1425's edits could cause more trouble for Syring? A friend of mine said that since the case hasn't yet gone to trial, this could be considered manipulating the jury pool. Hopefully this won't cause him more trouble than he's already got. Totally off-topic, but interesting nonetheless. Popkultur 05:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attention, rather than trouble, since the media seems to love Wikipedia stories. There isn't a "manipulating-the-jury-pool" risk since Syring could buy a full-page ad to say the same thing if he were so inclined. Of course, some of his edits to his article could be viewed as admissions or evidence in court if the Wikipedia account is linked to him. Of course, this assumes that Pat1425 is Syring, which is only an allegation in an indictment. THF 05:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The international media does not have to add new facts to a straightforward story for it to be globally significant, and Ministers of State do not have to make public comments for an event to have diplomatic consequences. In fact, the story was covered by AP and Reuters and was picked up, and edited, by news sources around the world, as I said earlier.

Here is an editorial from Cyprus about the story.

Here is coverage in Malaysian news source.

Here is a story from Bahrain, not a re-print of the wire services.

Here is a story from Lebanon, again not a direct copy of the wire service stories.Lfp 13:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Lfp, it's pretty bizarre for a diplomat to be indicted on these charges. Even stranger is that he was posted in Lebanon during the 1990's! It definitely reflects badly on State. I agree that in order to "cover the event, and not the person" this article should be moved to United States v. Syring, but I disagree that the article should be deleted entirely. I also agree that the biography is unimportant to the event. Popkultur 04:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bizarre story long past the WP:CRYSTAL stage by now, no matter how THF spins it. Indicted? Reported by the AP? A keeper. --Calton | Talk 05:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the AP wire service story and the stories by 4 newspapers around the world which were not reprints of the AP story. A bio article about this would seem to be a WP:COATRACK since he was not a very notable State Department employee before the rants started, so per Wikipedia policies the article should be retitled to United States v. Syring as suggested by THF, to better describe the court case resulting from the defamatory messages. The facts that the indictment charges that the inflammatory emails from [email protected] came from the defendant, and that Wikipedia account Pat1425 was established March 8, 2005 and was used to edit the articles on Syring and on Zogby, may cause bad publicity for Wikipedia, but that has no real bearing on the AFD. Edison 15:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Move While it may be a one-day wonder, the indictment is international news. The article isn't based on the fact of indictment, but on the notability created by the news coverage thereof. I don't entirely agree that the article is a WP:COATRACK; the indictment is the major piece of notability, but the bio material gives it context. Much of that bio material would be needed (overseas posting, career at State, education in foreign service) if the article were moved. However, Wikipedia's purposes would be met under either name. (If it stays as a BIO, WP:BLP might be better enforced...?) Studerby 21:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I won't object to a rename to, say, Patrick Syring harassment case (which is far more descriptive than U.S. v Syring, which I doubt it is ever really called in the media). This ties right in with administration policies and regional objectives, which is why it's (at least potentially) explosive. --Dhartung | Talk 22:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/move. Clearly notable, though I agree with the above comment that if nothing more comes out of it than the case, the article should be about the case and moved to reflect that. There is a sourcing problem - the article should have reliable sources. IN case it isn't clear from the above here are two [53] and [54] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 08:40, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
Keep"Thousands of people are indicted every year," writes the nominator for deletion but the point that tries to make is false for it overlooks the crucial fact: How many of these thousands find themselves to be US diplomats, official officers of the US embassy indicted on such serious charges? Who he was when he perpetrated this crime, as a respresentative of the State, makes him notable as is evidenced by the fact that this has been an international story. Of course, the US press, as is typical, will downplay it, but that is to be expected with the kind of media we have in the US. In anycase, this is not ordinary, its newsworthy, has been picked up by the press, and is an on-going event.Giovanni33 17:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and oppose any redirect. A former U.S. Ambassador, who had served in a diplomatic post in the Middle East, said, "The only good Arab is a dead Arab." That would be notable whether or not he were indicted. JamesMLane t c 23:40, 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 Speedy Delete G10 just as AfD was opened, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha smile[edit]

Defamatory and non-notable Somebody Else's Problem^{(aka Alethiophile)Ask me why} 03:40, 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 merge to Demographics of Jerusalem. Most editors called for "merge and delete"; this is an invalid recommendation under the terms of the GFDL, and so the article will simply be merged, with a redirect retained. Neil ム 11:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalemite[edit]

I and a few other editors believe there is nothing special about the word "Jerusalemite" that deserves its own article distinct from the plethora of other Jerusalem articles (listed in Category:Jerusalem). It appears that the page can only be a hodgepodge of sundry factoids about Jerusalem that more properly belong elsewhere. There is good content on this page, namely the "Overview" section, but this has already been merged into Demographics of Jerusalem, which I think is a more natural home for this sociological info. What remains is the "Intercommunal relations" section, which basically reiterates various aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This info is already covered on other pages, especially East Jerusalem (to which I already added info about the stripping of residency status). Therefore, I don't see what further use we now have for this page. nadav (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletions. -- nadav (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- nadav (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demographics of Jerusalem but ensure it is mentioned in both Jerusalem and Demographics of Jerusalem (see New Yorker as an example of how it should be done). Number 57 08:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean that the articles should mention that "Jerusalemite" is the correct inflection of "Jerusalem" for referring to people and things from or relating to Jerusalem? nadav (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. Number 5 7 11:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the sources cited throughout, Jerusalemite is a term with a unique history and usage, certainly worthy of exposition in an article. I disagree with Nadav's characterization of the "Intercommunal relations" section as basically reiterating aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The information is specific to Jerusalemites only and should be expanded to include all of the different Jerusalemite communities. Tiamat 11:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (with a redirect to Demographics of Jerusalem). "Jerusalemite" is nothing but an inflection of "Jerusalem", and does not warrant an article. All relevant info has been merged into the appropriate articles. okedem 12:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not so. First of all, Jerusalemite has had a number of different meanings over the years that are tied to Jerusalem's long history of diverse habitation. Those different meanings are and can be further explored in this article. Further, much of the information in the article has not been merged elsewhere despite its being useful and well-sourced. Tiamat 16:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merge into other Jerusalem articles 69.116.62.33 12:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Belongs under some other Jerusalem article. Probably Demographics of Jerusalem. 70.21.254.188 18:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Should be merged.--Sefringle^Talk 00:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Notable. A common historic term. I see more than 700 hits on Google Books [55] containg the term, with 200 publications from before 1900 (almost the same amount as William Shakespeare, who has 280 pre-1900 hits); in the last two years alone there are 150. Neither Jerusalem or Demographics of Jerusalem are suitable, as those are dealing mostly with the present-day situation -- Steve Hart 23:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is very, very far from the point. It's like arguing that because "the" or the indefinite article "a" are used quite often, then we should have individual articles about them. "Jerusalemite" is only used to talk about people or things relating to Jerusalem, so content should be in the proper Jerusalem pages, whether it be History of Jerusalem, Demographics of Jerusalem, or whatever else you prefer. nadav (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC) And the objection that "those are dealing mostly with the present-day situation" would seem to indicate you have not even bothered to read Demographics of Jerusalem, since it carries all the historical content in Jerusalemite word for word. nadav (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It remains the case however, that Jerusalemite as a term has a unique centuries long history that distinguishes from other adjectival equivalents such as New Yorker. If Palestinophilia can be retained, I see no reason that Jerusalemite cannot. Tiamat 10:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nadav, if Jerusalemite simply was "a person living in Jerusalem" I would agree with you. But historically the term refers to a person devoted to the Holy places of Jerusalem, ie. the correct definition was a person of faith. These people settled down in the Old City to perform religious duties, hence the name, but it did not refer to everyone living in Jerusalem, nor did it exclusively refer to people in Jerusalem (there was even a religious sect who called themselves the New Jerusalemites with churches in England [56] and Scotland [57]). It's true that the term today is more often used to refer to people living in Jerusalem, but this is no excuse to disregard the important history defined by the name, which has nothing to do with demography -- Steve Hart 15:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then. I suppose that might be the sort of thing Tiamut should have written in the article in the first place, instead of what she did write - which only refers to the dictionary meaning of the word, as an inflection of Jerusalem. okedem 15:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that in your zeal to delete the article, you missed those points Okedem:

Jerusalemites are of varied national, ethnic and religious denominations and include European, Middle Eastern, and African Jews, as well as Palestinians, Muslim and Christian Arabs, and Greek, Armenian, Syrian, and Coptic Christians, among others. Many of these groups were once immigrants or pilgrims that have with time become near indigenous populations; many claim the importance of Jerusalem to their faith as their reason for moving to and being in the city.

Tiamat 16:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't worry, I read the whole article, including that paragraph. It has little to do with what Steve Hart said above. okedem 17:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange you would see it that way. Steve Hart's definition revolved around "a person of faith". The sentences above say explicitly that many claim the importance of Jerusalem to their faith as their reason for moving to and being in the city. Isn't this a less explicit way of saying the same thing? Tiamat 12:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. okedem 13:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To each his own I guess then. Tiamat 20:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford English Dictionary has no listing for the word "Jerusalemite," so I am skeptical. Could you provide a source for this etymology? By the way, an article should be created about the British New Jerusalemites sect, but the topic appears to be tangential to this article's subject. nadav (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Upon further reading, it looks like we have two articles on it already: The New Church and Swedenborgianism. nadav (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the website Onelook.com ([58]), which searches hundreds of dictionaries, found only one mention of "Jerualemite", via Dictionary.com ([59]), which was actually a definition for "Jerusalem", listing "Jerusalemite" as the adjective/noun, but saying nothing further. Same goes for the Merriam-Webster dictionary ([60]). okedem 08:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised that the dictionary would not give a history of the use of the term and its etymology since in popular usage today, it tends to mean merely a "Resident of Jerusalem". That does not however erase the relevancy of the historical usage of the term, its unique history, and its application to and by different groups. These are all worthy of further examination. Indeed, if you had not kept blanking the page and redirecting to Demographics of Jerusalem, the article could have been developed further. Hopefully now we will have that chance. Tiamat 12:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And are you also not surprised to almost no dictionary even recognizes the existence of the term? Perhaps because it's... non-notable?

As the content you chose to put into the article is nothing more than demographics data and some historical tidbits, I find any further development unlikely (at least in any useful direction, and not as a POV-fork). okedem 13:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The OED is the most complete listing of etymologies that I know. It also contains many archaic or obsolete words. nadav (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who's adressing who here, but in case the point aligned with mine was directed at me: I can only reiterate what I said, that Jerusalemite is a name historically unrelated to demography. I will offer the following quote from the Acts of the Apostles by Samuel Thomas Bloomfield, from 1828, it says:
... when the conversion of Cornelius had been noised abroad, som Cyprians and Cyreneans, converted to Christianity by these Jerusalemite Christians, came to Antioch, and, as being Hellenists dwelling among Gentiles, and thus so much the more disposed to tolerate and admit pagans, they communicated the doctrine of Christ to the Gentiles dwelling at Antioch.[61]

The Antioch it speaks of is, I believe, the one founded about 300 BC and destroyed in 1268. Further, on the Jerusalemite Christians it says:

Mosheim and Kuinoel are of the opinion that the whole of the Jerusalemite Christians was diveded into seven parties, or families, for which there were as many places of public whorship; and that hence also seven persons were elected for the purpose of taking care of the poor and of the strangers ... [62]

As can be seen in the last quote, the context is one of a religious sect, and that has little to do with demography. The wording is interesting, it says "Jerusalemite Christians" rather than "Christian Jerusalemites". Finally, me mentioning the New Jerusalemites in England/Scotland was merely an example as to how far beyond Jerusalem it spread, they were not Jerusalemites in the true meaning of the word. As to your point about dictionaries, I can only refer you to WP:NOT#DICTIONARY - I think you will find that the names of most article in WP are not in a dictionary. I might have erred in calling it a term (I'm not a native English speaker), but it is a name. I have not made any edits to this article, but I may add the little I know when time allows. -- Steve Hart 16:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I think all your inferences here are very false. The first sources you brought that mentioned "New Jerusalemites" were very clearly talking about the Christian sect that evolved out of the philosophies of Emanuel Swedenborg about his vision of the New Jerusalem. See the articles I linked to earlier. The other sources you cite are talking about the very early Christian church. I see no reason not to interpret the text plainly as "Christians that come from Jerusalem". Please bring sources that explicitly support your claim that Jerusalemite means more than "from, of, or relating to Jerusalem".nadav (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what is unclear. People of faith went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem, some with the strongest belief settled there, mixed with the local population and founded, over a period of time, various religious sects (or groups). Commonly they were know as the Jerusalemites and that name became a symbol for their faith. The Jerusalemites were both Christian, Jewish and, in time, Muslim. The New Jerusalemites didn't come around before 1800 (if you reread my response you'll see the use of brackets). -- Steve Hart 04:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and Tiamut's claim as well; There is no article on the typical 'New Yorker', merely a bland disambig page. --Shuki 20:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What claim did I make that supports the deletion of this article? Tiamat 20:55, 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 deleted by me, the nominator. I didn't make the link that it was web content- my early morning brain said 'film- not speediable.' J Milburn 03:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Quickest Second (Film)[edit]

Non notable film. Prod tag was removed by the author without explanation. Delete. J Milburn 02:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Youtube video that, while apparently popular among the creator's friends and teachers, "didn't so[sic] quite so well on Youtube," according to the author. Absolutely non-notable and clearly speedy-able per A7. —Travis ^talk 03:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I'm inclined to agree that A7 is very applicable here. Calgary 03:47, 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 per WP:SNOW, tagged with {{db-afd}}, non admin closure. Giggy ^Talk 02:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by me. You like your non-admin closures, don't you? :-) J Milburn 03:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European magi[edit]

Seems to be made up. Author has been asked for sources, but the idea of a Christian army before the birth of Christ seems more than a little shady to me. Fightindaman 01:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Patent nonsense.Saganaki- 02:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Although not exactly patent nonsense, it is certainly a hoax. To quote from the article, "In 10 bc, many christians from around the europe came together to form a small army of around 800." Christians in 10 BC? As there were no Christians until some years after Christ's birth, this article is ridiculous. —Travis ^talk 02:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC) [EDIT CONFLICT][reply]
Delete unless something in WP:CSD applies, in which case Speedy Delete it. A European army of 800 Christians who predate Christ's birth - how ludicrous. --Hyperbole 02:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, asinine isn't covered by WP:CSD. —Travis^talk 02:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, obviously WP:SNOWBALL isn't policy, but if there were ever a time to apply it, this might be it... --Hyperbole 02:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this subject. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this subject as well. It is most probably patent nonsense. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G1: Clearly a hoax. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 02:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CSD#G1 doesn't apply here. —Travis ^talk 02:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There were no Christians in 10 BC. Nonsense. 69.116.170.120 02:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as copyright violation. --Haemo 04:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lotti and Rosemarie Knaak[edit]

Possible WP:V and/or notability problems. Every Google result for these twins seems to reference this article. Hyperbole 01:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, this webpage seems to be a reliable source on this subject. However, it must also be noted that a quick google search shows up very few links to this subject. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That page really appears to be a Wikipedia mirror to me. Even if it isn't, does the community feel that conjoined twins are inherently notable, simply because of their rarity? Because I can't find any evidence that these two generated exceptional media interest - and considering that at least one of them died as a small child, she couldn't have had any major accomplishments. --Hyperbole 02:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. CSD/G12: Copyvio. Google searchification turned up this page which is significantly similar to the original version of the page. The current version differs by some very minor changes and omission of the second and subsequent paragraphs. --slakr 02:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wouldn't be surprised if that Tripod page cut-and-pasted from Wikipedia, not the other way around. --Hyperbole 02:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable assumption, but the article here was created 11 Feb 07 while the other website claims to have been updated on 10.8.06, so WP:COPYVIO is still in play. —Travis ^talk 02:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Archive.org[63] confirms that the page existed in 2006. --Hyperbole 02:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Per copyright violations. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:54, 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. --Core desat 04:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The long tail paradox[edit]

I thank Goochelaar for his insight in which he was able to track my bold comments which I inserted under my name and to come out with the brilliant conclusion that they are mine!!! And than to change my comments to non bold smaller letters - Thank you. Just to say that until now I havn't even seen one comment that finds a flaw in the paradox. Just to make it easier for Goochelaar to find this comment I will put in Bold again. Also I challenge Goochelaar which is an active and succesfull mathematician according to his profile to find a flaw in the paradox.User:Yitshak2003.

Please see below. --Goochelaar 12:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what follows, I have put in a smaller type the edits by User:Yitshak2003. Although he has modified comments by other editors in a way that made it difficult to discern his own interventions, I deemed unfair to just revert his edits. --Goochelaar 10:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The long tail article in wikepedia is not better. It relies on internet based articles mainly by the same guy that wrote that article which uses the article in a smart way to promote his website "the long tail". After all the paradox is valid until someone will find a flaw in it. moreover it is a well O. K. Yitshak is posting his own research as a page. The creator of the page was User:Yitshak2003, and he also edited The Long Tail. Do a google search on "long tail paradox" and you get sites that talk about different "paradoxes", and his does not show. Do a google search on "the long tail paradox" and the article appears on the 6th place!! Moreover there are tens of paradoxes related to the long tail that you can find in google. I would expect people to add their thoughts on the article, edit it and make it a full article showing all the acpects of this subject, rather than trying to get rid of it. It seems that someone is afraid of the issue - maybe there are business plans and advisors that are worried of a real discussion on the issue. an http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Long_Tail&diff=151990710&oldid=151878991 is the link showing his name. Jjamison 01:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Long Tail or Delete. It's difficult for me to tell from the external links whether the paradox is the brainchild of O. K. Yitshak - does using insulting comments add to an inteligent discussion? -or whether it's an actual notable observation by economists. One thing is for sure: the Long Tail certainly doesn't need two articles. --Hyperbole 01:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The beginning paragraph and the external links on The long tail paradox were lifted directly from The Long Tail. The nomination was for the information following about "search engines income" [sic], which does not seem to have any support I can find on Google, just the one link provided by User:Yitshak2003. Jjamison 01:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks good, sourced, but no good google hits. Funny, how google has become a reliable source to prove that something doesn't have reliable sources. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 02:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the Long Tail has been written about, but O.K. Yitshak's thoughts on it have not. Fails WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails OR. Also dubious maths. --BozMo talk 07:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: OR, nonsensical pseudomaths. Goochelaar 09:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete little worth merging. Artw 21:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete² per all of the above. Dbromage [Talk] 00:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to publish your new ideas. Burntsauce 18:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, violates WP:OR. Bearian 03:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to Yitshak2003: As you my check by referring to this page's history, you forgot to sign you comments, and they were only partially in bold, exactly as they are now. And moreover, you are not supposed to insert them randomly within other people's remarks. As for your paradox being flawed or not: Wikipedia is not the place to have it checked. You can write a paper about it and submit it to any of a number of scientific journals which will be interested in reviewing it and, if it is valid, in publishing it. Or you could give a talk about it at some conference. However, Wikipedia is not the place in which to publish one's original result, it is a reference work to read about already-reviewed research, sorry. --Goochelaar 12:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to Goochelaar: As much as I understand Wikepedia is about free content or free information on all branches of knowledge or in a particular branch of knowledge (this is a quote from wikepedia). The subject which I called the Long Tail Paradox is as valid as any subject since there are houndreds of articles that deal with the subject and more over it is a growing discussion beyond internet marketeers. I don't see what conventions or paper journals have to do with it. On the contrary - the whole "internet long tail model" was developed on the internet and only than there were a few books about it.

I am sure that proffesional editing and add ons to the subject will add to the knowledge and the information spread around by wikipedia. Just to give you some list of links that maybe you should read about the subject [64] [65][layout=rich_story&doc_id=7721&title=Cutting+off+the+long+tail&categoryid=9&channelid=3] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yitshak2003 (talk • contribs) 13:27, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these links, but simple pages talking about the long tail (which is in itself an important and well-studied concept) and in which the word "paradox" appears don't do anything to support the article you wrote. Is anywhere, on the net or on paper, that particular paradox mentioned by sources which are reliable and independent (that is, not in a website by you or a friend of yours)? --Goochelaar 13:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anyone of those authors, and they all discuss in different ways the long tail paradox.Did you read any of them at all? Sorry to dissapoint you but Ill keep trying to have this page alive.--Yitshak2003 14:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the comment at top about tens of Google hits and the comment immediately above. I would like to respectfully point out that the sixth item in the Google search is not Yitshak's page, but the Wikipedia page; Yitshak's page does not show. I would further like to point out that the other results in the Google search are all discussing different paradoxes, some of which are not even true paradoxes, and each different from the others; ergo the current content of the article is not the long tail paradox, but rather one of the long tail paradoxes. None of them seems to be all that notable, and I would argue that none of them deserve an article. Lastly, I reiterate Goochelaar's request for other sources referring to this particular paradox, rather than other paradoxes of the same name. Jjamison 06:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paradox written here is not an invention, it is an existing paradox as appears in links that are here (or you can search google for other ). All I put here is just a methematical presentation of the things that are written on the web or other places. Maybe my presentation is not clear enough, maybe someone has a better way of presenting it so as always in wikepedia everyone is welcome to edit and improve the presentation of the subject.--Yitshak2003 07:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it. Would you be so kind as to mention one single website in which this particular paradox (not different paradoxes related to the long tail) is mentioned? --Goochelaar 10:18, 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 WP:SNOW delete. Acalamari 18:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mitten Toss[edit]

No indication of notability, contains the phrase "sport of growing popularity". Players are called tossers. Only outside reference doesn't mention the game at all. WP:HOAX? WP:NFT? Richfife 01:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete based on the deletion log for "Mitten toss.". Google strongly suggests that this sport is played by no more than a handful of fraternities in the midwest, and apparently other editors have noticed this on several occasions. --Hyperbole 01:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not speedy. Speedy declined because G4 only applies to items deleted via XfD & this has not yet been. I suggest that it any case it would be better to delete it here at AfD in a more definitive way. After that, then it can be deleted by speedy when someone is foolish enough to try to put it back. DGG (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Recreation of non notable sport article, can't see any reasonable reason for someone calling a ball 'mitten' either. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete view - certainly has the feel of a hoax to me but, in any case, lacks the necessary sources to establish notability. Bridgeplayer 03:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without sourcing, either a hoax or not notable. Maxa megalon 2000 05:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with out sources it appears to be a hoax. Oyster guitarist 06:36, 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 delete. — TKD::Talk 01:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daiquiri (Canadian band)[edit]

Canadian band with nn label issued 3 nn albums (the blue link is a mis-link to a comic book of the same name, only claim to WP:MUSIC is the presence of a notable ex-member Glenn Humplik without much in the way or sourcing as expected. Carlossuarez46 00:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It would be different if Humplik were a musician with ties to a notable band. Oh, and from the profile of Kharbe Records at discogs.com, "First and foremost, a tribute to a Jamaican opportunist posing as an Africa-Zulu warlord. Secondly, Daiquiri HQ. The hub of all things Daiquiri." Self-released albums.--Sethacus 02:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia has become the dumping ground for people trying to promote their non notable bands lately. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and I agree that wikipedia is becoming a dumping ground for not notable bands. Oyster guitarist 06:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails WP:BAND. Zouavman Le Zouave 10:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self released records? highest google ranking wikipedia? Non notable. give us a break. 3tmx 21:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Self released records and fails WP:MUSIC. Oh yes, and there does seem to be a spate of non-notable bands on Wikipedia. Neranei (talk) 19:51, 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 WP:SNOW deleted. WP:NOT for high school drama advertising. No sources, no reviews. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Absurd Four[edit]

This clearly appears to be a non-notable local high-school drama, thus failing WP:NOTE. There is absolutely no mention of it on google, thus failing WP:V as well: [71]. The Evil Spartan 00:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. And I'm pretty sure the internal link to Jason Gray is for the wrong Jason Gray. He's not Australian, for one thing. Ichormosquito 01:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the group hasn't recieved any non-local independent coverage, then I fail to see how they pass notability. Also take note of the incredible lack of subtlety with which the article praises both the group and its members. Calgary 01:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable needs to be more than notbale in a specific high school. 69.116.170.120 02:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "The Absurd Four have widely been regarded as the greatest dramatic group of Emmanuel College" speaks for itself, nn. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of verification and sources make this article non-notable as a whole.--PrestonH 04:48, 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. The article appears to show notability. The "delete" commenters about it being spam must have read the article at a different revision that what I did, as it doesn't read like spam to me. There's plenty of references as well - just because they aren't accessable on the internet does not make them unreliable. In all, the general consensus was to keep the article. Majorly (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This was deleted through its previous AfD. Deletion Review overturned that result for a variety of reasons, including the AfD's nominator's failure to list the debate in the daily AfD log, limiting community participation. Still, Delete, given weak notability and little reliable sourcing. Xoloz 00:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Merge to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn~~ after reducing the article to facts supported primarily by sources published by reliable publishers. For example, I've done so at User:IPSOS/The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc., where I've minimized the use of the website as a reference (it's still needed for general existence and related "certified" organizations), and tried to only keep the non-controversial facts which could be cited to books published by reliable publishers. I think there is no need to explain teachings, etc. in detail, that's what the Order's website and Cicero's books are for. Of course, I had to rely on Chic Cicero's account of the creation of the Order, but as it is not self-published and only gives a timeline of events, I don't see it as problematic. IPSOS (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, this ~~article~~ order looks to me like its pretending to be the real The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn or as notable as The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, SqueakBox 01:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - so your argument boils down to IDONTLIKEIT, then. IPSOS (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didnt say that, indeed its a very poor understanding of my comments indeed, SqueakBox 01:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "pretending to be the real The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn" ... is simply nowhere to be found in the revised article - if it is, please show us the evidence. If there is no evidence to show that, will you please give your rationale for the above, really difficult to comprehend, example of biased opinin pushing? Furthermore, your comment does nothing to establish the basis for inclusion or removal, of an article which is factual, contributes to understanding of a topic, and provides a careful balanced NPOV article. docboat 01:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn - As proposed in the revised article (see IPSOS above) The revised article is NPOV, encyclopaedic, provides balance. docboat 01:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Revising vote to Keep after re-reading the comments and article. The article does stand alone, the facts will be poorly accepted by POV pushers on the page if merged, and the notability of this movement is evident based on penetration of influence throughout GD circles. docboat 02:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only possible assertion of notability in the article is that Chic Cicero and Tabatha Cicero are associated with it - and I notice that the former author's notability is suspect and survived an AfD with a "no consensus" vote. At any rate, even if these people are well-known within a subculture (and I'm skeptical of that), there's no reason to believe that they confer their notability on this organization. nn. --Hyperbole 02:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you hang about a bit and review the revised article which IPSOS will be inserting? docboat 02:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've updated it. IPSOS (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll give it another look before the close of the AfD. --Hyperbole 02:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Ciceros are notable people within the ceremonial magic community. They seem currently to be the most widely available authors of serious books on the subject, partly through their partnership with Llewellyn publishing, through whom they have released quite a few books. They have also sparked considerable controversy through the naming of their order. Fuzzypeg ☻ 07:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Deletion was overturned recently, and it appears that this article was relisted before it was closed as overturn. (see Xoloz's link above). J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 02:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange comment. I was watching. The close was done at 00:21, then the article was undeleted, then the AfD created at 00:28. Everything seems to be in order. IPSOS (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems to be spam and indirect advertising. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 02:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IPSOS' shearing down the article. Looks good. Sethie 02:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and ...there are already some references, including it seems, three non-self-published books with a couple that describe Israel Regardie's involvement with the origins of the group. This seems to be a small group but notable enough to have received some WP:V coverage, so also, keep per WP:N and WP:PAPER. --Parsifal _Hello 06:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete as it does not establish enough notability. Coverage in citations lacks depth. Appears to be an advertisement. Website contains links to a paypal site to take sides in legal suits against another golden dawn styled order. There were many Orders in the contemporary section, most all of whom were deleted, and keeping this one would incur a lack of neutrality on the part of Wikipedia, giving it the appearance of taking sides. This wikipedia entry comes up as second on search engines under this corporation's link, making it possible that this article has been fought for so hard through deletion review, etc based on wanting recognition, marketability, recruitment and business advantage which is in COI to Wikipedia. Many of the citations are from members of the organization or from the organization's president, who himself may be notable but this is besides the point. Anything trivial which may draw any notability about the organization appears to pertain to events happening before the subject of the article, the incorporation, was incorporated in 1988. As for merging, it simply does not have the notability requirements to be on the main Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn page seeing as it uses self-published material and attempts to give advantage to one contemporary POV. Kephera975 04:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC) — Kephera975 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I've struck the above !vote as the user in question has been proven to be a sock of an indef blocked user, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975. GlassFET 22:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Many of the citations are from members of the organization" - you have made this assertion before and I have asked you to provide citations to a source where the individual in question has self-identified as a member, which is the Wikipedia requirement for membership determination. So far you have been unable to provide this required proof. Given this, none of your objections are valid reasons to delete. IPSOS (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete do not merge ~~per reworking of the article by IPSOS~~. I no longer believe this should be merged with Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn unless all of the other contemporary order articles were also to be merged, and the AfDs on those have established a 'keep' outcome, as demonstrated here, here, and here. All of those should be merged into Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn if this this article is.

Addendum: I've switched to !vote delete; after rereading this it's clear the references are minimal and they're not 3rd party, so the article lacks notability. Coldmachine^Talk 07:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep there are deeper problems here if the content moves to the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article. That might create a deceptive impression that HOGD Inc. are inarguably a direct continuation of the original HOGD, with a chain of succession incontravertable compared to the other modern HOGD based orders. That is by no means accepted by a lot of people, and at least 2 modern orders claim to be the 'real' HOGD, with one other org actually calling itself the "Authentic" order of the Golden Dawn or something. I don't think HOGD Inc deserve much more coverage in that article than the other orgs. I know it's an 'other stuff exists' argument, but Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn was decided as a keep, and I think actually HOGD Inc may be more noteable than them, if it wasn't for the novelty of OSOGD's open source-ness. Anyway with out getting into the general arguments about actual coverage on wiki, it is possibly more well known than OSOGD.Merkinsmum 13:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as to the noteability being mainly by association with Chic Cicero, if it's decided that's so, it should not have it's own article but just a mention in his.Merkinsmum 13:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kephera975, and by the same standards by which any religious congregation congregation or other organization would be judged. The refs appear to lack the degree of independence that would be required to satisfy WP:ORG. Edison 15:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the same reasons I gave on the last AfD. Reasons: notability and spam. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 15:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. I believe the article stands on its own, but if the choice is between deleting and merging, it should be merged. GlassFET 17:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge - As the article says - "While bearing the same name as the historical Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (1888-1908), the modern Order does not have direct descent or institutional lineage from the original Order" Artw 21:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IPSOS' trimming down the article. There are half a dozen third party references and notability has been established. User:Hogd120 20:41, 22 August 2007

Keep: Disclosure: I am a member of the Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn, an organization that is certified by the HOGD (Inc.) I have met Charles 'Chic' and Tabatha Cicero twice. My organization is sponsoring a workshop with them in September in San Francisco. Admins and editors may take my comments with as many grains of salt as needed.

HOGD(I) is the longest continuously operating modern revival group of the Golden Dawn still in existence today. This is documented by major published references to the founding date of 1978, as well as their incorporation in the 1980s. No other Golden Dawn order shows this level of organization and continuity. This makes them the most notable part of a notable spiritual tradition.

HOGDI is one of the few occult groups to establish a non-profit corporation, one that has persevered from the 1980s to the present day. Few such groups ever distinguish themselves in this manner. They also have IRS 50i(c) tax-exempt status as a charitable organization.

The founder and leader of HOGD(I) is the foremost published author of books about the Golden Dawn tradition. These are not self-published, but are under the Llewellyn imprint, the largest publisher of occult and new age books in the world.

HOGDI is the organization that grew out of the work of the late Dr. Israel Regardie and his efforts to revive and re-establish the Golden Dawn Order in the USA. Chic Cicero and his partners were instrumental in that effort. To that end, Regardie performed Adept and Neophyte rituals in the HOGDI's Temples and Vault, for which there is published photographic evidence. There is similar photographic evidence showing Regardie and Cicero together, all in the illustrations and plates of some of the aforementioned books. HOGDI has scans of correspondence between Regardie and Cicero, concerning both temple activities and legal contractual issues. No one has ever challenged the authenticity of the letters. HOGDI is the foremost proponent of Regardie's Golden Dawn work today, and it's doubtful that Cicero's books would continue to be published and republished by a major book company (Llewellyn) if his bona fides were not authentic and verified.

One of the Ciceros' most popular books, "Self-Initiation in to the Golden Dawn Tradition" has the symbol of the Order and a description of the organization in it's introduction pages. While the book was written by the Ciceros, it was published by Llewellyn, and we can assume a certain level of editorial fact checking and verification from a major imprint.

With [User:IPSOS] concise trimming of the article, all the previous issues raised regarding notability have been addressed. JMax555 01:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to main HOGD article, Breifly mentioning this and all other bodies that claim to be "heirs" of the original group.Blueboar 12:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would object to mentioning other bodies as there are no reliable sources even for their existence. They have all recently been deleted as non-notable because there were not any third-party sources at all. How could we ignore WP:V in this way? In fact, these sorts of arguments for including other non-notable groups if this one is merged have made me decide to change my !vote to keep. IPSOS (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, if they have a website that is reliable enough to say something like: "Other bodies which claim to be heirs to the original HOGD include: "The Hermetic Golden Order of Dawn", "The Order of Hermetic Golden Dawn", "Joe's Golden Dawn Org.", and "The Dawn of Golden Hermeticism". I am not saying that these bodies need extensive coverage, nor am I saying that every group needs to be included, but there are other groups that claim to be an heir to the original group, and at least some of them should be mentioned. NPOV and all that. Blueboar 13:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, autobiographical & self-published sources like websites can only be used in an article about the author or publisher. It's in WP:V. I understand that that is why the articles were split in the first place, the self-published sources couldn't be used in a combined article. However, it turned out that self-published sources couldn't be used exclusively, they needed third-party sources to establish notability. What it boils down to is that if some organization is not notable enough to have it's own article and it has no third party sources at all, then it can't even be mentioned on Wikipedia. At least, that's how I read WP:V and WP:RS. Could you show me some exception in WP:V that would allow such a mention? Both articles and mention of fringe Masonic groups have been completely eliminated in just this way, haven't they? IPSOS (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nooo, hence not entirely noteable relatives of famous people, if their articles are deleted, often get a mention in the more famous relative's article. And like on the theistic Satanism article, groups are explained briefly who were denied their own article. If things were either worth their own article or not mentioned at all on wikip, the truth of things would not be represented and in fact it would seem like only one version of the truth was presented, very POV and all other versions completely erased. Other orgs need to be mentioned if HOGD inc is mentioned in the main article, for NPOV. Not everyone agrees that HOGD Inc. is the One True Golden Dawn, anyway like happens on most articles it's ok to mention things that wouldn't get their own entire article. Plus we need only mention that these orgs say they are part of the golden dawn tradition. All these AfDs and arguments stem from the deletion/redirect of the article Golden Dawn tradition, maybe that would be worth recreating for more edit-warring fun.:)Merkinsmum 14:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if those things are going on without third-party references then those mentions should be removed. If there are third-party references, there is no problem. For example, relatives of famous people are usually mentioned in the subject's biography, autobiography or memoirs. Thus there are third party references and there is indeed no problem mentioning them. However, if fringe groups in "theistic Satanism" (whatever that is) are being mentioned based only on their own websites or other self-published material, these mentions should be removed post haste. IPSOS (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPSOS, I think you have an unusually narrow view of WP:SELF... but it does not apply in any case. Since these bodies all claim to be descended from the historical HOGD in some way or another, I would argue that they fit within the criteria of WP:SELF in an article on that subject. At least in support of the statement that they do claim descent. Anyway, that is beyond the scope of this AfD. I still think the HOGD Inc. article should be merged into the main article. Blueboar 15:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, the point is that they for the most part don't claim descent. They are revival or re-creation Orders and nearly everyone agrees that this is the case. IPSOS (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it is not WP:SELF I am refering to, it is WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper) and its sole exception WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. The point is, none of these groups can actually be the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn: that ceased to exist circa 1902 - 1908. Therefore the self-published websites of these groups simply cannot be used in that article without at the very least reliable third-party support. IPSOS (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake... I thought SELF directed to that section of WP:V you point to ... I was talking about the same "Self-published sources" section you point to. And while none of these groups claim a direct descent, because they are recreations and descendants in spirit, I still think the self-published rules indicate inclusion for a simple "these are the moddern groups" statement. But all that can (and probably will) be argued at the article. Blueboar 15:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be analogous to in the article Religion in Birmingham there used to be (dunno if there is now) 3 groups mentioned by name as running pagan events. If only one is mentioned, even if they have more sources, that would create the misleading impression that they are the only one running events. Do you see what I mean? It would be misleading and maybe POV/advertising. Anyway, we can argue this on the HOGD article.:)Merkinsmum 20:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand you, but I disagree. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We must have a reliable source for information. We have no obligation to level the playing field for groups which are non-notable by Wikipedia standards, which does not mean there is anything wrong with these groups, merely that they are not encyclopedic. IPSOS (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each article must stand or fall on its own merits. Most of the others were deleted, but at least one survived because it was notable enough.

We should avoid basing this decision on WP:ALLORNOTHING. --Parsifal _Hello 21:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject seems to meet notability guidelines as per WP:ORG. Whether other similar groups do or do not meet such guidelines is irrelevant to the discussion of this particular subject. However, if others did decide to merge the content into another article, I personally cannot see any objection to their doing so. That, however, is an entirely separate matter from whether this particular group is notable in and of itself. John Carter 16:41, 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 as hoax per WP:SNOW, and indef block hissmas and movie007 as vandal only account and sockpuppet. Fram 12:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your face on fire[edit]

This film does not appear to exist. A Google search turns up nothing, and is it conventional for the New York Times to have articles on the making of obscure cult films? Delete as hoax, unless someone can find some verification this exists and is notable. J Milburn 07:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - "In 2007, it won an oscar for the soundtrack which was re-released in 2006". It's a hoax, a very bad and uncreative one at that... 1redrun 08:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Ms. Sandbox? Must have had the sandbox in their mind when they were writing about this. DNFT. BlueAg09 (Talk) 08:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 09:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I myself wrote this article, and do conclude that it would look very "hoax like" if you will. However I remain that this film exists and that if you were to search through archives of N.Y times the article in question should be found. Please consider more carefully before deleting this article, thankyou —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hissmas (talk • contribs).

Comment Well the part about the film winning an Oscar for its soundtrack is patently untrue, as the 2007 Oscar in this category was won by Babel, so that doesn't bode well for the veracity of anything else in the article..... ChrisTheDude 11:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that every other edit by Hissmas has consisted of childish vandalism...... ChrisTheDude 11:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete — Obvious hoax. Zouavman Le Zouave 10:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not a hoax, i see why it can be decieved as one due to it's lack of coverage even on the internet! But i myself own the book, in which "hissmas" refrenced: "Face on fire" the classic hit. written by David Tinge" He has quoted from page 53 chapter 4 "making you think",, he clearly quotes; "The story tells a fantastic narrative and gives great messages about family, love and fire." Do not delete! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Movie007 (talk • contribs) 11:30, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Note user's first ever edit of WP. He/she also mis-spells "refrence" in exactly the same way as Hissmas. I detect a whiff of socks.... ChrisTheDude 12:21, 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ginni Barlow[edit]

Not notable. Appears to be a small time theatre actor. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has extensive experience in British television and in the West End, ie the top level of theatre. Dominictimms 14:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has IMDB page with 6 entries, has had long-running parts in 2 soap operas, as well as notable stage experience. PatGallacher 17:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't mind my asking, why did you create this article? Is this person a relative of yours or something? Burntsauce 18:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, we are not related, and you should assume good faith. PatGallacher 19:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good faith is a two-way street, always assume the assumption of good faith. I asked because I couldn't imagine why else anyone would create an article about such a non-notable subject. If not related, do you know this actress personally? What was your inspiration? Burntsauce 20:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. IMDB looks like small bit parts to me. She is not mentioned on Take the High Road cast list. IMDB does not state number of episodes and only states 1980. 3tmx 21:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pat shouldn't you identify yourself as the author of the article?? Wikipedia describes the other soap opera she was in as "short lived" so i'm not sure where you got "long running from" 3tmx 21:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short lived is open to interpretation, it did last 3 years. As for the other soap, the Wikipedia article for this only lists the cast for the first and last episodes, it does not include anyone in between in a show that lasted 12 years. It was more than a bit part. PatGallacher 23:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for insufficient notability. Shoester 06:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The few roles that IMDb mentions are non-notable bit parts, and even some of those appear to be questionable. Burntsauce 18:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What evidence do you have that these are all bit parts? This is contradicted by some information in the article. And what do you mean by "questionable"? Are you questioning the accuracy of the IMDB? PatGallacher 19:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only evidence I have are the descriptions provided by IMDb. Is there any evidence to the contrary? Burntsauce 20:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The IMDB does not describe her part in Take the High Road as a bit part. PatGallacher 09:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pat are you seriously saying that roles such as "receptionist" and "Woman at Grotto" are not bit parts?? 3tmx 20:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact someone without an account signing themselves ginnibarlow has been making contributions to various take the high road related pages. Doesn't the fact the person (if they are who they say) was involved in the show call into question ALL their edits to the related pages and the four "take the high road" pages they created?

3tmx 20:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And IMDB doesn't describe it as a "significant part" either, in fact it does not provide dates, so as a citation its fairly poor. 3tmx 20:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I am not disputing that some of these parts may have been bit parts, but I understand it that her parts in Garnock Way and Take the High Road were not, they were long-running parts. Secondly, it is possible that Ginni Barlow herself has been editing the Take the High Road article, although I was not aware of this until you mentioned this. However, if you look at the changes you will see that it has just been a few limited tidy-ups, I see no grounds whatsoever for suspecting that these are bad faith or erroneous edits. I have seen a number of Wikipedia articles which have been edited by people with some personal involvement e.g. Nigel Short, Koo Stark, Margaret Curran and Tashi Tenzing, this is not necessarily illegitimate. PatGallacher 00:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems to have been almost entirely cribbed from Ginni Barlow's bebo entry[72], which is not a suitable source for an encyclopedic article. There is only the one (possibly suitable) independent source in the article (tv.com) that attests that she was a member of the cast of Take the High Road. It seems to me that it is not possible to find any suitable sources online to either verify her work or her notability. The author of the article should consider starting afresh, from scratch, in his userspace by amassing reliable, independent sources and then drawing on these sources to write the article. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." A notable actor will have been written about in articles, profiles, reviews, even books perhaps. Find these then write the article. --Malcolmxl5 12:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination --Hooperbloob 04:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. CitiCat^♫ 01:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loredana Lecciso[edit]

She isn't a showgirl. She became famous only for her relationship with Italian singer Al Bano. Actually, nobody talks about her--Alberto di Cristina 10:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although this article could do with more verification, if everything it says is true she seems notable enough. PatGallacher 10:55, 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.